Chris Matthews Dreams Up Silly GOP Debate Questions: Do You 'Fundamentalist' Christians Hate Science?
Chris Matthews apparently misses moderating Republican debates and hectoring the candidates with bizarre questions. On Thursday's Hardball, hours before the first GOP face-off, the cable anchor dreamed up hypothetical queries he would like to see: "Question to Mr. Candidate, do you believe in evolution? Are you a fundamentalist who believes in the Bible as written? Has man been around millions of years or, say, just about 6000?"
Apparently this question is crucial as it determines "whether you believe in science or not." On the week Osama bin Laden was killed, Matthews added this relevant inquiry: "A question for the fundamentalists who give that answer, why do we conduct health experiments for people on animals if there's no relation?"
The liberal anchor also wondered, "Do you wish to outlaw abortion and if so what should be the punishment? If having an abortion doesn't deserve punishment, why are you pushing to outlaw it?"
[See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Matthews mocked the contenders who haven't yet announced, saying they're worried about the "buzzsaw" that separates "the wackos in the Republican Party from the serious candidates to lead America."
Matthews did moderate a GOP debate in 2007. He hyperventilated about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. The journalist asked then-candidate Jim Gilmore if he would even allow Rove into the White House.
Hard to believe he hasn't been asked to manage another Republican debate.
A transcript of the May 5 segment, which aired at 5:59pm EDT, follows:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with tonight with the Republicans. They're having a debate tonight. Not too exciting, really. The candidates are former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, a legalize marijuana advocate. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania senator, defeated by 20 points in the last election, Rick Santorum. Congressman Ron Paul in Texas who runs until his filing deadlines in the House and businessman Herman Cain, the creator of Godfather Pizza. Okay, remember the year the NFL players went on strike? We called the replacements. You know, the guys we called to take the place of the actual players? Is that what's happening to the Republican Party this year? They're fielding the replacements? Well, they've have got a few more on the bench that normally don't make the professional grade. Not in this profession. Newt Gingrich, you've been to be kidding, that he's still in public life, let alone casting himself for President. Just remind yourself how come this guy isn't Speaker of the House anymore. Do yourself a favor, google the guy. Maybe he should Google himself before he gets in this thing.
Donald Trump. Well, let's watch and see. He's the guy that says he deserves credit for the birther craze. Well, he reports, you decide. Four years ago this year, this week, rather, I moderated a debate at the Reagan library. Look at the candidates back then, some name brands in that room, America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani Governor Mitt Romney, Senator John McCain. A couple things impressed me about this year's list. No office holders, really. Only one hopeful is even serving in public office. That's Ron Paul, who I'm convinced is running to get out his message, not actually become president. I think I know why the real candidates might not be out there in the field right now. They're wary of getting into the buzzsaw that separates the wackos in the Republican Party from the serious candidates to lead America.
Here are a set of questions I would put to them tonight if I were in the debate, moderating it. Call them the buzzsaw, but they tell you precisely why the Republican Party has a problem right now. Question to Mr. Candidate, do you believe in evolution? Are you a fundamentalist who believes in the Bible as written? Has man been around millions of years or, say, just about 6,000? It's a key question, because it raises the matter of whether you believe in science or not. A question for the fundamentalists who give that answer, why do we conduct health experiments for people on animals if there's no relation? Do you believe man affects climate change? There's a good one. Do you wish to outlaw abortion and if so what should be the punishment? If having an abortion doesn't deserve punishment, why are you pushing to outlaw it? Do you support a return to Don't Ask, Don't Tell? There's a good one. Do you support removing Medicare from existence and replacing it with a subsidy? I'm just guessing, but you probably know the Tea Party approved answers to all those questions. If you're not prepared to give those Tea Party answers, if you're one of those Republican moderates out there, don't bother to bring your toothbrush, you won't be at this jamboree for long.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Here's A Question...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 6:54pm.
Here's a question for You, Chrissie. Has that thrill up your leg interfered with your rational thought process? That is, of course, if you even have a thought process, let alone a rational one!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
→ 6,000 yr old Earth?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:02pm.
That's freaky. I had an idiot right here on NewsBusters ask me that question about the Earth being 6000 yrs old yesterday.
I'm thinking he must have been comparing notes with Chris Matthews.
6,000 yr old Earth? Yes. If you believe scientist Newton
Submitted by russedav on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:20am.
