PDA

View Full Version : Election Day



PseudoSABR
11-02-2012, 06:58 PM
Anyone think Romney can win it?

Looks like the Dems will retain control of the Senate, but may actually lose seats in the House.

Are there any state propositions that people are paying attention to?

TheLeviathan
11-02-2012, 09:20 PM
Yeah, I think Romney falls short. Only state vote I care about is voting in favor of gay marriage, that and seeing Bachman go down.

biggentleben
11-03-2012, 12:23 AM
South Dakota has some interesting ballot measures, and a moron sitting representative that should be voted out, but she's not got a decent opponent to do it. One ballot measure would bring about merit pay for educators, and another would utilize a permanent tax to fund education and Medicaid.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 12:54 AM
Ben, how do they plan to measure merit? If it's by test scores--that's troublesome. What's the proposal number? Your thoughts?

gunnarthor
11-03-2012, 07:50 AM
Romney could win but it's pretty unlikely. I think Obama wins the EV 303-235 and ges a 1-2% national vote victory.

I'm really watching both MN amendments (vote no on both!). I think four other states have a gay marriage ban of some sort but I don't remember which four.

drjim
11-03-2012, 07:18 PM
Romney could win but it's pretty unlikely. I think Obama wins the EV 303-235 and ges a 1-2% national vote victory.

I'm really watching both MN amendments (vote no on both!). I think four other states have a gay marriage ban of some sort but I don't remember which four.

Maryland, Maine, Washington all have votes to legalize gay marriage. Minnesota is the only state with a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

I'm also interested in the Washington and Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana. I think they both pass.

Only way that Romney wins is if the polls are all systematically biased and/or a late break in his favor that is not being captured in the polls.

biggentleben
11-03-2012, 09:22 PM
Ben, how do they plan to measure merit? If it's by test scores--that's troublesome. What's the proposal number? Your thoughts?

Honestly, this is one that I haven't looked into because it was so universally destroyed by a teaching friend of mine who has had some positive ideas on merit pay. When she bashed it completely, I didn't even invest my time in learning more about it. Not the best voting research, I know, but I trust her reaction that strongly. I believe the measure is 16. 14-15-16 are the three that are fairly news worthy in SoDak. Referred Law 14 would utilize excise tax funds specifically to fund "large project development', which would encourage wind farms in the state, but it would also encourage corporate farm entities to establish in the state, so it has some strong argument back and forth in an agricultural state. Referred Law 16 would eliminate teacher tenure requirements, set up a teacher and administration evaluation standard which would then set merit based bonuses based on those evaluations. Initiated Measure 15 would increase the state sales tax from 4% to 5%, and permanently utilize that last percentage to fund education and Medicaid. Those are the big three here.

Shane Wahl
11-05-2012, 06:51 PM
Romney could win but it's pretty unlikely. I think Obama wins the EV 303-235 and ges a 1-2% national vote victory.

I'm really watching both MN amendments (vote no on both!). I think four other states have a gay marriage ban of some sort but I don't remember which four.

Yeah, the numbers 290, 303, 319, and 332 are by far the most likely electoral votes for Obama (simply depending on Florida and Virginia--neither, Virginia only, Florida only, or both).

SpiritofVodkaDave
11-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Romney could win but it's pretty unlikely. I think Obama wins the EV 303-235 and ges a 1-2% national vote victory.

I'm really watching both MN amendments (vote no on both!). I think four other states have a gay marriage ban of some sort but I don't remember which four.

Maryland, Maine, Washington all have votes to legalize gay marriage. Minnesota is the only state with a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

I'm also interested in the Washington and Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana. I think they both pass.

Only way that Romney wins is if the polls are all systematically biased and/or a late break in his favor that is not being captured in the polls.
Yeah, I am in Seattle for the week and I am looking forward to a pretty fun night of partying tomorrow, in the span of one night Washington is going to advance like 60+ years with the passing of gay marriage and the repeal of Marijuana Prohibition.

Willihammer
11-05-2012, 08:08 PM
Ya how can we get Republicans fired up to come out and vote. I know, gays and terrorists. Let's amend the constitution while we're at it. What a joke. The Dems were no better in the last exercise. You like clean water? Let's paste a sales tax into the constitution, that's a sensible way to budget for the next dozen bienniums.

johnnydakota
11-05-2012, 09:35 PM
Ya how can we get Republicans fired up to come out and vote. I know, gays and terrorists. Let's amend the constitution while we're at it. What a joke. The Dems were no better in the last exercise. You like clean water? Let's paste a sales tax into the constitution, that's a sensible way to budget for the next dozen bienniums.

addmitting your a republican is the 1st of 12 steps to recovery,
you wanted a v.p last time in palin who turned 20 tricks on 4th ave, in anchorage,who supported her husband in seperating the state of alaska from the usa...now you want to put mitt the millionair into office to fix the economy ? whos chinas? last week bain corp. stripped an automotive parts plant down loaded the machinery up and shipped it and 1200 jobs to china...if his former state wont support him , if his mormon cult wont support him why would any real american want a money grubbing 1 %er for a leader of america? to usher in the amero dollar and help the macro inflation of the usa and destroying the middle class once and for all

SpiritofVodkaDave
11-06-2012, 01:48 AM
Is johnnydakota fatbeer's bizzaro cousin?

glunn
11-06-2012, 02:05 AM
I will be watching New Hampshire and Pennsylvania -- if these break for Romney then I think that Obama will be in trouble.

Whoever wins, we need some breakthroughs. The Dems need to compromise as to some programs that are vital to the average person, and the Republicans need to allow some tax increases on people making more than $X per year. But I am pessimistic about achieving needed cuts in the defense budget no matter who wins. Unless there can be fundamental changes in the system, we will continue to have a corrupt and unproductive Congress and a President who must tiptoe around powerful special interests ranging from the NRA to the ACLU to Wall Street and beyond.

ChiTownTwinsFan
11-06-2012, 08:33 AM
Is johnnydakota fatbeer's bizzaro cousin?

Heh. I'd say he's the smarter and more enlightened of the two.

ChiTownTwinsFan
11-06-2012, 08:37 AM
I will be watching New Hampshire and Pennsylvania -- if these break for Romney then I think that Obama will be in trouble.

Whoever wins, we need some breakthroughs. The Dems need to compromise as to some programs that are vital to the average person, and the Republicans need to allow some tax increases on people making more than $X per year. But I am pessimistic about achieving needed cuts in the defense budget no matter who wins. Unless there can be fundamental changes in the system, we will continue to have a corrupt and unproductive Congress and a President who must tiptoe around powerful special interests ranging from the NRA to the ACLU to Wall Street and beyond.

I wouldn't exactly call the ACLU a special interest group unless defending people's Constitutional rights and freedoms is a special interest.

gunnarthor
11-06-2012, 09:39 AM
I will be watching New Hampshire and Pennsylvania -- if these break for Romney then I think that Obama will be in trouble.

Whoever wins, we need some breakthroughs. The Dems need to compromise as to some programs that are vital to the average person, and the Republicans need to allow some tax increases on people making more than $X per year. But I am pessimistic about achieving needed cuts in the defense budget no matter who wins. Unless there can be fundamental changes in the system, we will continue to have a corrupt and unproductive Congress and a President who must tiptoe around powerful special interests ranging from the NRA to the ACLU to Wall Street and beyond.

I wouldn't exactly call the ACLU a special interest group unless defending people's Constitutional rights and freedoms is a special interest.

Agreed. The ACLU of MN (http://www.aclu-mn.org/get-involved/) has had some pretty interesting work over the last year.

TheLeviathan
11-06-2012, 04:23 PM
I found this hilarious today. One of my 7 year old students came up to me and told me that she hoped Mitt Romney didn't win because her mom said everything would change if he took office. So, she hoped Obama would win because he "wouldn't change nothin."

No political slant, just ironically hilarious and a mood lightener for me today.

SweetOne69
11-06-2012, 04:39 PM
Only way that Romney wins is if the polls are all systematically biased and/or a late break in his favor that is not being captured in the polls.

This is the case. All poll modelling is based on the turnout of the previous election. They poll Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the same ratio that turned out in 2008. So they only track the change in the Independent votes. They don't track the change in ratios. And it seems that more Republicans intend to turn up while more Democrats stay home.

glunn
11-06-2012, 06:44 PM
I will be watching New Hampshire and Pennsylvania -- if these break for Romney then I think that Obama will be in trouble.

Whoever wins, we need some breakthroughs. The Dems need to compromise as to some programs that are vital to the average person, and the Republicans need to allow some tax increases on people making more than $X per year. But I am pessimistic about achieving needed cuts in the defense budget no matter who wins. Unless there can be fundamental changes in the system, we will continue to have a corrupt and unproductive Congress and a President who must tiptoe around powerful special interests ranging from the NRA to the ACLU to Wall Street and beyond.

I wouldn't exactly call the ACLU a special interest group unless defending people's Constitutional rights and freedoms is a special interest.

FYI, I was trying to be balanced. I have been a member of the ACLU for many years and send them a fair amount of money.

I agree with you that the ACLU should not be considered a special interest, but suspect that many of my Republican friends might disagree.

TheLeviathan
11-06-2012, 08:17 PM
I agree with you that the ACLU should not be considered a special interest, but suspect that many of my Republican friends might disagree.

I think the ACLU certainly walks a fine line. They do a great job fighting for rights even when they are unpopular, but I think it's hard not to argue that many members of the ACLU slant towards the left. They also have become a bit more active in rights than defensive of those that exist. At least it seems that way to me.

gunnarthor
11-06-2012, 10:02 PM
I agree with you that the ACLU should not be considered a special interest, but suspect that many of my Republican friends might disagree.

I think the ACLU certainly walks a fine line. They do a great job fighting for rights even when they are unpopular, but I think it's hard not to argue that many members of the ACLU slant towards the left. They also have become a bit more active in rights than defensive of those that exist. At least it seems that way to me.

