Chris Matthews apparently thinks the GOP is just one big bag of crazy.
MSNBC's "Hardball" host challenged Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) on the Republican Party's commitment to addressing climate change during the May 5 broadcast. Matthews claimed to Pence that the GOP is not passionate about environmentalism because, "There are people that really are against science in your party who really do question not just the science behind the climate change but the science behind evolutionary fact, that we were taught - you and I - in our biology books. They don't accept the scientific method. They believe in belief itself."
Matthews prefaced his argument with, "There are people on your side of the argument who believe that all the prehistoric bones we've discovered in this world, all the dinosaur bones and all that stuff was somehow planted there by liberal scientists to make the case against the Bible."
Pence called Matthews' argument "an interesting straw man" and a "caricature."
Matthews then confronted Pence about evolution, "I think you believe in evolution but you're afraid to say so because your conservative constituency might find that offensive." Matthews continued harping on Pence's belief that "God created the heavens and the Earth, the seas and all that is in them" by saying, "you don't believe that, you don't, you don't take a fundamentalist view of, of the seven days of creation do you?"
Later Matthews offered unnamed "polls that show that a huge percentage of the American people don't believe in evolution ... don't believe in climate change" as proof that the GOP is not "passionately committed to science or to fighting global warming or to dealing with the scientific facts we live with."
And what would a "Hardball" broadcast be without the obligatory swipes at well-known conservatives? Matthew told Pence, "The troubled is that your, your Rush-, your Mt. Rushmore now includes Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and these characters that don't share either your intellect or your honesty."
Wednesday's edition of "Hardball" featured another discussion of evolution, this time with former Republican presidential hopeful and representative Tom Tancredo. Matthews repeated his characterization of the Republican party as anti-science:
Let me talk to you about what I think are the extremes on this position. One extreme would be there is no God, it`s all sort of random, we all ended up here, we don`t even know why we`re here. Right? That would be a random totally secular view of everything. I don`t think you or I are at that end.
The other end would be, "It's like it's written down in the Bible, we don't have to figure out science, it's all there." And if you really get into the Bible and you're totally literal about it -- I don't want to knock anybody's belief -- you get to the point of having to deny all the fossils out there because they all pre-dated 4,000 years of written history in the Bible, back to Adam and Eve, through the prophets all the way back. And then you have -- then you get into that crazy idea, Well, there's a bunch of liberals that went around and buried all these bones in the ground to make it look like there was ancient history.
Matthews followed up this argument by saying, "Well, I don't think most people believe that. I think except the fact there were dinosaurs that were around here millions of years ago. It wasn't covered in the Bible, et cetera, et cetera."
So if Matthews doesn't think most people believe the ideas he put forth, why bring it up at all?
Right. Because it makes the GOP look crazy.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Chris Matthews: Science Guy
May 7, 2009 - 11:07 ET by JeffC...What are Tingles' science credentials? I doubt he even knew where the science building was when he was at Holy Cross.
He can't let Janinny Barfaload
May 7, 2009 - 11:39 ET by Paul Atreidesget the best of him in the science department. After all, he does have those tingling legs.
"Chris Matthews
May 7, 2009 - 11:11 ET by Chris Norman"Chris Matthews apparently thinks the GOP is just one big bag of crazy."
That's quite something coming from him, of all the whack jobs...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
the wurld r flat
May 7, 2009 - 11:13 ET by katainkenthey what do you expect from us mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
Where's Laura....
May 7, 2009 - 11:14 ET by Blondewhen you need her? She wouldn't put up with this nonsense for a second.
Laura: Exactly who said that, Chris? Exactly?
All conservatives need to use her tactic of making the liberal questioner (commentator) back off and eat their own idiotic words when posing these made up fantasies with which they continually try to paint the right.
I hope he fails, too.
The 7th Day Adventists and
May 7, 2009 - 16:55 ET by goldbarThe 7th Day Adventists and several other religions believe the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old and believe dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old, if they existed at all.
They're also Liberals
May 8, 2009 - 10:09 ET by CobraManThey're also Liberals, as well as Conservatives, and just about any other political ideology you can name. You see, Religious sects here in America don't limit themselves to one particular political party. As quoted in Poltergeist: "All are Welcome, All are Welcome."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
After creation comes evolution
May 7, 2009 - 11:15 ET by Red JeepGod created the heavens and the earth. Everything has evolved since then.
See how creationism and evolution are not opposing ideas? God created man. We today have evolved from Adam.
Um, no. Adam was a human,
May 7, 2009 - 13:24 ET by Richard RomanoUm, no. Adam was a human, so are we. Evolution certainly happens on a minor scale in the form of adaptation, but not on a larger scale to form new organisms. What was lost on Darwin with the finches and beak sizes was the simple fact that they were still finches, not something else.
We can say that evolution happens in the former because we can observe it; while the latter has not been observed. We find numerous examples of 'living' fossils, animals that were supposed to be extinct but are not, the Coelecanthe comes to mind. The Coelecanthe hasn't changed a bit, even though it appears in the fossil record millions of years ago, according ot evolutionary dating methods.
What's laughable about Matthews' argument is that many on his side believe in the most errorneous junk science, climate change the most ridiculous and insidious of misinformation masquerading as science.
The theory of evolution
May 7, 2009 - 14:21 ET by ApacheThe theory of evolution does at least use scientific methods. One can’t take that away from it. You can make predictions based on it and observe real world data that matches. This is how it is different from global warming theory. Global Warming alarmist's formed the theory first and popularized it before they bothered to adequately test it. When you make predictions based on the theory we see that the real world observations fail. Rather than follow the scientific principles and accept that the theory might be wrong, instead excuses are made. AGW can no longer be said to be based on science. It is a theory that has failed it's tests repeatedly and expectedly. It is now a belief system. A belief system that secular 'progressives' can follow as it puts man above all else. Nothing other than faith supports it. As for evolution vs. religion, I just don't see the conflict. It may impact how literally one can interpret the bible. Real science needs to be practiced by humble people that can admit when a theory is wrong. Real science assumes that theories might very well be proven wrong. We now have people claiming to be scientists while actually just chasing tax dollars and a former VP held up as some type of science expert while a real scientist is denied the ability to criticize him on the house floor. That some dumb talking head on MSNBC thinks he can lecture people on science doesn't surprise me in this media climate.