(see http://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727 and http://creation.com/newton-was-a-creationist-only-because-there-was-no-a... and http://creation.com/johannes-kepler)
instead of deranged apostate clergyman Darwin and his fellow "global warming" quacks today, following their fellow deranged fascist evolution lovers Hitler and Stalin that Christian creationist America under creationist von Braun fought
(WWII & Cold War; http://creation.com/response-to-pbs-nova-evolution-series-episode-7-what... "Scopes trial and Sputnik: ... It’s especially ironic that the leader of the Apollo program, Wernher von Braun, was a creationist!" http://creation.com/rejecting-creation-the-movie "After the war a creationist—Wernher von Braun—headed the Apollo space program. American schools, most of which refused to teach Darwinian evolution, have produced (between 1925 and 1957) more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world put together. ")
until evolutionist fascist perverts finally overcame the truth with their deranged, deviant lies, for only fascist perverts and their fools believe in the laughable evolution fraud that's as scientific as the anthropocentric "global warming" hoax, loved by crooks with an agenda, like Al Gore who invented the internet and selfishly dumped his wife, like fellow wingnut Prince Charles (hopefully Elizabeth will outlive him so the throne will pass to someone who is rational and responsible).
Science Illiterate
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:08pm.
I just recently saw an article in "Physics Today" by a former professor of mine who happens to be a leader in the area of Bose-Einstein condensation.
He also happens to be a devout Christian who, from what I gathered in past conversations, had issues with evolution.
I guess, according to Matthews, despite decades of work in science and tons of scientific publications, he doesn't believe in science.
Matthews is an utter and complete moron.
I get it
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:09pm.
Chris thinks by insulting the beliefs of others he'll get invited back to host another GOP debate.
Either that or he's poorly illustrating why his beliefs are more important than yours.
Tinkles Matthews Who?
Submitted by NVRAT on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:21pm.
Oh Yea! he is the guy with the wet leg and numb brain.
A perfect display of liberal media
Submitted by Slyrr on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:36pm.
This was yet another perfect display of what the liberal media has become.
No facts. No class. No dignity. No intellect. No substance.
Just a pair of liberals acting like kids on a school playground and making fun of people who aren't there. This is the real reason for the existence of BS-NBC and so many other Democrat springboard networks. Mocking and trying to criminalize the people who dare to disagree with them.
Is it any wonder that terrorists are playing them like a dump truck full of fiddles?
Large Numbers are Hard
Submitted by IrateNate on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:55pm.
The accepted belief of creationists is that man originated roughly 6,000 years ago. The accepted belief of evolutionists believe homo sapiens have been on the planet for about 200,000 years.
I can understand Matthews belief that we have been here "millions of years", since he and the other progressive twits seem to have evolved very little from the primordial ooze that supposedly sparked the whole thing...
Matthews Ideological Question
Submitted by temple62 on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:57pm.
Does Chris Matthew deserve the air he breathes and the space he uses on this planet.
such hate
Submitted by scarletandgold on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:17pm.
this man is consumed with hate..look up his numbers on drudge..hes a loser
Tingles the Racer
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:29pm.
Never count "Tingles the Racer" out. Just when you start to believe that he has run out of idiotic ideas he comes up with something new.
These people are great! "the
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:44pm.
These people are great! "the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" - 1 Corinthians 1:18
Oh well,
cant fault fools for being foolish.
Punishment for abortion (without repentance) will be ultimately determined by God. Speaking of punishment, Why should a child serve the death penalty
Whose only crime in life was being conceived. Rape and incest make up less than 1% of all abortions (Guttmacher). And even in this case a child shouldn't
Get the death scissors because of the immoral way she/he was conceived.
God created heaven and the earth.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:11pm.
Things evolved from then.
"Do you believe man affects climate change?" No.
"Do you wish to outlaw abortion and if so what should be the punishment?" Yes. Punishment: prison or death.
"Do you support a return to Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" No. No gays in the military.
"Do you support removing Medicare from existence and replacing it with a subsidy?" I want the government out of health care.
Got it, Chris?
Chris Matthews - Chris Malloy - Mike Malloy
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:28pm.
At this rate, Matthews will have completed his morph into Mike Malloy sooner rather than later. It's really hard to bother responding to his blathering - he's so silly. It'd be like debating a deranged street person.
Man has been around for 7 million years.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:29pm.
Someone posted that recently here on NB.
The poster even said they found fossils and stuff.
I was skeptical at first, but the poster provided some very convincing evidence.
It's possible SoL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:39pm.