A lot of ACLU staff slant libertarian too.

PseudoSABR
11-06-2012, 10:44 PM
Bronco Bama wins.

ChiTownTwinsFan
11-06-2012, 10:53 PM
I agree with you that the ACLU should not be considered a special interest, but suspect that many of my Republican friends might disagree.

I think the ACLU certainly walks a fine line. They do a great job fighting for rights even when they are unpopular, but I think it's hard not to argue that many members of the ACLU slant towards the left. They also have become a bit more active in rights than defensive of those that exist. At least it seems that way to me.

Still ... I don't call them a special interest group. It's not like they are dumping tons of money into campaigns, or are single-issued.

glunn
11-06-2012, 11:14 PM
I am glad that Obama has won, and will be praying that he and the Republicans can now find common ground before we go off the fiscal cliff.

old nurse
11-07-2012, 01:08 AM
Is johnnydakota fatbeer's bizzaro cousin?

johnnydakota's lucid post % is somewhere below Drew Butera's batting average. There are kernels of truth in what he says sometimes. The Bain bit may be correct. "if his mormon cult wont support him why would any real american want a money grubbing 1 %er for a leader of america?" is reasonable. Truly America held their noses and voted the lesser of evils. In something I saw on Salon.com was a comment about Seamus. That is the dog that got a ride on the roof of the car. How Romney treated the dog is exactly how he will treat the public. There is not much out there that could refute that statement. So despite all the limitations of Obama the American public was not wiling to be uncared for.

johnnydakota
11-07-2012, 01:54 AM
Is johnnydakota fatbeer's bizzaro cousin?
dont know who that is , but concidering my grandfather had 14 kids and i only knew 3 uncles it is a posibility =)

johnnydakota
11-07-2012, 01:55 AM
Is johnnydakota fatbeer's bizzaro cousin?


I am glad that Obama has won, and will be praying that he and the Republicans can now find common ground before we go off the fiscal cliff.

his aceptance speach was good and the last minute of his speach was powerful

Brock Beauchamp
11-07-2012, 06:54 AM
I'm damned proud of Minnesota right now. Hell, they almost kicked out Crazy Eyes as well. Maybe 2014.

Brock Beauchamp
11-07-2012, 08:40 AM
By the way, sabermetrics FTW.

Nate Silver has to be laughing his ass off right now.

gunnarthor
11-07-2012, 08:51 AM
I'm damned proud of Minnesota right now. Hell, they almost kicked out Crazy Eyes as well. Maybe 2014.

Yeah, the vote NO effort was amazing. I was really worried about voter ID. Great work, MN!

TheLeviathan
11-07-2012, 04:19 PM
Pretty happy with just about everyting in-state. I'm always a bit nervous when any party completely controls the executive and legislative branches however.

biggentleben
11-07-2012, 04:36 PM
Pretty happy with just about everyting in-state. I'm always a bit nervous when any party completely controls the executive and legislative branches however.

Even Klobuchar?

TheLeviathan
11-07-2012, 05:32 PM
Even Klobuchar?

She's pretty liberal, but she's also a genuinely good person, pretty respectable. Leaves a lot to be desired for me personally, but not opposed to her being re-elected.

Shane Wahl
11-07-2012, 05:51 PM
By the way, sabermetrics FTW.

Nate Silver has to be laughing his ass off right now.

Haha, exactly. Trust mathematics, Dick Morris and Karl Rove . . . and Terry Ryan.

Can the Twins please pay Silver twice as much as he makes now to come help right this ship.

biggentleben
11-07-2012, 06:07 PM
Even Klobuchar?

She's pretty liberal, but she's also a genuinely good person, pretty respectable. Leaves a lot to be desired for me personally, but not opposed to her being re-elected.

Had personal interaction with her that would never, ever have me labeling her "good" or "respectable". That's all.

TheLeviathan
11-07-2012, 08:19 PM
Had personal interaction with her that would never, ever have me labeling her "good" or "respectable". That's all.

Oh?

biggentleben
11-07-2012, 09:47 PM
Had personal interaction with her that would never, ever have me labeling her "good" or "respectable". That's all.

Oh?

Just ahead of her first election, she used wrongly prosecuting someone I know as a sign of her fight against violence against females. Problem was that the girlfriend was the abuser and a borderline personality disorder. She filed three felony charges on the guy and forced him to plea down to a charge that ended his career. She knew her client was a liability and didn't want to put her on the stand. She later laughed with the guy's lawyer about how she would have been screwed if the guy had the money to see it through.

TheLeviathan
11-07-2012, 11:09 PM
Well all politicians are lawyers and the field is saturated with scumbags for sure.

diehardtwinsfan
11-13-2012, 08:12 PM
I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

TheLeviathan
11-13-2012, 09:29 PM
Well said diehard, I couldn't agree more.

flpmagikat
11-14-2012, 03:55 AM
I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

Ron paul people annoy me. They run around foaming at the mouth about how brain washed and ignorant everyone else must be, but then when it comes time to vote, do the one thing that is basically wasting a vote and write in Ron paul. If they used half that energy to organize and rally around whoever the libertarian candidate is, they as t least have a chance at making some progress for their movement. Instead they are just as if not more guilty of the same idol worship in candidates they decry.

Brock Beauchamp
11-14-2012, 07:34 AM
I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

Ron paul people annoy me. They run around foaming at the mouth about how brain washed and ignorant everyone else must be, but then when it comes time to vote, do the one thing that is basically wasting a vote and write in Ron paul. If they used half that energy to organize and rally around whoever the libertarian candidate is, they as t least have a chance at making some progress for their movement. Instead they are just as if not more guilty of the same idol worship in candidates they decry.

Paul jumped the shark when he said that evolution is a theory and dismissed it because of that "fact". The dude was a medical doctor. He knows better.

Badsmerf
11-14-2012, 02:33 PM
I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

Ron paul people annoy me. They run around foaming at the mouth about how brain washed and ignorant everyone else must be, but then when it comes time to vote, do the one thing that is basically wasting a vote and write in Ron paul. If they used half that energy to organize and rally around whoever the libertarian candidate is, they as t least have a chance at making some progress for their movement. Instead they are just as if not more guilty of the same idol worship in candidates they decry.

I voted for Gary Johnson. Why is writing someone in a waste of a vote? You are essentially voting for who you believe in. If more people had the balls to vote third party or write people in the 2 party system we live in wouldn't be as predominant. I think the GOP will find more success when they adjust their views on a few topics that have been going the other way.

Brock Beauchamp
11-14-2012, 02:46 PM
The electoral college essentially forces a two party system on us. It takes far too much effort to ever get a footing when the 2-3% of the votes you're receiving count for absolutely nothing. Combine that with the fact that the GOP and Democrats have a vested interest in never allowing a third party to gain traction and you're looking at a situation where third parties will present an occasional blip on the radar and nothing more (Ross Perot, George Wallace).

Still, there's nothing wrong with a statement vote, especially when we live in a political climate where the GOP seemingly runs further off the rails with every passing day.

TheLeviathan
11-14-2012, 04:06 PM
Still, there's nothing wrong with a statement vote, especially when we live in a political climate where the GOP seemingly runs further off the rails with every passing day.

Well....unless you vote for Kang.

ThePuck
11-14-2012, 04:47 PM
I agree with you that the ACLU should not be considered a special interest, but suspect that many of my Republican friends might disagree.

I think the ACLU certainly walks a fine line. They do a great job fighting for rights even when they are unpopular, but I think it's hard not to argue that many members of the ACLU slant towards the left. They also have become a bit more active in rights than defensive of those that exist. At least it seems that way to me.

Current positions of the ACLU include: opposing the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty); supporting gay marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) and the right of gays to adopt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption); supporting birth control and abortion rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights); eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and gays; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; supporting the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference; and opposing any government preference for religion over non-religion, or for particular faiths over others.

Not sure how much of that falls under protecting our rights found in The Constitution...

TheLeviathan
11-14-2012, 05:20 PM
I fail to see how this disagrees.

ThePuck
11-14-2012, 05:26 PM
I fail to see how this disagrees.

I wasn't arguing with you...I was adding to your argument...or attempting to :-)

TheLeviathan
11-14-2012, 06:44 PM
I fail to see how this disagrees.

I wasn't arguing with you...I was adding to your argument...or attempting to :-)

Ah, yeah I generally appreciate the ACLU but am very bothered by their member politics. I worry about the sustainability of the organization's commendable traits of objectivity.

flpmagikat
11-15-2012, 02:46 PM
I agree more folks should vote third party. That was my sorta point, that rather than voting for a person, Ron paul in this case, youd be better served voting for someone who is running and at least has a chance at garnering enough support to potentially help that cause or party out in the future. If I only voted for nader or kusinich as a write in rather than supporting say a green party candidate id think its just as foolish. And id say the libertarian party has an actual chance at gaining 5% or more if all their supporters got on the same page.

gunnarthor
11-16-2012, 01:55 PM
Current positions of the ACLU include: opposing the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty); supporting gay marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) and the right of gays to adopt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption); supporting birth control and abortion rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights); eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and gays; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; supporting the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference; and opposing any government preference for religion over non-religion, or for particular faiths over others.

Not sure how much of that falls under protecting our rights found in The Constitution...

Most of those things - ending discrimination, respecting the rights of same sex couples - fall under equal protection in our Constitution. Opposition to death penalty and prisoner rights are generally based on the 8th amendment, same with opposition to torture. Religious rights are in the first amendment. Abortion rights, like privacy and travel, are also found in the Constitution.