Actually
May 7, 2009 - 15:46 ET by justmeActually, irregardless of what you believe about evolution and creation, evolution does NOT make use strictly of the scientific method. Evolution does not observe what it claims, but infers it from historical data. It is not on par with directly observable science. This ought to be taught in the schools as a matter of intellectual honesty and strict adherence to the scientific method. I personally believe that the fanatacism over evolution and the burying of its vulnerabilities is one of the key reasons that the public has been made susceptible to global warming hysteria.
If Obama succeeds, liberty fails. I'm for the success of liberty.
Darwin and others have made
May 7, 2009 - 16:49 ET by ApacheDarwin and others have made predictions based on his theory which later were proven true. Things that were not known at the time. This is what I am referring to as observed data. Not that you can actually sit and watch evolution occur. But predictions such as where certain fossils could be found, where the oldest human skeletons would be found, what we would find in our DNA. I know that doesn't mean that more evidence couldn't throw a monkey wrench into it. But he didn't just gen up a theory and promote it in the face of contrary observed data as the warmers try to do. He also never tried to claim the proof was in a show of hands of political figures and actors. I suspect he was a real scientist and would have dropped his theory if his predictions based on the theory failed. And it is still a theory to this day. But my point is that to compare the theory of evolution to AGW alarmism is a big insult to Darwin and to real science.
:)
May 7, 2009 - 22:00 ET by justmeLook. I didn't deny evolution (though I think it is not tenable), nor did I say it shouldn't be taught in schools (I'm not afraid of information and I believe that when facts are presented plainly instead of according to a bias, the truth will be obvious to most.). What I did say and I stand by is that evolution (macroevolution, not microevolution-which is to say variation within a kind, and I refuse to get into a yes it is, no it isn't endless circle of an argument) is something that is completely unobserved, untestable, unrepeatable. I also defy you to find specific examples (specific ones, mind you, not generalities) that were predictable based solely on evolutionary theory--in other words, that could not be arrived at by an alternative point of view or by some other area of science. Yes, I know, I'm asking a lot. I'm asking for evolution to be put in its proper place. I know a number of biologically based professionals in applied science. Doctors. Nurses. Laboratory workers of differing levels. Try this yourself. Ask people in these professions how evolutionary dogma has tangibly added to their practical ability to treat people. The answer is always that biology could be easily taught without it, just using the raw facts, the observable facts, testable, repeatable facts. And their professions would not be altered one iota.
What you have offered up as observeable evidence does not qualify something to be taught as law or fact (and, yes, evolution is taught that way). I would have NO problem with science teachers teaching it in this way: we believe this to be true; we can not observe, test, or repeat it; we think x, y, and z point to our being correct (the inferential evidence); like other theories in this same position, it may be that future evidence will lead us to alter our beliefs; q, r, and s are all problems with the theory that are an enigma to us that tell us that we do not have all the pieces yet. That would be an honest way to present it.
If Obama succeeds, liberty fails. I'm for the success of liberty.
justme
May 7, 2009 - 16:56 ET by mvfreemanThe inferences made are based on anatomical and morphological features which are directly observable, down to the microscopic level. Any changes in phenotype are noted along with changes that would classify it as a different species.
By your logic sub-atomic particles don't exist, they're inferred, not observed.
Black holes don't exist, they're inferred, not observed.
Extra-solar planets don't exist, they're inferred, not observed.
Look
May 7, 2009 - 23:02 ET by justmeI specifically did not deny evolution in my initial post to avoid having to deal with the attack you just made. It isn't necessary to deny evolution to point out that it is a theory with serious problems. It isn't necessary to suggest an alternative to point out that it is a theory with serious problems. It isn't necessary to believe in a God to recognize that it is a theory with serious problems. Nevertheless, you accused me of denying it because of the inferential nature and then went on to say that to be consistent with the denial I didn't make I would have to deny a number of other things. Nice move.
I also didn't deny the usefulness of inference in developing hypothesis. What I specifically am objecting to is leaving the student with the impression that evolution is an empiracally verifiable phenomenon (assuming it is real). It is not empiracally verifiable. To call it observable is a farce. To say that it is testable (which is to say devising a test(s) by which one could prove it false) because one came to a conclusion while taking it into account is also a farce. To say that it is repeatable for the same reason is equally a farce. There are myriad reasons to question the theory of evolution as it stands. For instance, evolution would predict that if we find a plethera of invertabrate fossils and a plethera of vertebrate fossils, we would also find intermediates of these two. We don't. It's called the Cambrian Explosion. Then there is the fact that it's claimed that mutations are the mechanism of evolutionary change. Unfortunately, mutations always, always, result in a loss of information, not a gain. A mutated invertebrate may survive, may even have a twisted advantage (like the person in Africa with sickle cell anemia), but it will have lost ground, not gained. These two examples are the mere tip of the iceburg. And it is claimed that macroevolution is just an extension of microevolution. But microevolution does not add information. It merely breeds for existing information to become manifest. For thousands of years, farmers have been breeding cows in order to get healthier, better animals for their purposes (milk, meat, siring, calving, etc) with the full expectation that over time they will continue to own... cows. And they have never been disappointed, nor will they be. They have no expectation that their cows will become, for instance... something like whales. Or take the evolution of the first cell. This is, by necessity, life from non-life. I am well aware that evolutionists try to back out of this by saying they only have to deal with it once the life exists (and some avoid it by suggesting the life came from elsewhere, which begs the question). That's a cop-out. By focusing in on details, evolutionists bog down the public and students in minutia. But when you back up and look at the big picture of evolution, it defies logic and demands better proof. The proof is not there. Nor should it be presented as such. I don't object to it being presented. I object to how it is presented.
I can't say I've ever studied black holes. I neither deny nor confirm their existence. They sound exotic, though, and I like them in fictional movies (but then, evolution makes for great fiction, too). I believe WWII tested, and repeated the testing of, the existence of sub-atomic particles--at least in part.
As for inferences proving the veracity beyond falsifiability...centuries ago a Jewish scholar conluded, based solely on Genesis chapter one, that there are 10 dimensions. 4 of which are physical and 6 of which are not observable. Since this is apparently confirmed by modern science, you should forthwith believe that Genesis chapter one is true in total ;).
If Obama succeeds, liberty fails. I'm for the success of liberty.