Those critters from 7 million years ago were the real knuckle draggers. If you believe in evolution, it may be because we have a few folks in todays world that sure look like their ancestors. And they all work for MSNBC
Caj:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:49pm.
Here's my source: "7 million year old human fossils have been discovered."
I would never question a real scientist like this guy.
Got your point SoL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:55pm.
So some are called TROLLS and some are just KNUCKLE DRAGGERS.
This maybe?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:03pm.
I got these links from google's oldest human remains
BTW I think I remember that thread.
Who could forget it?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:12pm.
It was life changing for me.
I learned my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was a marmoset.
Marmoset eh?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:18pm.
Mine was a Saber Tooth, said he loved Marmoset
Yeah, but we've done pretty well considering we were appetizers.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:29pm.
How many big cats attend your family functions?
Hmmm. I thought so.
Go primates!
What, Trumph always accepts
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:35pm.
Our invites,,,,,,,,,,, oh you said big cats, I thought you said fat cats.
Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:32pm.
ssshhh, you and SoL got me laughing so hard I think I woke up hubby.
Ok,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:35pm.
We will try to keep it down : ]
Screw you, I'm just getting warmed up!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:38pm.
.
Thats because Marmosets are
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:48pm.
Nocturnal? But Im not, so night all.
Love it
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:00am.
When people mock science with no foundation.
Oh. Word Bullies pick on you for no reason at all.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:01am.
You is not the 25th account of Dead Angry Black Zippers at allz. Word Bulliz iz juzzza dummiz.
Guttermouth: Once we knew the earth was flat, and now we know otherwise. Science prevails over faith.
Guttermouth: You're not at all concerned with someone in a position of scientific importance who relies on Biblical scribe in predicting the end of the world? Or that fact that creationists believe man is only 10,000 years old?
Iz not guttermout stuzzid word bulliz. izunt. stah pickin on trolliz nah.
Question
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 9:24am.
Are you trying to appear smart or stupid?
Only people on their first 4 accounts get answers.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:47am.
Pack sand Dead Zippers. Pack it tight.
"Pack sand"
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:55am.
What does that mean???
Edit:
Okay, I just hit up "urban dictionary."
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Thank you, The Vet.
ATTENTION ADMINS. I said to stay away from pet phrases.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:18am.
Guttermouth: What does this mean??
Guttermouth: What does this mean???
Guttermouth: I don't even understand what your first post was supposed to mean.
To Guttermouth: I observe your oft used boilerplate reply, " I do not even know what you mean by that"...
Guttermouth: So does that mean...
Guttermouth: I honestly have no idea what your post is supposed to mean.
Guttermouth: I don't even know what your posts mean anymore.
You busted me zero times today
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:08pm.
So congratulations on being so annoying.
Whatever Garlock
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:19pm.
#24 You busted me
Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 3:01am.
ZERO times.
Do you all look alike as well?
Garlock now???
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:29pm.
There sure is a load of weird spewing from you.
Stupid now???
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:36pm.
I asked it all you trolls look alike as well as sound alike. But then an idiot like you would not catch that and type something stupid in response.
Do continue on and tell us how we are too stupid to notice you and your 25th account and yet somehow manage to make a simple point, a very very very simple point that goes right over your head.
Yeah, little trollie, you is wickedz zmart and no one here can tell what kine uz gamez u plei.
"Wah?" "Who?" "Ha?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:58pm.
Very entertaining, Zippers,
A tried and true tactic (for playing dirty)
Submitted by Boil It Down on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:43pm.
Make a damaging accusation to discredit your opponent by presenting a false premise in a public venue.
Example: How many people do you think will die because of the carbon foot print you've left?
When did you stop beating your wife?
Matthews really is a loathsome character, completely undeserving of the platform he's been given at MSNBC. -bidn-
At what point do you go from believer to
Submitted by Tidy Bowl Man on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:27pm.
At what point do you go from a Believer to a Fundamentalist?
When you get that thrill up your leg when your savior talks Chris?
When you believe in equality for all except for those people who don't think like you?
Do as I say not as I do?
When it is easier to denigrate someone as stupid so you don't have to debate the real issues?
I'll get off my soapbox now...
He's saying Herman Cain isn't a real candidate.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:10am.
Doesn't that make Chris Matthews a RACIST?
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Liberal Candidate
Submitted by m1xram on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:52am.
So Matthews wants Conservatives and Constitutionalists to weed out all of the good candidates because they don't meet his inane and immoral qualifications. Well heck, let's make him the Republican Party Chairman, he'd be great!