The ACLU protects both civil liberties and civil rights. Civil liberties tend to be thought of as things listed in the bill of rights while civil rights tend to be thought of more as natural law and formulated in statutes.

glunn
11-17-2012, 02:47 AM
Current positions of the ACLU include: opposing the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty); supporting gay marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) and the right of gays to adopt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption); supporting birth control and abortion rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights); eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and gays; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; supporting the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference; and opposing any government preference for religion over non-religion, or for particular faiths over others.

Not sure how much of that falls under protecting our rights found in The Constitution...

Most of those things - ending discrimination, respecting the rights of same sex couples - fall under equal protection in our Constitution. Opposition to death penalty and prisoner rights are generally based on the 8th amendment, same with opposition to torture. Religious rights are in the first amendment. Abortion rights, like privacy and travel, are also found in the Constitution.

The ACLU protects both civil liberties and civil rights. Civil liberties tend to be thought of as things listed in the bill of rights while civil rights tend to be thought of more as natural law and formulated in statutes.

Amen to that. The common theme here is respecting the rights of others.

I would add the First Amendment to what you have listed. Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, and I abhor laws that effectively impose religious ideas on others. If not for religious notions, I think that gay marriage and other gay rights would have been recognized long ago.

I think that a lot of Christians fail to appreciate that the First Amendment was intended to keep religion out of government. If someone believes that life begins at conception, then that is their right to believe that and to never have an abortion. But it is wrong to impose their view on some 17 year old woman who gets pregnant and does not want to have the baby. The same for gay rights.

TheLeviathan
11-17-2012, 07:04 AM
Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, and I abhor laws that effectively impose religious ideas on others. If not for religious notions, I think that gay marriage and other gay rights would have been recognized long ago.

See this is where you lose me. Right off the bat let me make this clear - morally and intellectually I can make a strong case for gay marriage and fully support it (frankly, I think my case is a better one to get gay marriage cemented than what you typically hear), but we do live in a democracy. We can't just identify some laws and ideas and ban them from the public conscience or the law book simply because we think their source is in religion. That's taking the concept too far. It's making the same mistake the religious people are making by legislating their ideas.

To me, free speech exists to give everyone a voice - including voices that dissent or disagree with us. That would include the ability to profess one's faith and the need for the country's laws to reflect that. Religion is always going to infiltrate government at some level because the law is often built on moral ideas and moral ideas often comes from religion. Where the ACLU and others need to draw the line is where the freedom to express one's religion infringes on the rights of another - which is very different than what you said.

The two issues you cite are complicated because abortion is an incredibly messy exchange of morals even for people who are "pro-life" and the idea of "rights" in this scenario has always bothered me. Likewise, marriage is a privilege not a right. I think you'd find if you analyze more of the religious ideas you want gone from discourse you'd realize that they too get caught in difficult moral dilemmas. That isn't for the ACLU to decide and when I hear their members say similar things I am very worried.

Brock Beauchamp
11-17-2012, 08:25 AM
The strange thing about abortion is that Protestant religions either ignored it or openly supported it in the wake of Roe v Wade. This wasn't an issue until the mid 80s outside of the Catholic Church.

And I find that kind of hypocrisy maddening. The pro life movement was largely born out of the desire to create a wedge issue, not out of any real concern for life.

TheLeviathan
11-17-2012, 09:14 AM
And I find that kind of hypocrisy maddening. The pro life movement was largely born out of the desire to create a wedge issue, not out of any real concern for life.

Well said. I find this issue maddening. Both sides have little concern for bringing this complicated, difficult moral issue to a resolve. They seem for more intent on being divisive. One day I'd actually like to hear us talk about really unique ways to make abortions unnecessary - whether that be with technology, male contraception, or whatever.

gunnarthor
11-17-2012, 01:29 PM
Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, and I abhor laws that effectively impose religious ideas on others. If not for religious notions, I think that gay marriage and other gay rights would have been recognized long ago.

See this is where you lose me. Right off the bat let me make this clear - morally and intellectually I can make a strong case for gay marriage and fully support it (frankly, I think my case is a better one to get gay marriage cemented than what you typically hear), but we do live in a democracy. We can't just identify some laws and ideas and ban them from the public conscience or the law book simply because we think their source is in religion. That's taking the concept too far. It's making the same mistake the religious people are making by legislating their ideas.

To me, free speech exists to give everyone a voice - including voices that dissent or disagree with us. That would include the ability to profess one's faith and the need for the country's laws to reflect that. Religion is always going to infiltrate government at some level because the law is often built on moral ideas and moral ideas often comes from religion. Where the ACLU and others need to draw the line is where the freedom to express one's religion infringes on the rights of another - which is very different than what you said.

The two issues you cite are complicated because abortion is an incredibly messy exchange of morals even for people who are "pro-life" and the idea of "rights" in this scenario has always bothered me. Likewise, marriage is a privilege not a right. I think you'd find if you analyze more of the religious ideas you want gone from discourse you'd realize that they too get caught in difficult moral dilemmas. That isn't for the ACLU to decide and when I hear their members say similar things I am very worried.

Morals do have place in our society and laws. Most law schools actually had you take a class on it (I didn't but most did). Certain laws - such as laws against prostitution and drug use are illegal b/c of how society views those actions and not necessarily b/c those actions are - per se - evil. As opposed to murder or theft, for example. At the end of the day, you can trace pretty much any law we have to some sort of moral under pinning, either from religion or cultural practices.

That said, morals can't be the end all. A majority of Americans have, at certain times in our history, supported lesser rights for women, homosexuals and other minorities. A lot of this discrimination was based on religious and moral teachings. This is a link of southern pastor Phil Snider supporting same sex relationships by comparing the discussions now and of racial segregation made 50 years earlier.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/phil-snider-missouri-pastor-anti-gay-rights-speech-surprise_n_1997036.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

Brock Beauchamp
11-17-2012, 02:15 PM
And I find that kind of hypocrisy maddening. The pro life movement was largely born out of the desire to create a wedge issue, not out of any real concern for life.

Well said. I find this issue maddening. Both sides have little concern for bringing this complicated, difficult moral issue to a resolve. They seem for more intent on being divisive. One day I'd actually like to hear us talk about really unique ways to make abortions unnecessary - whether that be with technology, male contraception, or whatever.

The problem is that the most vehement pro-lifers are also the ones who strongly resist any type of progressive movement toward limiting abortions that doesn't involve attaching a car battery to peoples' genitals every time they think about sex.

TheLeviathan
11-17-2012, 03:44 PM
The problem is that the most vehement pro-lifers are also the ones who strongly resist any type of progressive movement toward limiting abortions that doesn't involve attaching a car battery to peoples' genitals every time they think about sex.

Totally agree. But just because your opposition is insanely stupid doesn't mean you have to jump in with them. I'm waiting for the pro-choice movement to one day realize: "Hey...you know....wouldn't it be even better for women if we found a way for them not to be forced to make that kind of difficult choice?" That, to me, is when a really important and progressive dialogue can occur.

TheLeviathan
11-17-2012, 03:46 PM
The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.

glunn
11-17-2012, 11:41 PM
The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.

Leviathan, I have great respect for your intelligence and reasoning, but I respectfully disagree. So long as the Boy Scouts are receiving tax-deductible contributions, it seems to me that they should not be allowed to discriminate against gays.

When donors to the Boy Scouts take tax deductions, it effectively increases what other taxpayers must pay. In this way, the Boy Scouts are different from a private club, such as a country club. Members of country clubs don't get charitable deductions for supporting such clubs. But donors to the Boy Scouts are subsidized by other taxpayers.

If the Boy Scouts want to stop sucking on the taxpayer teat by receiving tax deductible contributions, then I will not mind them discriminating. In the meantime, I resent indirectly subsidizing their discrimination.

PseudoSABR
11-18-2012, 12:46 AM
The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.

Leviathan, I have great respect for your intelligence and reasoning, but I respectfully disagree. So long as the Boy Scouts are receiving tax-deductible contributions, it seems to me that they should not be allowed to discriminate against gays.

When donors to the Boy Scouts take tax deductions, it effectively increases what other taxpayers must pay. In this way, the Boy Scouts are different from a private club, such as a country club. Members of country clubs don't get charitable deductions for supporting such clubs. But donors to the Boy Scouts are subsidized by other taxpayers.

If the Boy Scouts want to stop sucking on the taxpayer teat by receiving tax deductible contributions, then I will not mind them discriminating. In the meantime, I resent indirectly subsidizing their discrimination.Right. Boy scouts can do as they please, but they shouldn't get a break, if they're going to discriminate.

Honestly, charitable deduction is problematic altogether. Each charitable deduction just increases everyone elses tax burden in very undemocratic way. That donating to religious groups earns a tax deduction will never make any sense to me.

glunn
11-18-2012, 01:36 AM
The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.

Leviathan, I have great respect for your intelligence and reasoning, but I respectfully disagree. So long as the Boy Scouts are receiving tax-deductible contributions, it seems to me that they should not be allowed to discriminate against gays.

When donors to the Boy Scouts take tax deductions, it effectively increases what other taxpayers must pay. In this way, the Boy Scouts are different from a private club, such as a country club. Members of country clubs don't get charitable deductions for supporting such clubs. But donors to the Boy Scouts are subsidized by other taxpayers.

If the Boy Scouts want to stop sucking on the taxpayer teat by receiving tax deductible contributions, then I will not mind them discriminating. In the meantime, I resent indirectly subsidizing their discrimination.Right. Boy scouts can do as they please, but they shouldn't get a break, if they're going to discriminate.

Honestly, charitable deduction is problematic altogether. Each charitable deduction just increases everyone elses tax burden in very undemocratic way. That donating to religious groups earns a tax deduction will never make any sense to me.

I share your dislike of the income tax deduction for gifts to religious organizations. I am especially sickened by the television evangelists who solicit cash from people who are barely scraping by so that the evangelist can live in luxury.