Hehe
May 8, 2009 - 00:05 ET by mvfreemanSo let me ask you this..
How is a species that dies out replaced by another one?
If you read my other posts I've said that the theory of evolution is still a work in progress.
"By focusing in on details, evolutionists bog down the public and
students in minutia. But when you back up and look at the big picture
of evolution, it defies logic and demands better proof. The proof is
not there. Nor should it be presented as such. I don't object to it
being presented. I object to how it is presented."
The devil is in the details. It doesn't defy logic, new species can't just "poof" into existence. That would defy logic.
"It isn't necessary to suggest an alternative to point out that it is a
theory with serious problems. It isn't necessary to believe in a God
to recognize that it is a theory with serious problems"
Never made the claim that the theory doesn't have gaps.
But to discount it in toto without a viable alternative is nothing short of willful ignorance.
:)
May 8, 2009 - 01:32 ET by justmeYou've got quite a gap going there yourself. (I'm assuming it was unintentional? you might want to edit it out... it takes a long time for those who aren't interested to scroll past it)
"The devil is in the details. It doesn't defy logic, new species can't just "poof" into existence. That would defy logic."
I never suggested that they did. They most definitely did not. They had a cause. Unlike the first cell. Which did... just poof from non-life to life... apparently ;).
"The devil is in the details."
Yeah, I can agree to that. He certainly is. Those details have dumbed down science education for a long time now. It's high time we stop discouraging students from exploring evolution through the eyes of the scientific method. Yes, that happens. Regularly.
"But to discount it in toto without a viable alternative is nothing short of willful ignorance.
"
Ah, but there are alternatives to naturalistic evolution. Some believe in theistic evolution. Some believe in intelligent design, which doesn't claim to know where the design came from. Some believe in creation. They only fail to be viable if you begin with the assumption that it can not be otherwise than naturalistic evolution. I don't believe in theistic evolution because I believe the evidence points solidly away from evolution, period. Admittedly, I can't prove that any more than an evolutionist can set up an experiment to prove or disprove his theory. You talk about these gaps as though they were small things. They aren't unnoteworthy, but glaring. And another thing... supposing that there was no alternative we knew of... why on earth would that dictate that we had to accept the only one we were creative enough to invent, making it willful ignorance to deny it even though glaring gaps existed within it?
"How is a species that dies out replaced by another one?"
I reject the premise. (the premise being that the layers in geology represent long ages of the earth, thereby requiring either repetitive creation events or continuous naturalistic events-evolution)
Yes, I'm a dreaded YEC.
The assumptions behind the dating methods are, indeed, significant and problematic.
#1, rates of decay do not vary...
It is empirically measurable that rates of decay do vary depending on circumstances. It has been tested and repeated in the laboratory setting.
#2, the amount of daughter material present in the sample originally is known
really? how?
#3, the amount of daughter or parent material in the sample originally has not been added to or taken away from (over the supposed millions of years it could have been affected during)
really? I defy anyone to prove such a thing. There are a number of ways that this could be affected... one of which being exposure to water. Are you really confident enough on this to say that over a time period of tens, or hundreds, or thousands of millions of years there has been no exposure of the sample to water? Or that the exposure was short enough to have not affected it? Really?
There are more, but those are the ones that strike me the most firmly and that I can recall off the top.
It's okay with me if you buy into that. I don't. I also don't like it being passed off to kids as iron clad. It isn't. If you remove the certainty of long ages from the equation, it takes away the magical element that evolution requires to make it remotely plausible: time...lots and lots and lots of time.
My background is mathematics. That was my primary degree in college. I taught it for a number of years afterwards. I'm rusty right now, certainly, but I haven't forgotten the mathematical plausibility of evolution. My hope is to go back and earn degrees in physics and its applications. I find it fascinating beyond words, though I've no time for it now.
:)
I recognize that you and I will not agree on the topic of origins. I'm not expecting to convince you that I'm right and I will not continue to press for the last word. I've been in these debates before, and they are endless--as all things that have their basis in faith are.
If Obama succeeds, liberty fails. I'm for the success of liberty.
I enjoyed your input
May 8, 2009 - 09:07 ET by mvfreemanYou are right to say these debates are and will continue to be endless.
I'm not looking to change anyone's mind either, just put some points out there, as you have.
If you have the time check out the links I provided regarding the age of the earth. There are rebuttals to the issues you point out. Especially the book.
Take care.
Cheers!!
p.s. I don't know what happened with that huge space in the post. I blame the beer. :p
Extra Solar planets have been observed.
May 8, 2009 - 10:32 ET by CobraMan"Extra-solar planets don't exist, they're inferred, not observed."
Unlike the other examples you cite, extrasolar planets HAVE been observed directly. We've even been able to study their atmospheric content. "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has discovered carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of a planet orbiting another star. This breakthrough is an important step toward finding chemical biotracers of extraterrestrial life.
"Mark Swain, a research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., used Hubble's near-infrared camera and multi-object spectrometer to study infrared light emitted from the planet, which lies 63 light-years away."
Link
The other examples you cite haven't been observed directly, therefor they remain a theory. Are they correct theories? Most likely as the data to date would tend to indicate yes (especially for sub-atomic partials as we use one, the electron, every day), but there hasn't been direct, observed, evidence of black holes and the like, so they STILL remain a theory, just like evolution.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Sorry Apache this is pretty much false.
May 7, 2009 - 16:40 ET by pahuber"The theory of evolution does at least use scientific methods. One can’t
take that away from it. You can make predictions based on it and
observe real world data that matches."
Most of evolution is conjecture & speculation right down to the carbon dating that is used to determine the age of fossils.
The scientific method of verification cannot even begin to be used in determining many of the spurious theories governing evolution.
I am not against evolution being taught, but only as a scientific fact. If there were a level playing field whereby other theories could compete and challenge then I would say let them all go at it, but evolution is under protected status for now.
just curious...
May 7, 2009 - 16:46 ET by mvfreemanWhat are the other theories?
See other post. You posed the question to me there.
May 7, 2009 - 18:14 ET by pahuberThanks.
Here is an example of what
May 7, 2009 - 17:08 ET by ApacheHere is an example of what I'm talking about. Many animals can make Vitamin C for themselves. The prediction was that we descended from these same animals but no longer have the ability. Maybe due to the fact that we started eating enough fruit that we just didn't need to waste energy making it. So then we were able to study our DNA. The same gene was found that exists for other animals that generate Vitamin C but our copy was turned off.