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
I love science; however, I
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:51am.
I love science; however, I also know that science has its limitations. For example, the "Big Bang" theory is utter b.s. because it doesn't explain who or what put that chain of events into place. Evolution is a sham because it says we come from inferior apes.
Maybe when science can efficiently cure all cancer and disease, I will swallow it's offerings of insight.
Besides, everybody knows that science is only feasible when it is politically correct. Any science that talks about a life beginning at conception, it is immediately ignored my the left-wing establishment. The same goes for any intelligence testing based on gender, race, nationality and geographic origin. This "science" doesn't serve a left-wing purpose so it is immediately ignored, or worse, shunned and censored.
As a quasi-fundamentalist Chrstian
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:15am.
I have to say that the Big Bang is not BS. As the answer to "Where did everything come from?" Yeah it is. But there are a number of pieces of evidence that--without reference to God would point to something like this. There are scientific questions and evidence and then there is the largely unscientific "lessons of the story".
Progressives and Scientististics very often confuse the two. That's how we get the very stupid "Copernican Principle" that Scientistics are babbling about today. You're probably familiar with that idea, but the skew on it is that the Universe has taught us a lesson that we are not special. Ignore the fact that we're the only ones that we have proof understand enough to understand that the universe--as currently conceived--doesn't teach once-and-for-all lessons, and that thematic congruity is not guaranteed from the empirical world.
That's how stupid the Copernican Principle is: Despite the evolving incongruity--and suggested inexplicability--of the universe of happenstance a mistaken conclusion and its correction has "proven" us eternally non-unique.
Scientific details are mostly fascinating, scientific morals are mundane and usually agenda-driven. Look, despite all the progressive dissembling, the discovered details of evolution very quickly lead--when the agenda-driven humans were thrown in--to eugenics, starving out sickness, breeding a better human, sterilization and--in Nazi Germany--liquidation of first "useless eaters" and then "inferiors". All with people taking the "lesson from the story" prematurely.
So when progressives tell you that those were not integral to the science. Neither is Earth's not being the center of the universe once and forever indicative of the non-specialness of everything involving our generation. If we want to divorce the science from the hype in one case, doesn't that sound like good practice??!!
The "Big Bang". Scientists
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:30am.
The "Big Bang". Scientists use this to describe the formation of the universe, the beginning of space-time. Matter and energy were created at that time.
They ask how did it start?
It was the word of God that started it. He spoke the universe into existence, beginning at one point and expanding and ever increasing in its wonders.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
My point is
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 11:43am.
that Science is a study of details and causal implications, it's ability to answer all questions is much in doubt--and also not very scientific. The most scientific form of this argument would "poll the past" to try to take a larger sample to discern the full range of how and when this principle has worked.
What I am saying is the "Big Bang Scientist" are more interested in smoothness and complexity and entropy and the fitness of the expanding universe to explain these features than they are whether it explains "how did it all start".
They are being scientific when correlating factors and testing hypotheses, and they are being less scientific when explaining "how it all started" and divining fealty to "Science" based on how satisfied you are with their explanations.
Scientists are typically bad philosophers. Why is why I heap so much scorn on the Copernican Principle which is an inconsistant philosophical principle babbled by some scientists.
mostlymoderate
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:53pm.
So Big Bang is total b.s. because it doesn't have all the answers yet?
By that standard, wouldn't just about every scientific theory - including quantum mechanics and relativity - also be b.s. since they too have their problems and shortcomings?
But let's get back to Big Bang. Well, since it's fundamentally based on general relativity, then I guess that theory is b.s. as well, right?
And what about the fact that current Big Bang theories make predictions about how the universe is now which have been verified empirically - things like the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe, the existence and characteristics of the background radiation and the observation that more distance objects not only move at a faster rate away from us but are in earlier stages of development.
I suppose those are all just lucky guesses? Not in any way reflective of the merits of the theory?
But yes, Big Bang is b.s. since it doesn't have all the answers. I mean, come one. It's been about a hundred years since Big Bang was proposed (by the way, one of the major developers was a Catholic priest) - how much time do those dumb scientists expect we'll give them to come up with a complete explanation for the origin of the entire universe. Sheesh.
And despite science's inability to cure cancer, don't think too hard about where the technology behind the computer you're typing at came from.
p.s. When I first read your post, I thought you were being sarcastic but after reading some of the other comments here, I began to second guess that. If your post wasn't meant to be serious then consider what I wrote above to be directed - not at you - but at those who do hold those views and I apologize for the possible misunderstanding.