HOWEVER, an often given justification for this deduction is preserving the wall between church and state. If churches were taxable entities, then theoretically the IRS could use the tax laws to audit and persecute churches that are disliked. My response to that argument is that churches should be tax-exempt entities and therefore not subject to income taxes, BUT no one should get a tax deduction for donations to religious organizations. I also believe that church-owned real estate should be subject to property taxes, just like country clubs and gas stations.

Incidentally, it is VERY easy under the tax laws to create a religion, and if you carefully follow the rules, there are major opportunities for abuse.

TheLeviathan
11-18-2012, 08:17 AM
If the Boy Scouts want to stop sucking on the taxpayer teat by receiving tax deductible contributions, then I will not mind them discriminating. In the meantime, I resent indirectly subsidizing their discrimination.

No disagreement on the taxpaying loophole, I agree with your general comments about it being problematic and better left gone.

On the topic of the ACLU, that hasn't always been their primary focus. I worry when I see the organization's choice of cases look political and this is an example that shines out on.

gunnarthor
11-18-2012, 02:55 PM
The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.

Here's where Boy Scouts became an ACLU issue. As a general rule, First Amendment association rights do not trump state anti-discrimination laws. It's actually a pretty easy decision. The Courts have invalidated discriminatory practices in many different private organizations including private schools, labor unions, non profit organizations and even law firms. One of the major cases actually came from MN - US Jaycees v. Roberts. The Jaycees tried to exclude women from membership in their private group but it ran into conflict with a MN anti discrimination law. The US Supreme Court upheld the state law and required the Jaycees to allow women into their organization. The standard for permitting a private group to discriminate in violation of state law came down to being able "to show that it is organized for specific expressive purposes and that it will not be able to advocate its desired viewpoints nearly as effectively if it cannot confine its membership to those who share the same sex, for example, or the same religion." Thus, the KKK could legally exclude black members b/c a black man in white sheets would significantly alter how their message would be received.

The Boy Scouts case went to the Supreme Court. To win, the Scouts would have to show that allowing homesexuals would change the Boy Scouts "ability to engage in its protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views. The Supreme Court actually did side with them, although I think the dissent by Justice Stevens was sounder. But that's a pretty easy case for the ACLU to take.

TheLeviathan
11-18-2012, 03:55 PM
The Boy Scouts case went to the Supreme Court. To win, the Scouts would have to show that allowing homesexuals would change the Boy Scouts "ability to engage in its protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views.” The Supreme Court actually did side with them, although I think the dissent by Justice Stevens was sounder. But that's a pretty easy case for the ACLU to take.

I don't agree that there should be a higher standard of reasoning for why a group can discriminate. When it comes to employment and business practices I absolutely understand more stringent criteria for discrimination, but private groups should have no such standard. I would vehemently disagree with any state law that says otherwise. I'm free to discriminate who I choose to associate with. I don't have to date a certain number of redheads or blondes. I don't have to have a beer with a certain quota of hispanics or overweight people. Likewise, any group should be able to make similar choices. By this sort of whacky logic 8 year old boys that don't allow girls to join their club are in violation of state law. This entire concept, along with hate crime laws and other non-employment based discrimination are major steps in the wrong direction for me. My moral objections to the way people choose to discriminate shouldn't be codified in law because that sets a bad precedent that curtails freedom. These attacks on the boy scouts are reinforcing that bad precedent and, to me, that's evidence of lefty-politics influencing the group's actions. That disturbs me.

diehardtwinsfan
11-18-2012, 08:21 PM
I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

Ron paul people annoy me. They run around foaming at the mouth about how brain washed and ignorant everyone else must be, but then when it comes time to vote, do the one thing that is basically wasting a vote and write in Ron paul. If they used half that energy to organize and rally around whoever the libertarian candidate is, they as t least have a chance at making some progress for their movement. Instead they are just as if not more guilty of the same idol worship in candidates they decry.

the idol worship you speak of comes when a group of people refuse to hold their guy accountable. Ron Paul has done everything that those who support him would want them to do.

That said, voting from Romney or Obama was wasting a vote. This people of this country were the loosers from a victory of either one.

diehardtwinsfan
11-18-2012, 08:25 PM
The electoral college essentially forces a two party system on us. It takes far too much effort to ever get a footing when the 2-3% of the votes you're receiving count for absolutely nothing. Combine that with the fact that the GOP and Democrats have a vested interest in never allowing a third party to gain traction and you're looking at a situation where third parties will present an occasional blip on the radar and nothing more (Ross Perot, George Wallace).

Still, there's nothing wrong with a statement vote, especially when we live in a political climate where the GOP seemingly runs further off the rails with every passing day.

The two party system exists due to very legal vote fraud. Both parties get maching funds from the federal government (which I'd add that Ron Paul has refused to take). Guys who are legally on the ballot and who could in theory actually win are excuded from debates (and in some cases, like Bob Barr was in Indiana, are excluded from the ballot even though they had the signatures to be on it). The primary debates are rigged in such a way to exclude certain candidates as well.

To me this is voter fraud... no different than an illegal voting.

diehardtwinsfan
11-18-2012, 08:33 PM
Paul jumped the shark when he said that evolution is a theory and dismissed it because of that "fact". The dude was a medical doctor. He knows better.

Medical doctor, scientist, or whatever, I'm not sure how he jumps the shark. Whether you like it or not, evolution is nothing more than a theory because to date no one has been able to actually observe it happening in the way it claims to happen. The same can be said of any other origins theory such as the big bang, creation, the giant spaghetti monster or whatever. All of these theories can have holes poked in them by people with critical minds... evolution is hardly exempt from this.

But here is my question. Who would you rather have? The guy that says evolution is a theory and leaves it up to the states and the schools to decide what they want to teach in this area or the guy that thinks it belongs to the federal government? For every Obama there's a guy like Rick Santorum. Don't forget that.

You and I might not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but what we should be able to get behind is that he doesn't believe it should be controlled by some bureaucrat in DC.

diehardtwinsfan
11-18-2012, 08:44 PM
Here's where Boy Scouts became an ACLU issue. As a general rule, First Amendment association rights do not trump state anti-discrimination laws. It's actually a pretty easy decision.

You know, last I checked, the consitution was the supreme law of the land. No state law should trump it. While I'm well aware that states and courts have no problems tossing aside the constitution as needed, I'm more bothered that you seem to think it's OK.



The Courts have invalidated discriminatory practices in many different private organizations including private schools, labor unions, non profit organizations and even law firms. One of the major cases actually came from MN - US Jaycees v. Roberts. The Jaycees tried to exclude women from membership in their private group but it ran into conflict with a MN anti discrimination law. The US Supreme Court upheld the state law and required the Jaycees to allow women into their organization. The standard for permitting a private group to discriminate in violation of state law came down to being able "to show that it is organized for specific expressive purposes and that it will not be able to advocate its desired viewpoints nearly as effectively if it cannot confine its membership to those who share the same sex, for example, or the same religion." Thus, the KKK could legally exclude black members b/c a black man in white sheets would significantly alter how their message would be received.

I'm no fan of the KKK, but like everyone else in this country, they have a right to their opinions and a right to organize around them so long as they are not imposing on the liberties of others. All groups are by nature exclusive. Using this logic, you can justify forced integration of women into the NFL, or fraternites, forced integration of men into sororities. Forced integration into professional groups, and everything in between. This idea that everyone should be able to be a member of whatever they choose is foolish, but the day this country stops allowing like minded individuals to organize and share ideas is a sad day for this country.




The Boy Scouts case went to the Supreme Court. To win, the Scouts would have to show that allowing homesexuals would change the Boy Scouts "ability to engage in its protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views. The Supreme Court actually did side with them, although I think the dissent by Justice Stevens was sounder. But that's a pretty easy case for the ACLU to take.

I would think that for the ACLU to win, they'd challenge it on the tax deduction ground, which like others, I'm more likely to get behind. But that is dangerous ground too... The better solution would be to significantly shrink the size of the federal government and its wars without end so that we no longer need an income tax. Then that problem solves itself.

glunn
11-19-2012, 12:34 AM
Paul jumped the shark when he said that evolution is a theory and dismissed it because of that "fact". The dude was a medical doctor. He knows better.

Medical doctor, scientist, or whatever, I'm not sure how he jumps the shark. Whether you like it or not, evolution is nothing more than a theory because to date no one has been able to actually observe it happening in the way it claims to happen. The same can be said of any other origins theory such as the big bang, creation, the giant spaghetti monster or whatever. All of these theories can have holes poked in them by people with critical minds... evolution is hardly exempt from this.

But here is my question. Who would you rather have? The guy that says evolution is a theory and leaves it up to the states and the schools to decide what they want to teach in this area or the guy that thinks it belongs to the federal government? For every Obama there's a guy like Rick Santorum. Don't forget that.

You and I might not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but what we should be able to get behind is that he doesn't believe it should be controlled by some bureaucrat in DC.

I don't believe that Obama has taken the position that the federal government should dictate what is taught in schools. I also think that local school boards do their students a disservice when they don't allow science teachers to discuss evolution. Yes, evolution is a theory, but there is a lot of evidence supporting such theory, including fossils that have been dated.

glunn
11-19-2012, 12:54 AM
The Boy Scouts case went to the Supreme Court. To win, the Scouts would have to show that allowing homesexuals would change the Boy Scouts "ability to engage in its protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views.” The Supreme Court actually did side with them, although I think the dissent by Justice Stevens was sounder. But that's a pretty easy case for the ACLU to take.

I don't agree that there should be a higher standard of reasoning for why a group can discriminate. When it comes to employment and business practices I absolutely understand more stringent criteria for discrimination, but private groups should have no such standard. I would vehemently disagree with any state law that says otherwise. I'm free to discriminate who I choose to associate with. I don't have to date a certain number of redheads or blondes. I don't have to have a beer with a certain quota of hispanics or overweight people. Likewise, any group should be able to make similar choices. By this sort of whacky logic 8 year old boys that don't allow girls to join their club are in violation of state law. This entire concept, along with hate crime laws and other non-employment based discrimination are major steps in the wrong direction for me. My moral objections to the way people choose to discriminate shouldn't be codified in law because that sets a bad precedent that curtails freedom. These attacks on the boy scouts are reinforcing that bad precedent and, to me, that's evidence of lefty-politics influencing the group's actions. That disturbs me.