Same with where certain fossils would be found such as his prediction of Precambrian fossils. In fact, Darwin said a failure to find Precambrian fossils would prove his theory wrong. But they were found.
There is a whole list of predictions based on this theory that have panned out. So regardless of if you believe it or not, it is a valid theory. Yes still a theory, not a proven fact. But a valid one.
Evololution does not Explain Creation
May 7, 2009 - 17:27 ET by allanfEvolution does not explain creation. We know things evolved. We don't know how they got there, unless you want to buy into the s primordial soup nonsense (which lacks any scientific foundation.).
Hi Apache, thank you for your thoughtful post.
May 7, 2009 - 18:25 ET by pahuberI see what you mean by prediction, but is this not mostly speculation concerning how or if our ability to turn off vitamin C production was indeed "turned off". Keep in mind I am just saying that there are many things in our DNA that correlate to that of other animals. Being that every creature has DNA it is not surprising that there are similarities that overlap. Would not this science fall under genetics rather than a prediction that would verify evolution?
"There is a whole list of predictions based on this theory that have panned out."
Maybe we just disagree with what a valid scientific prediction is...but I think you are a very honest person seeking truth....
Darwin is a THEORY.. Like AGW..functions as a concensus.
May 7, 2009 - 17:36 ET by upcountrywaterDarwin has NOT changed one little bit since 1859.
ALL religion, and NO science..
AGW another theory , by concensus.
Only the progression of SCIENCE has shed some light on it.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the
tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and
genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact
tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.
Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world.
Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest
bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12
grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory
containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate
molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million
atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and
absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
Darwin
confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable
contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of
spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
Reagan VS 0bama
crissy boy the "scientist"
May 7, 2009 - 11:27 ET by east tennessee johnCrissy, if he can clear his head from those "tingly" feelings should get a better science education. Evolution theory cannot acccout for the origin of life, the origin of consciousness or the origin of human rationality and morality. Since it can't account for these landmark stages it can hardly claim to have solved the problem or origins either of life or of the universe. It can rake credit only for explaning some transitions along the way. It seems right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go all the way. May I suggest he read one of the best books I've ever read,"What's So Great About Christianity", by Dinesh D'Souza. Then, get back to me. Also, even Darwin himself agreed with the idea that evolution was an explanation of how God went about creation, not a denial of it. The theory of Evolution is not threat to Christianity, Darwinism, the politicalization of the theory, is.
Why should we care about
May 7, 2009 - 11:34 ET by FedUpEvenMoreWhy should we care about what Turdball with Chris Matthews thinks about. He obviously hasn't evolved enough into a rational and reasoning human being.
1. Joe Biden can't count letters (3 in J-O-B-S)
2. Barack Obama can't count States (57)
3. None of us can count on either of them to do anything right.
Chris Matthew and the rest of MSNBC alone
May 7, 2009 - 11:37 ET by Paul Atreidesare proof enough against the theory of evolution.
Again, Left is continuing
May 7, 2009 - 11:41 ET by mattmAgain, Left is continuing their tactic of portraying conservatives and republicans as simple-minded fanatics simply as a distraction from the absolute disaster this new administration is, and/or will prove to be, on economic, foreign policy and other issues.
BTW - Mr. Tingles "dinosaurs .... It wasn't covered in the Bible." Try reading Job Chapter 40.
Here's an excerpt: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. ...He moveth his tail like a cedar:...His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. ... he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth...." Sounds like a pretty good description of a Brachiosaur.
The Bible is not a science book, but science has not contradicted the Bible, other than mere semantics. This is just another example of the intellectual snobbery of the left as they push their secular-humanist socialist philosophy through ridicule, demagoguery and lies.
"My road to atheism was paved by science…but, ironically, so was my later journey to God" - Lee Strobel
Grief.
May 7, 2009 - 12:13 ET by mvfreemanConsidering that dinosaurs died out waaaay before modern humans were around, that obviously is referring to another animal.
And your link goes to a site that claims...
"In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old."
Which is a ridiculous statement.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
If you assume that
May 7, 2009 - 12:46 ET by mattmIf you assume that dinosaurs dies out waaaay before modern humans were around, your statement would be correct, but that is merely an assumption, not a proven fact.
Radiometric dating requires assumptions about the original composition of the sample when it formed which cannot be verified. Conclusions which are based on unverifiable assumptions are definitely not proof.
Sigh...
May 7, 2009 - 13:24 ET by mvfreeman"A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line."
But they do...http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
And...
"Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases."
No one is trying to make an exact age but it's a pretty good approximation.
Stop with your "sighs" and
May 7, 2009 - 13:38 ET by mattmStop with your "sighs" and your "grief" - I understand you are intellectually superior to me. Have at it. But whatever you say doesn't change the fact that the assumptions upon which radiometric dating are based are unverifiable, therefore to claim that it's ridiculous to say their is no proof of millions of years for the age of the earth is, in itself ridiculous.
I am not trying to establish any type of superiority
May 7, 2009 - 14:03 ET by mvfreemanexcept for assumptions based on scientific fact rather than assumptions based on a book that wasnt even canonized until the Council of Trent in 1546.
And it is not me saying these things, it's not me hazarding a guess, its the entire scientific community.
Even young-Earth creationist journal Origins in a review of this book..
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0804723311/thetalkorigin-20/
says " Dalrymple makes a good case for an age of about 4.5 billion years for the material of which the earth, moon, and meteorites are composed. He evidently believes that he has thoroughly discredited special creationism. His treatment in The Age of the Earth has made it much more difficult to plausibly explain radiometric data on the basis of a creation of the entire Solar System, or the physical matter in planet Earth, within the last few thousand years. In my opinion, the defense of such a position is a losing battle"
http://www.grisda.org/origins/19087.htm
They do howerver still believe that all life was created in the last 100,000 years.
Again, when evolution is allowed to be openly and honestly
May 7, 2009 - 14:12 ET by pahuberdebated w/o the censorship of hiring at universities of those who do not agree with evolution (e.g., IA state U) then we can see how evolution can stand up to even being a decent theory.
For now it appears to many that it is just another scientology with some rabbid followers.
It's not the entire
May 7, 2009 - 14:19 ET by mattmIt's not the entire scientific community.