The Hebrew word for "day"
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 3:20am.
The Hebrew word for "day" (yom) in Genesis can be interpreted to mean a period of time. How long were those periods of time? Could be millions of years or longer. Not all Christians think the earth was created out of thin air 6,000 years ago Chrissie. How typical of liberals to stereotype Christians as being anti-science.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonTell that to Sir Isaac Newton
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 4:45am.
A pure 100% Arthole that Mathews fella , a pure tingler.
Isaac Newton
You Didn't Build That.
Darwin is full of crap; just like Tingles
Submitted by Dbak61 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:25am.
I can poke more holes in the THEORY of evolution than any public school teacher is permitted to teach. The only 2 instances I can think of off-hand for true evolution is butterflies and frogs. No where in history or science is there any evidence that one animal changed into another animal. IF we truly evolved from apes or lower primates then why are there still monkeys swinging in the trees? Why have they not evolved...global warming, perhaps? Partisans like Matty the Tingler make me want to vomit.
Doesn't make sense
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:14am.
Your comments don't make sense. You claim that Darwin is full for crap and that you can poke holes in the theory of evolution, but then you provide two examples of what you call true evolution?
The remainder of your comments are predicated upon some very common misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. First, I assume that since you capitalized THEORY, you are attempting to play upon the "evolution is just a theory" argument. People who use this argument misunderstand what a scientific theory is. In science, a theory is much more than a hunch or a guess. To attain the status of theory in science is to attain the highest level of certainty. Theories only become theories after a great deal of scientific testing (before testing and peer review, a theory is known as a hypothesis). Scientific theories are built upon facts, and the theory is the explanatory framework used to explain the relationship between a set of facts.
Your characterization that one animal changes into another mischaracterizes evolution as well. There is no magic there (as your statement might lead somebody to assume), but rather, genetic mutations most often lead to slight variations, not dramatic leaps from dog to cat, etc. Moreover, intermediate forms (what are often known as missing links) have been identified in the fossil record.
Your question why are there monkey's still swinging in trees assumes that evolution is a constant ladder of progress. It is not. In evolution, "good enough is often good enough." Meanings that once a species attains the traits that allow it to survive in a particular environment, if that environment changes very little, then nothing else needed to ensure survival and reproduction.
Well Crowe, after reading
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:22am.
Well Crowe, after reading that, I understand why it makes no sense to you. Your thinking is all twisted up and confused with teachings and propaganda from the public school systems and the misguided and ignorant writings of agnostic author.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
There are NO examples of
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:25am.
There are NO examples of evolution. None. Zip. Nada. Many people confuse evolution with adaption. Animals and humans adapt to the conditions in which they live.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
There's a reason...
Submitted by Dbak61 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:14pm.
...'missing links' are missing: They only exist in the religion of evolution and then only in the abstract. And, yes, I called evolution a religion. After all it takes more faith than I can muster to believe when all the best evidence ever 'produced' was just that: as in constructed frauds; from Leaky and many others who have claimed to have solved life's mysteries.
And I realize my frog and butterfly analogy was incorrect as they are merely just creatures going through their normal life developmental cycle. That was my point: It is not evolution. Crowe would have us believe we are all mutants. But perhaps in the case of that particular author...
Well that settles that
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:24pm.
Can't imagine why so many evolutionary biologists, naturalists, anthropologists, and paleontologists have been wasting so much time and money on a mission they have yet to provide even one example of as proof.
Because it's not their money. In most cases its ...
Submitted by Dbak61 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 5:47pm.
...the wasting of more of tax payer's monies in the forms of grants to Academia from the Gov. , passed down to the learned lib profs and their eager-to-please students, so they can keep pushing God out of the picture. Just look at the list you cited: How many of those are actually real cash paying jobs in the private sector? And I'll give you the biologist for free...but 'evolutionary'...I don't think so. And if you try to tell me that museums often fund these people, I would again ask where does their money come from?
I understand
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:04pm.
So scientists are basically liars because they know evolution is a scam yet they perpetuate the ruse by creating fake stories in order to...
I don't know. Even as I write it I can smell the BS. You don't have to believe in evolution, but I would guess your opinion stems from faith rather than research.
It takes faith to conduct reasearch, Irishman
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:26pm.
Don't forget takes a measure of faith to conduct any type of research, whether it be "scientific," "religious," or what ever.. You don't research things you have no faith in examining, especially if you have no faith in the outcome. So, yes, even evolution is based upon faith, faith that your scientific research will produce the results you were hoping for, at the very least.