You say above that you don't disagree about the tax loophole, so I would hope that you might support the ACLU on that basis.

I think that there is a larger point here. We need a constitution to protect minority groups, especially those that are unpopular or historically oppressed. Without the Supreme Court, people of color would still be riding on the back of the bus and living in "separate but equal" schools. The majority does not need such protection.

My sense is that the "lefties" and the ACLU should be praised for fighting for such minority groups. The Democratic Party paid a high price for supporting gays during the 2000's, because the anti-gay marriage initiatives in some states brought out a lot of conservative voters that won some elections for the Republicans. And as others have noted, the ACLU has been reviled for standing up for its principals, even when this meant helping Nazis' rights to march through Skokie.

I wish that my conservative friends would be more active in supporting the rights of minorities and the rules contained in the Constitution to protect such rights, even of they don't like the people who they are protecting or their lifestyles and beliefs.

Finally, with respect to redheads, I would think that you are smart enough to want to date as many of them as possible.

Brock Beauchamp
11-19-2012, 06:55 AM
There seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what makes scientific ideas a law versus theory. Spoiler alert: it has nothing to do with observable evidence. Evolution is not a theory because it cannot be verified, it is a theory because it explains how something happens.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

In regards to Paul's comments, I tend to not vote for people who pander to the public by stating inaccuracies that directly contradict common sense and their personal field of study. I don't care how much I agree with the rest if their policy; if I can't trust then to get the easy stuff right, I'm not going to trust them with the hard stuff.

gunnarthor
11-19-2012, 10:44 AM
Here's where Boy Scouts became an ACLU issue. As a general rule, First Amendment association rights do not trump state anti-discrimination laws. It's actually a pretty easy decision.

You know, last I checked, the consitution was the supreme law of the land. No state law should trump it. While I'm well aware that states and courts have no problems tossing aside the constitution as needed, I'm more bothered that you seem to think it's OK.



The Courts have invalidated discriminatory practices in many different private organizations including private schools, labor unions, non profit organizations and even law firms. One of the major cases actually came from MN - US Jaycees v. Roberts. The Jaycees tried to exclude women from membership in their private group but it ran into conflict with a MN anti discrimination law. The US Supreme Court upheld the state law and required the Jaycees to allow women into their organization. The standard for permitting a private group to discriminate in violation of state law came down to being able "to show that it is organized for specific expressive purposes and that it will not be able to advocate its desired viewpoints nearly as effectively if it cannot confine its membership to those who share the same sex, for example, or the same religion." Thus, the KKK could legally exclude black members b/c a black man in white sheets would significantly alter how their message would be received.

I'm no fan of the KKK, but like everyone else in this country, they have a right to their opinions and a right to organize around them so long as they are not imposing on the liberties of others. All groups are by nature exclusive. Using this logic, you can justify forced integration of women into the NFL, or fraternites, forced integration of men into sororities. Forced integration into professional groups, and everything in between. This idea that everyone should be able to be a member of whatever they choose is foolish, but the day this country stops allowing like minded individuals to organize and share ideas is a sad day for this country.




The Boy Scouts case went to the Supreme Court. To win, the Scouts would have to show that allowing homesexuals would change the Boy Scouts "ability to engage in its protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views.” The Supreme Court actually did side with them, although I think the dissent by Justice Stevens was sounder. But that's a pretty easy case for the ACLU to take.

I would think that for the ACLU to win, they'd challenge it on the tax deduction ground, which like others, I'm more likely to get behind. But that is dangerous ground too... The better solution would be to significantly shrink the size of the federal government and its wars without end so that we no longer need an income tax. Then that problem solves itself.

Lot of stuff here but in general, anti discrimination laws are also based on the Constitution (either state or federal). Many times, Constitutional principals conflict with each other so every right in the Constitution has limits. You love freedom of speech but you can't depend on it to protect you from child pornography charges, falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded room, slander someone or make false/misleading advertising claims (smoking makes your hair grow!). Association rights, which is what we are talking about originally, have limits too and they are also set by the type of association it is. It gets messy and you have to determine if there is an expressive association, which isn't the same as a free speech right. But one end of those limits are where discrimination is and, generally, anti-discrimination statutes will trump association rights unless the group meets a set burden of proof.

You're confusing anti-discrimination with forced inclusion, which aren't the same thing. Groups can exclude and still do. What they generally can't do is exclude based on an immutable characteristic, unless that characteristic would significantly change the message the group intends to send. So, Jenny isn't playing in the NFL b/c she's a woman, she's not playing in the NFL b/c she's not good enough. College frats and sororities would probably not be able to exclude black members, for instance, but would probably be able to exclude opposite sex members since frats/sororities have a single sex message. Heck, Augusta just now let in its first female members. But to the original topic, the Boy Scouts were able to discriminate against a gay scout master. I don't understand why the ACLU should be targeting that type of case (I'm also not sure if the ACLU actually took that case).

TheLeviathan
11-19-2012, 11:33 AM
Gunn - you fell into the same faulty logic I am critical of. Civil rights was a violation of the Constitution but that isn't what is hapening with the boy scouts. In that case a private club is being formed and they have a right to freely associate. I have no problem tightening our belts about religious tax deductions and contributions but that isn't the issue. If I form a poker night club should I have to allow anyone or am I legally bound to not discriminate? "Guys night" everywhere is ruined. Ditto "girls night". The boy scouts have a constitutional right to freely associate and it is leftwing politics through the ACLU that is squeezing that unjustly. That is a major rollback in liberty.

Fighting for minority rights is absolutely commendable and right but that doesn't excuse everything and it certainly doesn't excuse attacking a private club's choice of membership. Fight that publically with your right to free speech not in the courts or the legislature.

gunnarthor
11-19-2012, 02:21 PM
Gunn - you fell into the same faulty logic I am critical of. Civil rights was a violation of the Constitution but that isn't what is hapening with the boy scouts. In that case a private club is being formed and they have a right to freely associate. I have no problem tightening our belts about religious tax deductions and contributions but that isn't the issue. If I form a poker night club should I have to allow anyone or am I legally bound to not discriminate? "Guys night" everywhere is ruined. Ditto "girls night". The boy scouts have a constitutional right to freely associate and it is leftwing politics through the ACLU that is squeezing that unjustly. That is a major rollback in liberty.

Fighting for minority rights is absolutely commendable and right but that doesn't excuse everything and it certainly doesn't excuse attacking a private club's choice of membership. Fight that publically with your right to free speech not in the courts or the legislature.

Perhaps I am not up to speed on the Boy Scout stuff. The only Boy Scout association thing that I am aware of was the old USSC case where the Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts right to exclude a gay scout master despite New Jersey's anti-discrimination law. Since that case, there has been a lot of pressure on the BSA to change their policy but I don't know of any current ACLU/Boy Scout activities.

To your central point though there is nothing that would force you to open your home on poker night to people you don't want. Anti-discrimination laws require some type of public accommodations component. For example, the Boy Scouts would use high school property for their events. Your poker night would not.

diehardtwinsfan
11-19-2012, 07:46 PM
I don't believe that Obama has taken the position that the federal government should dictate what is taught in schools. I also think that local school boards do their students a disservice when they don't allow science teachers to discuss evolution. Yes, evolution is a theory, but there is a lot of evidence supporting such theory, including fossils that have been dated.

Then explain why the Department of Education exists? No child left behind? I realize these are not all Obama's fault, and I'm not stating this to blame him, but the federal government has far too much influence on education.

diehardtwinsfan
11-19-2012, 07:52 PM
In regards to Paul's comments, I tend to not vote for people who pander to the public by stating inaccuracies that directly contradict common sense and their personal field of study. I don't care how much I agree with the rest if their policy; if I can't trust then to get the easy stuff right, I'm not going to trust them with the hard stuff.

I'm fairly certain that the field of gynecology contributes nothing to the evolution vs. creation debate, and if being skeptical of evolution defies common sense, then I suspect you haven't really studied the theory much. It isn't hard to poke holes in any of these theories (creation or evolution), and you don't need to visition the Sagan Institute or the ICR to do so.

TheLeviathan
11-19-2012, 08:12 PM
Perhaps I am not up to speed on the Boy Scout stuff. The only Boy Scout association thing that I am aware of was the old USSC case where the Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts right to exclude a gay scout master despite New Jersey's anti-discrimination law. Since that case, there has been a lot of pressure on the BSA to change their policy but I don't know of any current ACLU/Boy Scout activities.

To your central point though there is nothing that would force you to open your home on poker night to people you don't want. Anti-discrimination laws require some type of public accommodations component. For example, the Boy Scouts would use high school property for their events. Your poker night would not.

I'm not sure they are attacking on that particular subject either, but many of the subsequent cases strike me as petty and vindictive over that initial defeat. Your argument still walks a line far too fine for me. If I hold my "guys only" ultimate frisbee in a public park...can I be forced to include women? I don't see the reason to squeeze that right at all when it comes to private matters. When it comes to things like employment, access to healthcare, education, etc - sure. When it comes to privately formed groups - you're crossing a line into fascism in the name of protecting the minority. I won't stand for that personally. I hold our constitutional freedoms up as a higher good than my personal moral opinions. As should the ACLU - when they do I highly respect them. But the kind of reasoning you are espousing is the same I see from them at times and that is what I strongly reject.

Brock Beauchamp
11-19-2012, 08:42 PM
In regards to Paul's comments, I tend to not vote for people who pander to the public by stating inaccuracies that directly contradict common sense and their personal field of study. I don't care how much I agree with the rest if their policy; if I can't trust then to get the easy stuff right, I'm not going to trust them with the hard stuff.