As for the Council of Trent - that's a non sequitur. The validity of the scriptures is not subject to the decree of an assembly of clerics.
As for "based on scientific fact." I'm all for it, but the idea that a scientist "makes a good case for...." and "in my opinion..." doesn't necessarily establish scientific fact. It's still an open debate.
All I was trying to point out is that Matthews' assumption that the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs" is not necessarily true. And the fact that it's Matthews who is saying it...well... : )
LOL
May 7, 2009 - 14:23 ET by mvfreeman"All I was trying to point out is that Matthews' assumption that the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs" is not necessarily true. And the fact that it's Matthews who is saying it...well... : )"
Point taken mattm. ;)
oops - double post
May 7, 2009 - 14:18 ET by mattmoops - double post
Knock it off with the sighs and holier than thou attitude.
May 7, 2009 - 13:47 ET by pahuberWhen evolution is allowed to be challenged openly with its strengths & weaknesses then we will see... right now you have no reason for sighs and other feigned disgust.
I have no problem with evolution being challenged
May 7, 2009 - 14:16 ET by mvfreemanIt happens all the time.
As in this case...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5d35a082f9b541434fdfee1c21668d97.4b1&show_article=1
I am not trying to be holier than thou. I am amused that in a thread about how hardly anyone supposedly has the beliefs mentioned I am engaging in conversation with just such a person. And he is hardly alone.
I was only addressing the "sighing" it comes off like you are
May 7, 2009 - 14:26 ET by pahuberself righteous.
If you believe in evolution I am ok with that, totally. As I have said in many of my posts that I would not want to live in a Theocracy or do we not now live in a Theocracy.
My point of contention with evolution is how it seems to be coddled in the universities and not allowed to be challenged at all unless for some reason a prof has some lemming appear just for a straw man argument to make the other side look entirely foolish.
The fact is that today evolution is safely protected and guarded by the universities on all levels and even of hiring of scientists that do not even teach paleontology, etc. or anything that comes close to teaching evolution.
So I think a theory like evolution that needs that much help is in dire straits and cannot stand on its own merit.
one question...
May 7, 2009 - 14:36 ET by mvfreemanWhat are the competing theories?
No one is suggesting that everything about evolution has been worked out. Hence the debate in the article I linked.
There are people who keep saying well this doesn't fit or that isn't explained and then want to throw out the proverbial baby.
Science and theory of evolution are works in progress.
Your question makes my point exactly.
May 7, 2009 - 17:01 ET by pahuber"What are the competing theories?"
For now in the universities and public school systems there are no other theories allowed. Unless, of course, to be derided by the teacher.
There is a great amount of censorship on this issue at the university level and at public schools. Ben Stein recently did a documentary on this that included some examples that are included this issue.
"There are people who keep saying well this doesn't fit or that isn't explained and then want to throw out the proverbial baby."
I and many like myself who do not believe evolution would be willing to let them compete side by side with other theories to be challenged back and forth. If evolution is as solid as many of its supporters believe then it can only grow stronger. However, this is not the case as evolution has been under protected status via censorship for a long time now.
"Science and theory of evolution are works in progress."
Correct. There are other works in progress, but they are not allowed to even compete.
ok
May 7, 2009 - 17:58 ET by mvfreemanBut you have yet to name a theory that tries to explain the origin of species as opposed to or contrary or different from evolution.
People are free to theorize all they want. I am just asking for one contemporary alternate theory to speciation.
You have asked me to name theories. I am not really versed on
May 7, 2009 - 18:34 ET by pahuberother theories other than names attached to them. One thing I do know and have tried to explain to you is that even if a name is attached to an alternate theory then it is roundly condemned by those who have a hold on public education & universities.
If your point is to say that there are no other theories out there you would be completely wrong.
One thing is certain. Some, maybe not you, but some really have made this their religion and have fought any challenge or questioning of Darwin/evolution. I would debate that they have made evolution the new Scientology.
If you're versed in the names...
May 7, 2009 - 22:42 ET by mvfreemanSay it my good man!!!
If you are alluding to ID I would like to offer this article...
http://www.hds.harva...
And for the record I am a Christian.
As far as fighting challenges or questioning evolution, that is typically called "debate". Who would let some one make assertions and accept them without some kind of validation?
I find it hard to believe you would honestly try to debate an equivalence between scientology and evolution.
Keep in mind that evolution seeks a natural explanation of the world and scientology claims an alien presence.
"If your point is to say that there are no other theories out there you would be completely wrong"
Haven't heard one yet.
mv
May 7, 2009 - 23:11 ET by botgthere are currently 50 unsolved murders in LA for the year, i will theorize that you committed them! Unless you find another theory and prove it correct, i will claim i am correct!
It's your logic after all
btw the story you linked on ID is just that a story it doesn't address the merits of ID at all and it equivicates ID with creationism which is a false claim.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Jeebus
May 8, 2009 - 00:38 ET by mvfreemanDo you have anything to back up your "theory"?
You should learn the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory".
If it wasnt for the beer I wouldn't even respond to the idiocy of your "logic".
By its own nomenclature, "intelligent design", denotes a supernatural involvement akin to creationism.
BOTG, sorry you had to endure freeman's "response"...
May 8, 2009 - 02:08 ET by pahuberHis answer to you was just a taste of what he had waiting for me if I even mentioned any of the names that are out there... that is why I did not bother; saw it a mile away.
I have read his responses and garnered that he argues like a liberal on this topic at least.
Too funny
May 8, 2009 - 09:15 ET by mvfreemanThere would be no reason to give you the same response. You have at least tried to be reasonable. I was not attempting to ambush your answer, whatever it may have been.
I'll assume it wasn't going to be as sophomoric as botgs.
The argue like a liberal schtick is old.
Well, I for one do not think his argument was sophmoric.
May 8, 2009 - 13:04 ET by pahuberJust because your "theory" was "first" it acts as if it cannot be challenged even though other theories have come along and basically gutted it outright.
Instead of debating evolution/creation I choose to debate the reasons why evolution needs such protection by public schools and universities if it is not such a flimsy theory.
You wanted me to name theories so you could spam endless links to me and tell me they are hypothesis and not legitimate theories... I would rather not...been there done that and nobody is changed by the result.
"The argue like a liberal schtick is old."