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
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
That's a shortsighted view of science
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:32pm.
Science isn't just about researching data to prove a hypothesis or theory. Discovery is just as much a part of the process. Expecting a specific result in cases of research dismisses the reason many scientists entered the field in the first place: to answer the question "Why?" Scientists ask questions and through research and study find answers to those questions. Faith is not required.
Do you believe science?
It's a fundimental fact of human psychology, Irishman
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:00pm.
No, it's not a "short sighted view of science." It is a fundamental fact of human psychology. Since we humans tend to ignore, or avoid, that which we doubt, it takes a measure of faith to conduct ANY research, scientific research included. Would you climb a ladder that you doubted would hold your weight just to "test" whether it would hold your weight or not? Or would you avoid climbing that ladder because you didn't have enough faith in it's structural integrity? People don't conduct scientific research unless they have faith that the scientific premise behind the research itself has some validity.
By the way, what difference does it make whether I believe "science" or not? The question itself is so obscure that it's impossible to answer succinctly. For example, do I believe in the "science" of Eugenics? No, I don't believe that we can breed a perfect human. I wouldn't even do any "research" into it because I have no faith in the premise itself. Do I believe in the "science" of electromagnetism? Yes, I do. I've even built a few electromagnets myself.
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
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Um
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:01pm.
You're comparing Evolution to Creationism but you're applying 3 different definitions of "faith."
The first which you're applying to Creationism is a belief in God and religious doctrine. The second is the scientific definition relating to Evolution, a strongly held belief.
The ladder example is the 3rd definition, trust or confidence in someone or something...faith that the ladder will hold me. This kind of faith is based on several factors. What does the ladder look like? Is it made from wood? Are there rungs missing? Is it nailed or glued? Is it wobbly? Or is it metal? Or is it a brand new ladder, a no-brainer as far as safety is concerned?
This last definition also relates to science in that the faith is based on something tangible. I can feel the ladder and it's sturdy enough to hold me. I can look at a series of fossils in an evolutionary line and accept that the theory holds true. Religion takes faith to a different level.
Faith is faith, period
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:20pm.
There's only one definition of faith, and that is the belief that an idea has some inherent validity. It is you who is trying to apply different definitions of faith, definitions based upon ideology.
No scientific researcher in the world would ever use tools and methods that he or she didn't have faith in, that he or she didn't think would produce valid results. It is that underlying faith in the validity, the effectiveness, of the tools and methods use in that research that allows the research to even be conducted, even if the researcher doesn't know what the results themselves will be.
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
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
If you will
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:24pm.
Are there specific pieces of Creationism you have concluded as truth, and what is it that has you convinced?
"At first there was nothing, which exploded."
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:35pm.
The universe flashed into existence out of nothing. That's called the Big Bang. The entire Universe; time, space, energy, matter, was all created in that Big Bang. To me, that pretty powerful proof of Creation.
Do I understand creation? NO, I'm not smart enough to even understand just a smallest fraction of it. Do I believe that science helps us to understand Creation? Yes, but we'll never fully understand creation. It's far to complex for anyone to understand. That doesn't mean that we should stop asking questions. It does mean that we shouldn't limit those questions to just "what is that" or "how does that work?" It mean we also need to ask "why is that there?" Philosophy is just important as physics in understanding anything.
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
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Weird
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:47pm.
I could have written much of your post. I think the only thing that separates us philosophically is the belief in God...oh, and of course our position on teaching Creation.
I don't like the idea of Creation as the alternative to Evolution (especially a required class), but I could support religion being taught in public schools in a way that introduced Creation from the views of a variety of religions. I think it would be beneficial for teens to understand some of the major world religions (I wish I had) as it is a pretty big part of our culture.
Plus, would you want your kids to learn anything related to religion from a public school? So many denominations of Christianity alone, you know no one will be happy. Plus the best place to educate would be your own church, as and it's free as often as you'd like. I think.
Teach every alternative
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:56pm.
Why not teach Creationism as an alternative to Evolution? Toss in Intelligent Design as well. It can't be that big of a threat to have competing theories, can it? Why limit the choices to one or the other? Teach them all as competing ideas and let the children draw their own conclusions. That is, after all, an application of the very concept of learning itself, correct?
"Plus, would you want your kids to learn anything related to religion from a public school?"
