Election Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glunn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glunn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glunn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flpmagikat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glunn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

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.