Well, it may be old, but please take a look how you started out and how you ended up... you come off pretty arrogant on a theory that takes more faith than scientology or any other religion for that matter. I have not problem whatsoever with those who choose to belief this dogma, but please allow more cogent scientific theories to challenge evolution in our universities and public schools w/o the censorship or ridicule.
Radiological decay rates are assumed
May 8, 2009 - 10:51 ET by CobraMan"Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods."
The only problem with this type of dating method is that we're assuming the rates of decay are constant, that they don't vary due to outside influences, like magnetic fields, chemical interactions, and the like. (I know a certain quantum theorist here would argue with me about that, but we still haven't proven conclusively that the rates don't vary). In other words, we're still GUESSING at the ages based on radiometric dating methods since we haven't been able to actually watch the decay occur of thousands of years and, therefor, conclude that the decay rates are, indeed, constant.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
It's worthy of noting that
May 8, 2009 - 13:47 ET by justmeit is sop for samples to come back with dates that do not fit the preconceived range and dates that do... and the dates that do not are tossed as corrupt. This is circular. The end result is a measure of uniformity. I reject it as being true, though, for obvious reasons.
I found the note on upper age limits of the earth to be a bit amusing. It ignores the fact that most, if not all, creationists use them not as a proof but an illustration of the absurdity of uniformitarianism. Even scientists having been moving away to a point from a uniformitarian viewpoint to a catastrophism viewpoint. The disagreement is when those catastrophies occured and whether some of them were part of a world-wide one.
If Obama succeeds, liberty fails. I'm for the success of liberty.
mattm: I'm a
May 7, 2009 - 13:29 ET by QueenMummattm: I'm a Bible-believing Christian. And I honestly don't understand those who are so insistent that humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Why is this important - other than as a point of argument about whose interpretation of the Bible is more accurate than another's?
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
It's really not that
May 7, 2009 - 13:47 ET by mattmIt's really not that important to creationists...it's really way more important for evolutionists to constantly push the idea that man and dinosaurs are millions of years apart, because any tiny bit of evidence to the contrary could obliterate their philosophy. So, whenever people like Matthews makes the kind of ignorant statements he makes, it invites a rebuttal.
As for whose interpretation of the Bible is more accurate....in my view, the Bible interprets itself. I responded to you below, regarding this. The context provides the clues as to the intended meaning of the passage in question.
Double check, but I think
May 7, 2009 - 13:01 ET by dvdaughtryDouble check, but I think most Bibles have a footnote that Behemoth refers to either a hippo or elephant.
Like wise, Leviathan in the next chapter most likely refers to a croc.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
"most likely "
May 7, 2009 - 13:03 ET by mattm"most likely "
No, for both.
May 7, 2009 - 13:52 ET by pahuberFootnotes are just that and merely interpretations of whatever version of the Bible you bought.
The Hebrew will not help out either, but certainly not the creatures you mentioned in your post.
In order to believe those
May 7, 2009 - 15:54 ET by justmenotes, you have to do violence to the text itself. Read carefully about Leviathin. Then discern whether a crocodile could possibly fit the bill. Many people believe that this is merely poetry exaggerating. If you don't believe that, you are left with what the text actually says.
If Obama succeeds, liberty fails. I'm for the success of liberty.
mattm: Although I agree
May 7, 2009 - 13:16 ET by QueenMummattm: Although I agree with most of what you said, I'd argue your contention that the verse you cite necessarily describes a brachiosaur. The Bible, especially the Old Testament and Revelation, is filled with embellished imagery.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
I didn't say it
May 7, 2009 - 14:39 ET by mattmI didn't say it "necessarily" describes a Brachiosaur - I'm responding to Matthews assertion that the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs" when it could be that the description of Behemoth and Leviathan are indeed descriptions of animals which we would now refer to as dinosaurs.
BTW - which parts of the Bible are embellishment and imagery and which parts aren't? I've read it through cover to cover several times and the context is clear when it's imagery and when it's not.
In the case of Job, it is obvious by the context that the description is of an animal which was well known to the people of Job's time and location.
hey chris, go outside, see
May 7, 2009 - 11:50 ET by kangaroohey chris, go outside, look up, see that big flaming yellow ball in the sky, there is your answer to climate, and while your at it plant a couple of lemon trees, you know those co2 to oxygen converters, you can also make your kool aid out of the lemons, as well, wow double whammy, I must be a rocket scientist he he he
"...all the dinosaur bones
May 7, 2009 - 11:49 ET by Evoke"...all the dinosaur
bones and all that stuff was somehow planted there by liberal
scientists to make the case against the Bible."
LOL God this guys a moron....
“Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.” - Colin Powell
Liberals/Dems are strong on math and science, eh?
May 7, 2009 - 11:51 ET by krendler"There are people that really are against science in your party who
really do question not just the science behind the climate change but
the science behind evolutionary fact, that we were taught - you and I -
in our biology books. They don't accept the scientific method. They
believe in belief itself."
I think I would have responded with,
And there's a significant percentage of people in your party, Chris, who don't understand the first thing about science and math. Which party do you think boasts - far and away - the greater percentage of voters possessing at least high school level competency in those subjects? By a very wide margin, it would be Republicans. In fact, a significant percentage of those aligning themselves with liberal causes are not likely to even possess a 2nd grade level of compentency in either math or science.
Or, you could simply say
On average, CO2 lags temps by 800 years, Chris. Al Gore and his "consensus" got it exactly bass-ackwards. Deal with it.
"In fact, a significant
May 7, 2009 - 12:16 ET by MrSnuggles"In fact, a significant percentage of those aligning themselves with
liberal causes are not likely to even possess a 2nd grade level of
compentency in either math or science."
And Christina Matthews would regard that as a racist slur.
"Chris Matthews Portrays
May 7, 2009 - 12:16 ET by winston smith"Chris Matthews Portrays GOP as Anti-Science"
Correction, GOP is anti-Junk Science. The kind of leftist inspired junk science that's being spoon-fed to the public, the court room and the classroom such as "global warming", the gay gene, DDT bans, etc..
Winston, you just think how
May 7, 2009 - 13:27 ET by Carl KolchakWinston, you just think how Matthews tells you to think, and don't you question him, or else you may end up back at the Ministry of Love in Room 101. Do you need O'Brien to remind you that you shouldn't question people like Matthews?