Sure, why not? We teach them different philosophies, different sports, different mathematical concepts, even different languages. Why should religion, or science, for that matter, be treated any differently? Let's not limit teaching, for, if we do, we're only limiting learning itself, and that's never a good idea.
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
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As long as it's philosophically based
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 9:40am.
I would agree, but when one religion is introduced to be more fact based than another it becomes less about different theories and more about making one specific theory the basis for the argument. By college most students will have a better understanding of religion but at a younger age a child is much easier to influence. And I don't think anyone should be influenced to believe in any specific religion without approval by the parent. But I also think many parents might have a problem knowing their children are being educated in religions that contradict their own beliefs.
CobraMan
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 2:12pm.
I agree with The Irishman in that teaching evolution, creationism and ID as competing theories for the origin of life would make sense in a philosophical context, but not a scientific one (or specifically, in a science class).
Your comments seem to suggest (and please let me know if I'm wrong) that you consider creationism and ID as scientific alternatives to evolution and it would appear that you base this on the idea that, like religion, science involves a degree of faith.
I agree that there is a degree of faith in doing science and so, in this respect, it shares something in common with religion. However, there is a major difference between the two - science doesn't incorporate supernatural entities into its theories whereas creationism obviously does and ID can be argued to.
That's a big difference.
Edit: typo
And your guess would be wrong.
Submitted by Dbak61 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:41am.
(This, in reply to post #57.)
My high school teacher said it best: "Dr. Leaky was a big drip." (I think 'Piltdown man' was his big fraud).And there were more trolls to come, making up the science to fit their own 'faith' called evolution.
They are akin to the infamous climate-gate libtards; when real facts are an inconvenience to Gore and his believers...just omit them 'for the sake of science'...and the planet. Whether facts omitted or made up, the just can't help lying to perpetuate the myths.
Got news for the "Globers": this planet has been, and will be here, long after man has left the building.
As for any reference to supernatural beings for creationism to work: well, from all I have learned, yea, only God could create everything from nothing, (unless you've heard something else?) but my real point is that it takes even more faith to believe the new creationism called evolution: from primordial ooze to man...in only 4 billion years!
And what's to prevent us from devolving? "See that neanderthal...yea, that's my nephew, Bob. I expect we'll have some real monkeys in the family after he weds, lol."
Don't you see?
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:10am.
You're dismissing both evolution based on the same premise. For evolution to work there must be a starting point. Religion clearly defines the starting point for sake of your argument because proof is not required in faith, but what existed before God created the universe? In other words, if you're going to reject evolution based on the premise that only God can create everything from nothing, what created God?
Don't you see?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:32am.
dbak61 does not realize you are a 25 time retread troll that was banned for harassing women, threatening their children, dropping vulgarities, stalking other users, lying about the site and the people here, misrepresenting yourself as black, polish, female, & Catholic, and constanly violating the terms of use by having multiple accounts open at the same time, in addition to creating an account under false pretenses, that being you have already been banned.
All that when you are out on bail for various offenses, one of them being a proclivity for buggering miniature donkeys.
Thanks Vet.
Submitted by Dbak61 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:01pm.
As the late Ed McMahon would say to Karnack: "You are correct, sir."
I only started posting a few days ago. Though a long time comments reader.
And with that, I'll remove this page from my list as I walk away from the wall..
Welcome to NB's
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:10pm.
See ya around
I would approach Matthew's question something like this:
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:59am.
Number one, evolution is either a fact or it isn't. If it's a fact there are principles, properties, and implications to know and understand, not believe. When you ask me if I "believe in Evolution" you conflate fact with belief.
Do I believe the account of Genesis? Yes. I do believe the account of Genesis. Do you understand that when I was in college, it was quite clear that we were Anthropithicines. That the discovery of the Anthropithicine bones and their similarity to ours was a direct indicator of direct decent. Did I believe that? Yes, I did. I also understood it. What remained? Simply my understanding. I understand that it is no longer thought to be the case. In fact it is my understanding that as it currently stands, the human race has no discernable ancestry.
Those details were important. The details that we didn't have on the hominid fossils and amassed over time were enough to scientifically eliminate them as ancestors. Progressives want to "skip to the end" of the story and read the moral, they are free to do so, but doing so does not make it a "love of Science" as opposed to a "hatred of Science" on the part of the out-group. Shibboleths of the universal in-group, out-group mentality that all humans suffer from--but mainly progressives think understanding this dynamic and disliking this dynamic is the same thing as rejecting it, unlike those hateful so-and-sos.