I'm fairly certain that the field of gynecology contributes nothing to the evolution vs. creation debate, and if being skeptical of evolution defies common sense, then I suspect you haven't really studied the theory much. It isn't hard to poke holes in any of these theories (creation or evolution), and you don't need to visition the Sagan Institute or the ICR to do so.

Every biological science is so intertwined with evolution at this point that you can't really separate the "theory" without all of biology falling to pieces.

And yeah, I've studied evolution a bit. I've taken anthropology courses and do a fair amount of reading on the subject to keep somewhat current.

And you should stop referring to it as a theory, particularly in the same sentence where you call creationism a "theory". One is a hypothesis (and a bad one at that) while the other is a fully-formed scientific theory. And yeah, evolution is pretty much common sense at this point. The mountains of evidence that supports it and the amount of science based on it is undeniable. It exists. It's real.

PseudoSABR
11-19-2012, 11:50 PM
In regards to Paul's comments, I tend to not vote for people who pander to the public by stating inaccuracies that directly contradict common sense and their personal field of study. I don't care how much I agree with the rest if their policy; if I can't trust then to get the easy stuff right, I'm not going to trust them with the hard stuff.

I'm fairly certain that the field of gynecology contributes nothing to the evolution vs. creation debate, and if being skeptical of evolution defies common sense, then I suspect you haven't really studied the theory much. It isn't hard to poke holes in any of these theories (creation or evolution), and you don't need to visition the Sagan Institute or the ICR to do so.While the exact mechanisms of evolution are under debate, the notion that human life arose from biological precursors is not. That evolution is debunked because it is a 'theory' is about as sound as suggesting that reality might be some illusion because well, maybe it could be. Seriously.

Brock Beauchamp
11-20-2012, 06:57 AM
While the exact mechanisms of evolution are under debate, the notion that human life arose from biological precursors is not. That evolution is debunked because it is a 'theory' is about as sound as suggesting that reality might be some illusion because well, maybe it could be. Seriously.

Exactly. We still argue a lot about the how's of evolution but the fact that it exists and happens is pretty much settled.

Personally, I think every person that doesn't believe in evolution because it's a "theory" (which shows how little they understand about the topic because colloquial theory and scientific theory are very different things) should lose their science card permanently. Hand over your cell phone, car, computer, medicine, etc. Don't like evolution? Good for you. Now science wants its **** back.

glunn
11-21-2012, 12:32 AM
Personally, I think every person that doesn't believe in evolution because it's a "theory" (which shows how little they understand about the topic because colloquial theory and scientific theory are very different things) should lose their science card permanently. Hand over your cell phone, car, computer, medicine, etc. Don't like evolution? Good for you. Now science wants its **** back.

Good one, Brock. It would also be nice if the doubters renounced their televisions and there was no one left to watch Fox News.

TheLeviathan
11-21-2012, 08:18 AM
Exactly. We still argue a lot about the how's of evolution but the fact that it exists and happens is pretty much settled.

Personally I've always thought the quirky parts of evolution's mechanisms were an intriguing case for intelligent design.

Brock Beauchamp
11-21-2012, 01:13 PM
Exactly. We still argue a lot about the how's of evolution but the fact that it exists and happens is pretty much settled.

Personally I've always thought the quirky parts of evolution's mechanisms were an intriguing case for intelligent design.

I'm not against the idea of intelligent design, actually. You just have to move the scale back billions of years for it to be feasible... and it has to include an evolutionary component or it's just nonsense. Even Einstein left the door open for belief in an omnipotent creator to exist. You go back far enough into the murkiness of universe creation and nothing's off the table, really.

Brock Beauchamp
11-21-2012, 01:15 PM
Personally, I think every person that doesn't believe in evolution because it's a "theory" (which shows how little they understand about the topic because colloquial theory and scientific theory are very different things) should lose their science card permanently. Hand over your cell phone, car, computer, medicine, etc. Don't like evolution? Good for you. Now science wants its **** back.

Good one, Brock. It would also be nice if the doubters renounced their televisions and there was no one left to watch Fox News.

If you do that, conservatives will just start drowning witches again. Nobody wants that.

Especially the witches.

TheLeviathan
11-21-2012, 01:17 PM
I'm not against the idea of intelligent design, actually. You just have to move the scale back billions of years for it to be feasible... and it has to include an evolutionary component or it's just nonsense. Even Einstein left the door open for belief in an omnipotent creator to exist. You go back far enough into the murkiness of universe creation and nothing's off the table, really.

Yeah I'm not making an argument for creationism, but it's some of the quirky, oddly coincidental features of some animals that form via evolution that seems statistically improbable. If I wanted to make an argument for intelligent design (I'm not) I have always thought the evolutionary process was a strong place to start.

glunn
11-21-2012, 02:01 PM
Personally, I think every person that doesn't believe in evolution because it's a "theory" (which shows how little they understand about the topic because colloquial theory and scientific theory are very different things) should lose their science card permanently. Hand over your cell phone, car, computer, medicine, etc. Don't like evolution? Good for you. Now science wants its **** back.

Good one, Brock. It would also be nice if the doubters renounced their televisions and there was no one left to watch Fox News.

If you do that, conservatives will just start drowning witches again. Nobody wants that.

Especially the witches.

I love being your straight man. You are on fire my friend.

diehardtwinsfan
11-23-2012, 03:34 PM
Exactly. We still argue a lot about the how's of evolution but the fact that it exists and happens is pretty much settled.

Personally I've always thought the quirky parts of evolution's mechanisms were an intriguing case for intelligent design.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It isn't hard to poke holes in the theory. The amount of luck that would go into the simplist life form arising from non-life makes winning the powerball every year for the next decade look easy.

TheLeviathan
11-23-2012, 03:43 PM
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It isn't hard to poke holes in the theory. The amount of luck that would go into the simplist life form arising from non-life makes winning the powerball every year for the next decade look easy.

That's not at all what you're saying.

PseudoSABR
11-23-2012, 07:41 PM
Exactly. We still argue a lot about the how's of evolution but the fact that it exists and happens is pretty much settled.

Personally I've always thought the quirky parts of evolution's mechanisms were an intriguing case for intelligent design.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It isn't hard to poke holes in the theory. The amount of luck that would go into the simplist life form arising from non-life makes winning the powerball every year for the next decade look easy.You misunderstand evolution. While it's lucky that a gene mutates into something useful, it's not luck that makes that gene get passed on (hence the similarity in cellular biology of all life). This is also why we see similar genetic features in disparate populations--because the trial-error of genomes sometimes reach the same useful mutations, and it's the useful ones that survive millions of years out.

What's ironic, diehard, is that your financial philosophy seems akin to social darwinism--it's just the biological process that bothers you, not the social and economic one?

Brock Beauchamp
11-24-2012, 09:28 AM
Also, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only the continuation of said life.

diehardtwinsfan
12-02-2012, 02:32 PM
You misunderstand evolution. While it's lucky that a gene mutates into something useful, it's not luck that makes that gene get passed on (hence the similarity in cellular biology of all life). This is also why we see similar genetic features in disparate populations--because the trial-error of genomes sometimes reach the same useful mutations, and it's the useful ones that survive millions of years out.

What's ironic, diehard, is that your financial philosophy seems akin to social darwinism--it's just the biological process that bothers you, not the social and economic one?

There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.

Brock Beauchamp
12-02-2012, 06:01 PM
There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.

Evolution, like Darwinism, does not attempt to explain how life arises from non-life. That's like blaming tectonic geology for not properly explaining the red shift of the universe. It's illogical.

glunn
12-07-2012, 01:08 AM
There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.

Evolution, like Darwinism, does not attempt to explain how life arises from non-life. That's like blaming tectonic geology for not properly explaining the red shift of the universe. It's illogical.

You make a good point, Brock. But I can't tell whether you believe that it is logical to accept religious explanations instead of waiting for science to come up with explanations that are supported by science. Is that your point?

In response to diehardtwinsfan, are you suggesting that scientists cannot explain how mutations happen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation)?

Brock Beauchamp
12-07-2012, 08:45 AM
You make a good point, Brock. But I can't tell whether you believe that it is logical to accept religious explanations instead of waiting for science to come up with explanations that are supported by science. Is that your point?

Oh, I'm not arrogant enough to make that call. I don't believe in a personal god but I certainly won't look down on those who choose to accept religion as an answer for the universe's origins. There are just too many question marks surrounding the entire situation to definitively call it one way or the other, in my opinion.

But evolution? Nah, that one is pretty much in the bag. We have mountains of evidence to support it and to a rational mind, there's really no questioning that evolution exists. The nitty-gritty details are certainly up for debate but the existence of evolution itself has largely been settled by the scientific community.

drjim
12-08-2012, 09:23 AM
I have a question on Evolution and I hope I can write it well enough that it makes sense. I have studied it a little and have no doubt that it is a process that is clearly happening in our world today. Much more obvious on the micro level, but the diversity of fauna in various locales would seem to speak to me on a macro level as well.

My question is how accurate and useful is the theory of evolution in extrapolating back to the origin of specific species? That is, we observe several species now, we have observed several fossils that would suggest a progression, but how confidently can we make that link scientifically? In short, can evolution truly back up the claim that life started in a primordial soup and evolved into humans? I know that is premise scientists would use, but can that actually be backed up with fact?

I understand how, depending on geography and available resources, that life will evolve in different situations and that over millions of generations there will be lots of diversity within fauna, but it still seems like a far jump to then move that from a few inorganic compounds that life sprung up.

My discomfort with evolution is not about what processes it explains going forward (those appear obvious) but the confidence it has with going backwards and the conclusions that are reached.