Sorry, but I have to back Crissy on this one.....
May 7, 2009 - 12:20 ET by JTPI researched his family tree and found this near the roots...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mister_goleta/13844623/
"Live for yourself...there's no one else more worth living for.
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"- Rush--Anthem
JTP... LMAO! Perfect!!
May 7, 2009 - 12:23 ET by bigtimerJTP...
LMAO!
Perfect!!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
"So if Matthews doesn't
May 7, 2009 - 13:03 ET by QueenMum"So if Matthews doesn't think most people believe the ideas he put forth, why bring it up at all?"
Good question. Why does he even bother having "guests"? Matthews is in serious denial if he thinks he's going to somehow trip up someone like Pence. Does Matthews really believe that he's so smart and crafty that no one knows what to expect from him? I don't know anyone who watches "Spitball". But I'd like to sit down with a regular viewer and find out what it is about Matthews that they find so compelling.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Howdy Queen... Your post
May 7, 2009 - 13:17 ET by bigtimerHowdy Queen...
Your post gave me a chuckle...can't help it either...
When you said "Spitball" which fits Chris perfectly, I can't help but remember that wonderful democrat Zell Miller and his reference to "Spitballs" during the republican convention some years back for Bush...let alone him telling Matthews he wished we could go back to the years of having a real duel....
I miss that man.
Just wanted to throw that in there for the heck of it.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Leave it alone
May 7, 2009 - 13:05 ET by slickwillie2001If we stir this creationism pot, all we will do is confirm Matthews's view.
I believe in creation
May 7, 2009 - 13:13 ET by sevenI also know that Matthews doesn't know that 90% of "scientists" are not smart enough to enter Med school. There are no classes in medical school for evolution. It must mean medicine has a different definition of true science than bloggers like Matthews have. I also know Matthews isn't smart enough in science to understand no one has ever seen life formed from non living material.
Truth
May 7, 2009 - 13:14 ET by tonyrich300The truth is that there are a lot of republicans and conservative who have been led to believe that the elite liberal scientist are trying to use science and evolution to discredit Christianity.
Can Fox news and MRC tell their drones the truth about science and stop exploiting the uneducated. Most scientists actually believe in God, because there had to be some outside force that instigated the Big Bang theory (.)
Actually, the truth is that
May 7, 2009 - 16:21 ET by fitzfongActually, the truth is that there are a lot of Republicans and Conservatives who know that elitist liberal "scientists" have perverted science in exchange for money and notoriety so that they can be used by Marxist parasites to impose a bankrupt economic agenda on society.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
LOL
May 7, 2009 - 14:22 ET by maxvoltActually, 95% of people dont have a working knowledge of what the Bible says to be able to refute Matthews nonesense..and this includes conservatives and those who call themselves Christians (or as is said by believers..Christians in name only).
Matthews clearly has not one iota of a clue , beyond a 1st grade understanding of what the Bible says. The Bible is not a detailed scientific journal that expresses every detail of creation, because one thing the Bible DOES make clear is God , our creator NEVER TRIES TO PROVE HIMSELF AS GOD, nor is God obligated to do so to his creation (imagine you being the creator and your creation demands an acounting from YOU!...how arrogant is that?!?), rather what God did demonstrate is that EVEN if he did miraculous signs and wonders and showed himself in some wonderous form to us, we would STILL not believe..we, through his chosen examples, the Israelites, God called a "stiff necked people"..and this he said only after having lead them out of Egypt with all kinds of physical signs and wonders and his VISIBLE PRESENCE was with them every hour of every day and night for FORTY YEARS!!!
Like us today, the Israelites showed a very weak faith toward a God they literally woke up to and saw in the morning, manifested as a pillar of SMOKE, until they laid their heads down when GOD manifest himself as a PILLAR OF FIRE...Imagine that, they saw this, everyday, for FORTY YEARS, yet they still did NOT believe...God's point in this is; there is NO POINT in him proving himself to us, he has no need to do so, (you come to God on HIS terms not yours...), as was demonstrated by the israelites, we still will find any of a number of reasons...to disbelieve God. Every Christian knows this experientially...we all wander aimlessly through our own deserts, some times self - inflated in our own piousness, othertimes humbled beyond imagination in acknowledgement our persistent failures...and the cycle goes on and on.
With respect to poor Mr. Matthews limited understanding of what the Bible actually says (and I say this with genuine pity on this poor lost soul, who is definately searching for some answer..any answer, to satiate the failed individual, he knows he has become...he knows his own sins, as do we all.) If one begins in Chapter 1 of the Bible we learn of the Genesis account of creation, we learn on each day what God created and we learn that it took six days and on the 7th day God rested. In chapter 1 God creates the actual earth, and the stars, and the sun, and the moon, and all wildlife and humans. We all know that story...but what everybody forgets is that in Chapter 2...the story gets told again , but its not quite the same story, but in some ways a more detailed version gets told. And that is where most people leave it, as a slightly more detailed version of Chapter 1..but for what purpose who God do that? Why would he make Moses write it twice? Experientially God always had a reason for everything. It finally occurred to me through the study of ancient Hebrew what it might be. WE MIGHT BE MISREADING OUR BIBLES GENESIS 1 into GENESIS 2. Various Bible expositors and (I love this word)..Scholars (lol) have given various theories on this...none of which really matter, that is unless your an unbeliever, seeking for how the Bible addresses a secular topic of a political nature (lol). See one of those theories that has particular merit, is found in the original HEBREW. The word we translate into english as TO CREATE can also be correctly translated as TO RE-CREATE. Now that has serious significant implications to our understanding of where science and Biblical theory converge in a very rationale manner. Imagine if you will, the next time (or maybe even the first time) you read Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis hat instead of reading the word "created", you use the term re-created...especially in Chapter 2...the amazing thing I found is a lot of "dangling participles" suddenly make a lot of sense. For example, in Chapter 1 God creates humans. In Chapter 2 he makes the Garden of Eden and then makes "Adam" and then Eve, and all the animals. Now think about this...what if the Bible isnt really saying Adam was the first person on earth, or the animals in Eden were the first animals created, but rather a re-creation? So rather than Adam and Eve being the first humans on Earth, they were the first humans in EDEN! and the same holds true for all the animals in Eden. Whilst outside Eden all the animals and humans were those created in Chapter 1. Some evidence of this is that ONLY Adam and Eve get ejected from Eden, the animals did not get ejected, yet there were animals outside of Eden... I now believe there were humans also outside of Eden..a much more ancient form of man that were created in Genesis Chapter 1. Now another factor gets entered here, because we know from scripture (if we trust it as complete), that about 4000 years passed from Adam to Jesus Christ, and about 2000 since Christ to now. So human secularists say there is no way we are only 6000 years old...and I say they are wrong..and here is why. If Im right when Adam and Eve got ejected from Eden and cast out into the rest of the world, as I stated above, there were probably other humans already out there..there has always been a strange reference in the Bible that I have never seen explained adequately and fit well with the rest of the bible...that is unless you take the sort of view I think I have uncovered, let me expound:
...Genesis 6:2 when the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful...