Now, I'm wrong if I "skip to the end". "Of course(!!) we have ancestors! We wouldn't be *here* without ancestors!!" So *I* need to keep an open mind that simply because we do not currently know our ancestors, it doesn't mean that we will never find them. Which is true. I believe that. By the rules of logic, I also believe that "of course we have ancestors" is Begging the Question, however much it feels like "just plain common sense" to its proponents. There is a difference between a logical correlation and a argument against an opposing idea. It is amazing how many people confuse the two in BOTH directions. Of course, I would expect this of people who prefer allegiance over a fine understanding of details.
Let me mention another thing that I believe: I believe that any fact that I have exposed that is not as up-to-date as it could be--perhaps we have a current candidate for recent ancestor, for example--will be taken as a wholesale ignorance of Evolution (and again part of the "haters of Science" anti-progressive out-group that self-styled "progressives" are desperately trying to make) and not as an earnest consideration followed by a period of inactivity and focus on other questions, simply from a lack of relevance of the entire question--or at least that as a considered opinion.
Why just think how much easier our Evolution tests would be if we had one true and false question: "I believe Evolution is true. T/F". We could grade ourselves on fealty to a conclusion rather than a grounding in specifics.
Hey Mr. Tingles, I Have Your Answers:
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:00pm.
1. Do you believe in evolution?
(A) Yes, you seem to have the brain of an ape.
2. Are you a fundamentalist who believes in the Bible as written?
(A) No, but I believe I could shove the King James version into your gaping cakehole and you would not miss a beat.
3. Has man been around millions of years or, say, just about 6,000? It's a key question, because it raises the matter of whether you believe in science or not.
(A) I believe that you were hatched on a log in the moonlight. that your father's sperm was united with a raccoon's eggs and you came to life. Does that answer your question, jackass?
4. A question for the fundamentalists who give that answer, why do we conduct health experiments for people on animals if there's no relation?
(A) For entertainment. This is the same reason why we allow you to be on TV. You're like a crazed hyena, all jacked up on meth, bouncing around your cage, pissing yourself and eating your dookies.
5. Do you believe man affects climate change? There's a good one.
(A) Yes, I believe it could rain tomorrow and be sunny the day after. That looks like change. I will now await your proof of the "science" when you provide the emails from the alleged "scientists" where they agreed to delete the data that didn't support their chicken little theory. Happy?
6. Do you wish to outlaw abortion and if so what should be the punishment? If having an abortion doesn't deserve punishment, why are you pushing to outlaw it?
(A) No, I used to totally support abortion and I wish it had been used to keep you from being born. But since it wasn't, I would like a rider that allows me to abort you after the fact.
7. Do you support a return to Don't Ask, Don't Tell? There's a good one.
(A) Is that really a "good one"? Is this a gotcha? Did you ever serve in the military, or have you done nothing more than serve your lips onto Tip O'Neill's huge ass? Don't worry, I won't "tell".
8. Do you support removing Medicare from existence and replacing it with a subsidy?
(A) I support removing you from the planet so I don't have to see Medicare wasted on keeping you alive.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
No...........
Submitted by Patriot II on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:10pm.
Just lying embecilic moronic "tinglers" chrissy baby.....go find a passifier!
Question to Chris Matthews...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:29pm.
I have a hypothetical question for Chris Matthews: If God created the Heavens and the Earth, did he not also create the fossil record that science may have been misinterpreting as "proof" of evolution all these many decades?
Perhaps that fossil "record" isn't actually a record of Earth's past but is, instead, simply a means of teaching us humans the process of analytical thought. Just like creating models in a classroom, it is just another teaching aid. After all, humans don't have infinite knowledge. We have to learn everything. That fossil record, along with the close physical structure of the various species, may very well be just another means for God to teach us things like how to create our own biosphere without the need, or the ability, to create it complete in it's full complexity, something that only an omnipotent creator like God could do. How else could we learn without the lessons that God created for us to study?
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
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The President Does Not Lead America
Submitted by IdahoJim on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 2:44pm.
I repeat, the President does not lead America. The President leads the government. Why do you think they call it the executive branch?
The American people do not require a leader. We are free to chose who we wish to choose as a leader, and to chose not to follow anybody. When the President is overseas he is a "representative" of the American people, not the "leader" of the American people.
A king, emperor, dictator, or tyrant are considered leaders because they depend or force the people in their country to do what they command. The President cannot order any citizen to do anything. That is the job of the legislature, subject to the approval of the judiciary.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net