Brock Beauchamp
12-08-2012, 09:54 AM
I have a question on Evolution and I hope I can write it well enough that it makes sense. I have studied it a little and have no doubt that it is a process that is clearly happening in our world today. Much more obvious on the micro level, but the diversity of fauna in various locales would seem to speak to me on a macro level as well.

My question is how accurate and useful is the theory of evolution in extrapolating back to the origin of specific species? That is, we observe several species now, we have observed several fossils that would suggest a progression, but how confidently can we make that link scientifically? In short, can evolution truly back up the claim that life started in a primordial soup and evolved into humans? I know that is premise scientists would use, but can that actually be backed up with fact?

I understand how, depending on geography and available resources, that life will evolve in different situations and that over millions of generations there will be lots of diversity within fauna, but it still seems like a far jump to then move that from a few inorganic compounds that life sprung up.

My discomfort with evolution is not about what processes it explains going forward (those appear obvious) but the confidence it has with going backwards and the conclusions that are reached.

Honestly, there isn't a lot of data. The problem with hard data and evolution is two-fold:

1. Evolution happens quickly in the grand scheme of things. Large periods of inactivity bookending short periods of rapid change.
2. The fossil record is woefully incomplete and will always be that way.

But that doesn't mean that evolution isn't correct. The data we do have all points at the evidence of macro evolution, we just can't draw a linear line through most species because we simply don't have a physical record to track each genetic change along a billion year line. And we never will, if only because of the rarity of natural fossil preservation the enormous amount of time and species we're talking about here.

PseudoSABR
12-08-2012, 02:36 PM
You misunderstand evolution. While it's lucky that a gene mutates into something useful, it's not luck that makes that gene get passed on (hence the similarity in cellular biology of all life). This is also why we see similar genetic features in disparate populations--because the trial-error of genomes sometimes reach the same useful mutations, and it's the useful ones that survive millions of years out.

What's ironic, diehard, is that your financial philosophy seems akin to social darwinism--it's just the biological process that bothers you, not the social and economic one?

There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.As you point out, to pass on mutations so that they become part of a species, those mutations must happen in gamete cells. The sex cells are a great place for DNA to mess up (or do unintended good). Mutated gamete cells that harm a genome never develop into a zygote (a fertilized cell), or that zygote never develops into an adult, etc.. Meaningful mutations need to happen pre-fertilization, fertilization or during the zygote's differentiation. When the mutations happen to be good, the beast lives!

Evolution is NOT breeding. There is no active invisible hand guiding cells to know what mutations are advantageous.

New genetic material is added in the form of viruses for one (cool ****), but it's also added through the process of mutation. A change of one nucleotide will result in a whole different protein.

In my opinion, a lot of your problems is a misunderstanding of cellular biology. How DNA gets copied, how RNA is transcribed and than made into amino acids, how sex cells differ from other cells.

PseudoSABR
12-08-2012, 03:04 PM
I have a question on Evolution and I hope I can write it well enough that it makes sense. I have studied it a little and have no doubt that it is a process that is clearly happening in our world today. Much more obvious on the micro level, but the diversity of fauna in various locales would seem to speak to me on a macro level as well.

My question is how accurate and useful is the theory of evolution in extrapolating back to the origin of specific species? That is, we observe several species now, we have observed several fossils that would suggest a progression, but how confidently can we make that link scientifically? In short, can evolution truly back up the claim that life started in a primordial soup and evolved into humans? I know that is premise scientists would use, but can that actually be backed up with fact?

I understand how, depending on geography and available resources, that life will evolve in different situations and that over millions of generations there will be lots of diversity within fauna, but it still seems like a far jump to then move that from a few inorganic compounds that life sprung up.

My discomfort with evolution is not about what processes it explains going forward (those appear obvious) but the confidence it has with going backwards and the conclusions that are reached.I had a long response to this, but I lost it somehow ugh.

The short of it:
1) Life really isn't that diverse. We share basic cellular biology with all life on Earth, that makes up a huge part of our genome. That cell process is totally complex and as a result we share a majority of the same genome. I had a good Lego metaphor here, but I'm not going to recreate it. Oh well.
2) I'm not sure that evolution attempts to explain how amino acids surfaced from primordial soup, or how primordial soup arose at all. It hardly matters whether we use evolution, gods snapping fingers, or a dissolving alien as an explanation...
3) How accurate can history be about anything that predates records? Your problem seems more with humans capacity to know the past, than with evolution. In fact your questions are more philosophical than scientific imo.
4) The lack of an equally evidential alternative.

adjacent
12-08-2012, 03:31 PM
Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.
That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

glunn
12-08-2012, 03:50 PM
Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.
That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

You obviously paid attention in biology class. Good post!

stringer bell
12-08-2012, 04:29 PM
This is the most interesting thread I've seen here in a long time. How did I miss it? I guess I wasn't paying much attention to this site around the election.

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-08-2012, 05:00 PM
I personally like how's it's evolved into science chat. (Okay, yes, bad pun intended.)

glunn
12-08-2012, 05:04 PM
I personally like how's it's evolved into science chat. (Okay, yes, bad pun intended.)

Me too! Good pun.

adjacent
12-09-2012, 09:51 AM
Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.
That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

You obviously paid attention in biology class. Good post!
Thanks, I make a living out of it.

biggentleben
12-09-2012, 11:15 AM
I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

Brock Beauchamp
12-09-2012, 11:27 AM
I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

glunn
12-09-2012, 02:40 PM
I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

adjacent
12-09-2012, 03:35 PM
I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.
The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

Brock Beauchamp
12-09-2012, 06:46 PM
How did we get from baseball to here?

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

TheLeviathan
12-09-2012, 09:46 PM
I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

PseudoSABR
12-09-2012, 09:54 PM
I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.I think we need to look into length redistribution.

glunn
12-09-2012, 10:44 PM
I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.I think we need to look into length redistribution.

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

TheLeviathan
12-09-2012, 10:56 PM
BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

Forced migration. Thank goodness for liberal immigration policy here at TD.

PseudoSABR
12-09-2012, 11:18 PM
I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.I think we need to look into length redistribution.

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.
We had a congeniality problem (I know hard to figure).

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-09-2012, 11:28 PM
We had a congeniality problem (I know hard to figure).

Speak for yourself ... some of us can get along with any animal. :P

biggentleben
12-10-2012, 10:15 AM
I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.
The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

glunn
12-11-2012, 01:01 AM
I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.
The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

The extremists on both sides are a pain in the ass.

There are obvious compromises that cannot be reached, and the costs of not being able to compromise seem almost incalculable. This fiscal cliff impasse has me very pissed off, because I think that we need to raise taxes on people who can afford it AND raise the Social Security retirement age. Also, the amount of waste remains staggering, and one would hope that both sides would be willing to cut waste. We don't need 10 aircraft carriers and we don't need 20+ programs that address the same issue. I am praying that Obama and Boehner can come to an adult solution, because we may see a worldwide economic depression if they cannot.

PseudoSABR
12-11-2012, 01:52 AM
I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.
The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

biggentleben
12-11-2012, 08:30 AM
How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

Just based on numbers, those claiming Christian denominations whose creeds declare the Bible as the "inspired Word of God" outnumbers those whose creeds declare the Bible as "unaltered (or some other form of direct/unchanged/etc.) Word of God" by nearly 3-1 in this country, and it's drastically more if you go worldwide. However, just like with guns, the loud talkers can persuade those who don't believe the Bible as literal to assume people are promoting evolution in ways that they simply are not doing. There are many in my area of South Dakota (essentially pheasant hunting mecca) who are easily persuaded that liberals are out to end hunting because some extreme talker said they are, and the possibility of such would so drastically impact their income that it is a huge issue.

There are many out there who believe Christ was born December 25th as well and that he stayed out in a barn outside of town after being rejected for a room at a Best Western-esque hotel. None of that is true, but because their translation of the Bible says it, they don't believe anything else is even possible.

glunn
12-11-2012, 11:57 PM
How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

Just based on numbers, those claiming Christian denominations whose creeds declare the Bible as the "inspired Word of God" outnumbers those whose creeds declare the Bible as "unaltered (or some other form of direct/unchanged/etc.) Word of God" by nearly 3-1 in this country, and it's drastically more if you go worldwide. However, just like with guns, the loud talkers can persuade those who don't believe the Bible as literal to assume people are promoting evolution in ways that they simply are not doing. There are many in my area of South Dakota (essentially pheasant hunting mecca) who are easily persuaded that liberals are out to end hunting because some extreme talker said they are, and the possibility of such would so drastically impact their income that it is a huge issue.

There are many out there who believe Christ was born December 25th as well and that he stayed out in a barn outside of town after being rejected for a room at a Best Western-esque hotel. None of that is true, but because their translation of the Bible says it, they don't believe anything else is even possible.

It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-12-2012, 07:58 AM
How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

Just based on numbers, those claiming Christian denominations whose creeds declare the Bible as the "inspired Word of God" outnumbers those whose creeds declare the Bible as "unaltered (or some other form of direct/unchanged/etc.) Word of God" by nearly 3-1 in this country, and it's drastically more if you go worldwide. However, just like with guns, the loud talkers can persuade those who don't believe the Bible as literal to assume people are promoting evolution in ways that they simply are not doing. There are many in my area of South Dakota (essentially pheasant hunting mecca) who are easily persuaded that liberals are out to end hunting because some extreme talker said they are, and the possibility of such would so drastically impact their income that it is a huge issue.

There are many out there who believe Christ was born December 25th as well and that he stayed out in a barn outside of town after being rejected for a room at a Best Western-esque hotel. None of that is true, but because their translation of the Bible says it, they don't believe anything else is even possible.

It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

Some would call that faith. I wouldn't, but some would.

biggentleben
12-12-2012, 11:09 AM
It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

Some would call that faith. I wouldn't, but some would.