Two classes of folks are in this verse sons of God vs. daughters of men... I have seen this interpreted as angles vs. humans with no evidence or basis, and that never made sense to me. But once I had a revelation that there was two distinct creations being described in genesis 1 and 2, suddenly this phrase had new meaning, that I have never seen expounded upon by any scholars; frankly I now think this means when those who descended from Adam and Eve, mated with those who came from the humans pre-existing outside Eden...an ancient race of humans pre-dating Adam. And therefore, WE, modern man, ARE the elusive missing link scientists are looking for to prove evolution..only it wont prove evolution, it will only prove that two different human species mated and we (modern man) resulted.
Anyway how the bible then becomes true, that the humans here today are only 6000 years old. This is then made true by the story of Noah and the Flood...All life on the planet, save Noah and his family (sons and wives), and a select group of animals, were destroyed...hence today, we ALL descend from Noah...about 5000 years ago give or take a hundred years or so.
The whole point being is that the Bible NEVER contradicts science, rather it just doesnt detail the science, because science isnt the subject/theme of the Bible...God is. The unbeliever doesnt read the bible, and even when/if they do, they dont STUDY the history behind the Bible. But m reminded of an old preacher down south in the early 1930, that when he was a student, he was asked what proof do he had that the Bible was true and accurate...His answer came well before most of the high tech archeological finds that verify much of the Biblical record as true Historical FACT, his answer is completely true, and completely overlooked today; His answer was : The Jews. Do you folks know, I mean are you even aware that there is NO COMPETING HISTORICAL RECORD THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS...none...The Bible is their only HISTORY and archeologists have long since found the accuracy of the bible to acheological finds right down to names, places and dates...so I would offer to Mr. Matthews, as a scientist, that evolution is still called "the Theory of Evolution", we are always looking for that ever elusive missing link, everytime archeologist find an erect apelike looking carcas, the news is "Scientist think they may have finally found the missing link"..to date none of these finds have panned out..so the proof isnt yet in. Personally as a scientist I think the link is in the verse I gave above, which means we wont really ever find one "the missing link", as if Im correct in my interpretation above, we might very well be the missing link. Also dont forget, scientists, like myself, point to a BIG BANG THEORY in which a high denisty object impodes upon itself and creates all that we see in a vacuum. They never can answer, what was the high denisty object that imploded, and who/what created it, nor can they answer what force acted on it to cause it to implode, to create all that we see...but i know the answer...God, the creator. In essense their theory is not only an utter fabrication (they invented it), but it requires BLIND faith (on your part) to assume it as your own theory...Chris, Good luck with that one.
"Also dont forget,
May 7, 2009 - 16:01 ET by ckc1227"Also dont forget, scientists, like myself, point to a BIG BANG THEORY in which a high denisty object impodes upon itself and creates all that we see in a vacuum. They never can answer, what was the high denisty object that imploded, and who/what created it, nor can they answer what force acted on it to cause it to implode, to create all that we see...but i know the answer...God, the creator."
Not knowing the answer to a question doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly logical answer to the question. As a scientist, you should know that. And sadly, you can no more prove that God is responsible than they can prove "The Big Bang" is responsible.
Frankly, I hope you're right....but I don't know that you are.
There are people that
May 7, 2009 - 16:12 ET by fitzfongThere are people that really are against junk science in your party who really do question not just the junk science behind the "climate change"
Here, Chrissy. Fixed it for you.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
When a conservative goes on
May 7, 2009 - 16:20 ET by gopcongressWhen a conservative goes on a talk show like this, the assumption should be made that most arguments are phrased in a "false choice" paradigm, whereas the choices given are both examples in which the host can exclaim host superiority / guest inferiority.
The answer, of course, is to have a FIRM grasp of the truth, not just the "sound bite" aspects, and frame all answers so that they are unambiguous and unchallenging. This is especially true of religious vs. science debates, in which science and non-creation influenced evolution is used.
Pence gave the stock answers, but Matthews knew how to frame the argument with his blowhard process. Lunacy is generally a tough condition to exert rational discource, especially when said lunacy is part of an overall symptom of socialist swine flu.
______________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.
Matthews and Olbermann
May 7, 2009 - 18:06 ET by aposematicWhy do Republicans/Conservatives give either of these two the time of day? The only people listening to them is the Obama choir.
aposematic in VA
Matthews
May 7, 2009 - 21:13 ET by brain trustI believe that Chris Matthews is evolving into a gnat.
Before we have a government that can supply us with everything we will have a government that can provide us with nothing.
Matthews STILL hasn't come
May 7, 2009 - 22:44 ET by RogerCfromSDMatthews STILL hasn't come out of the closet.
Until he does, I am boycotting his show.
Who am I kidding? I'll never watch that idiot again.
A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.
An idiot claims ...
May 8, 2009 - 11:12 ET by CobraManMathews is hilarious! He claims that "some people" ignore science, assuming we're to stupid to understand, then has the audacity to make a claim like ""There are people on your side of the argument who believe that all the prehistoric bones we've discovered in this world, all the dinosaur bones and all that stuff was somehow planted there by liberal scientists to make the case against the Bible."
Hay, idiot liberal, those aren't BONES! Those are the remains of what we think used to be bones. There's not a speck of calcium found in those "bones," or carbon, or potassium, or any other mineral that bones are comprised of. That's why we can't DATE those "bones" directly, we have to infer their ages from the material they are found in. I would expect a "smart," "science" educated liberal to understand what me, a ignorant, science denying Conservative LEARNED IN GRADE SCHOOL! Perhaps I'm expecting too much?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court