I believe in an educated faith. I find researching my faith to be one of the most important parts of enhancing the strength of my faith. It makes me sad to know how many people would try to rip me a new one for stating that Jesus was born in a house, even though that is factually correct.

diehardtwinsfan
12-18-2012, 09:27 PM
Honestly, there isn't a lot of data. The problem with hard data and evolution is two-fold:

1. Evolution happens quickly in the grand scheme of things. Large periods of inactivity bookending short periods of rapid change.
2. The fossil record is woefully incomplete and will always be that way.

But that doesn't mean that evolution isn't correct. The data we do have all points at the evidence of macro evolution, we just can't draw a linear line through most species because we simply don't have a physical record to track each genetic change along a billion year line. And we never will, if only because of the rarity of natural fossil preservation the enormous amount of time and species we're talking about here.

Yet at the same point you say "it's in the bag" so to speak? I never quite get reasoning such as this because you in turn bash creationists for taking things on faith. You just admited to two really big problems with the theory of evolution, yet you basically say people are just pandering for not taking it as fact... Seems kind of odd Brock.

diehardtwinsfan
12-18-2012, 09:40 PM
As you point out, to pass on mutations so that they become part of a species, those mutations must happen in gamete cells. The sex cells are a great place for DNA to mess up (or do unintended good). Mutated gamete cells that harm a genome never develop into a zygote (a fertilized cell), or that zygote never develops into an adult, etc.. Meaningful mutations need to happen pre-fertilization, fertilization or during the zygote's differentiation. When the mutations happen to be good, the beast lives!

Evolution is NOT breeding. There is no active invisible hand guiding cells to know what mutations are advantageous.

New genetic material is added in the form of viruses for one (cool ****), but it's also added through the process of mutation. A change of one nucleotide will result in a whole different protein.

In my opinion, a lot of your problems is a misunderstanding of cellular biology. How DNA gets copied, how RNA is transcribed and than made into amino acids, how sex cells differ from other cells.

Pseudo, I would argue this is your exact problem. I understand how a new protein can be created by simply changing an A to G or something along those lines. That doesn't create additional genetic material, it simply alters exiting genetic material. You mentioned viruses as a way of adding material, and while this is true in that it injects its own DNA into your DNA, it doesn't do it uniformly across all cells (i.e. the reproductive cells aren't going to get genetic data from the flu virus), and it most certainly is not beneficial to you.

In your last statement, you alude to another major problem. DNA is copied using a chemical manufacturing process and a number of proteins (DNA polymerase being the big one,but not the only one). It has built in error checking (kind of odd that this would evolve), and is a process that requires a number of other proteins. RNA production is very similar (except with different enzymes) and is used to build the very proteins that these cells depend on. The problem lies in the fact that in order for life to work, your genetic matieral has to have a copy of these exact same proteins, while at the same time having working copies that can be made without the luxury of having a cellular factory to make them. These aren't simple proteins that can just form. They have to be manufactured in a controlled process, much like product is made in today's manufacturing environments.

It's really easy to make broad generalizing claims that time+chance=life, but when you look at the details, that is where the theory has problems. It has it's own "chicken or the egg" problem, and it does not adequately explain where all the extra genetic material comes from.

diehardtwinsfan
12-18-2012, 09:43 PM
It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

It's always funny when I see people mentioning this, because more often than not, they don't know either.

glunn
12-19-2012, 01:54 AM
It's always funny when I see people mentioning this, because more often than not, they don't know either.

I freely admit that I don't know who wrote the Old Testament, who wrote it and when. There are lots of theories, but after researching this rather extensively I have found nothing close to definitive in terms of who the authors were and when and how and why they wrote it. What bothers me is that people are so willing to believe folk tales written by unknown ancient authors that are inherently implausible and often inconsistent. And I give some credence to the theory that a king or two may have been behind the first five books, as part of strategy to control his subjects. This is merely a theory, but if you read the such books, as I have done several times over the years, it makes a lot of sense

The fact that no one really knows much about the authors and the circumstances suggests to me that "believers" should at least have some healthy skepticism. The Old Testament has some aspects that are positive and admirable and some that are not, and the fundamentalists have historically exploited the aspects that are negative, including slavery, condemnation of homosexuality and subjugation of women. Without knowing who wrote all this and why, it seems to me that they should be more open to the possibility that the Old Testament is the writings of some ancient people who may have been a lot like Joseph Smith and his elusive golden tablets, i.e charlatans.

diehardtwinsfan
12-19-2012, 09:21 PM
I freely admit that I don't know who wrote the Old Testament, who wrote it and when. There are lots of theories, but after researching this rather extensively I have found nothing close to definitive in terms of who the authors were and when and how and why they wrote it. What bothers me is that people are so willing to believe folk tales written by unknown ancient authors that are inherently implausible and often inconsistent. And I give some credence to the theory that a king or two may have been behind the first five books, as part of strategy to control his subjects. This is merely a theory, but if you read the such books, as I have done several times over the years, it makes a lot of sense

The fact that no one really knows much about the authors and the circumstances suggests to me that "believers" should at least have some healthy skepticism. The Old Testament has some aspects that are positive and admirable and some that are not, and the fundamentalists have historically exploited the aspects that are negative, including slavery, condemnation of homosexuality and subjugation of women. Without knowing who wrote all this and why, it seems to me that they should be more open to the possibility that the Old Testament is the writings of some ancient people who may have been a lot like Joseph Smith and his elusive golden tablets, i.e charlatans.

At least you admit that these are theories and that no one can say for certain (which most don't, hence my comment)... The big reason why no one knows for certain is that the books in question don't have authors attached to them. Exodus-Deuteronomy can be reasonably said to be Moses or someone close to him since they cover that timeframe, though other theories certainly persist. That said, these books claim no authorship. Genesis makes no such claims either, but I think the idea that a King could have authored them to control the subjects is kind of odd. It sounds nice when one considers human nature, but just looking at what we know about them makes it hard to digest.

For one, the dead sea scrolls proved that a number of the books are much older than originaly thought... and second, the law was incredibly restrictive and thereby impossible to enforce. It will never entice people to start keeping it, which is why even orthodox Jews today don't keep it. Why would someone make it up, and why would they make up so many books at a time when books were sparce? The other problem is that if they were written hundres or thousands of years later, how is it that they are very accurate historically?

Brock Beauchamp
12-20-2012, 08:21 AM
Yet at the same point you say "it's in the bag" so to speak? I never quite get reasoning such as this because you in turn bash creationists for taking things on faith. You just admited to two really big problems with the theory of evolution, yet you basically say people are just pandering for not taking it as fact... Seems kind of odd Brock.

Because 99% of peoples' problems with evolution do not stem from scientific issues with the theory... They don't believe it in because they don't want to believe in it. There's the key difference.

What has always amused me about evolution nay-sayers is that to debunk the "theory", they have to apply their own faith-based logic to science. Instead of saying "I don't like the basic tenets of evolution because of scientific evidence A, B, or C", they apply "well, you're just using faith to believe in evolutionary theory". Wait, what? So, because I believe that science will ultimately come to the correct conclusion about evolution based on the evidence we have, the future evidence we will acquire, and the nature of scientific debate and its quest for following where the evidence leads, that it is therefore reduced to the equivalent of a book that has been translated dozens of times and was written by goat herders 3,000 years ago? Those same goat herders that thought stars were pinholes in the sky, rats were spawned from filth, and that internal disease was either a demon, magic, or both?

No, man. No. That's not how this works. Just because you don't have 100% of the answers for everything does not mean both theories are equally sound. One is based on reason and evidence. The other, uh... Not so much.

No one here is claiming that evolutionary theory is perfect... Hell, it changes pretty radically every ten years or so. But after over 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and ridicule (incredible ridicule), it has yet to be toppled. All notable evidence points toward this singular genetic mechanism that allows us to change over time. Is it perfect? No, I'm sure we have some stuff wrong about it. But in time, we'll gather more evidence and 200 years from now, evolutionary debate will be viewed the same way we scoff at geocentrism.

Shane Wahl
12-20-2012, 04:32 PM
Because 99% of peoples' problems with evolution do not stem from scientific issues with the theory... They don't believe it in because they don't want to believe in it. There's the key difference.

What has always amused me about evolution nay-sayers is that to debunk the "theory", they have to apply their own faith-based logic to science. Instead of saying "I don't like the basic tenets of evolution because of scientific evidence A, B, or C", they apply "well, you're just using faith to believe in evolutionary theory". Wait, what? So, because I believe that science will ultimately come to the correct conclusion about evolution based on the evidence we have, the future evidence we will acquire, and the nature of scientific debate and its quest for following where the evidence leads, that it is therefore reduced to the equivalent of a book that has been translated dozens of times and was written by goat herders 3,000 years ago? Those same goat herders that thought stars were pinholes in the sky, rats were spawned from filth, and that internal disease was either a demon, magic, or both?

No, man. No. That's not how this works. Just because you don't have 100% of the answers for everything does not mean both theories are equally sound. One is based on reason and evidence. The other, uh... Not so much.

No one here is claiming that evolutionary theory is perfect... Hell, it changes pretty radically every ten years or so. But after over 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and ridicule (incredible ridicule), it has yet to be toppled. All notable evidence points toward this singular genetic mechanism that allows us to change over time. Is it perfect? No, I'm sure we have some stuff wrong about it. But in time, we'll gather more evidence and 200 years from now, evolutionary debate will be viewed the same way we scoff at geocentrism.

Boom. This was really good.

It amazes me that evolution nay-sayers point to flaws and then stammer around when they are asked what their competing explanation is as an alternative.

I have been shocked by fresh-out-of-high-school students and their attitudes toward evolution. Granted, this is Indiana youth we are talking about, but still.

I honestly don't take people seriously as rational thinkers if they deny evolution just because it makes them happier to believe in a creation story. Truth doesn't bend to one's happiness. Anyway, I make it clear that people can have their gods and evolution too. No reason to be . . . crazy.