Republicans vs. Democrats TV: Lefties want comedy, right wingers like work

[Phishfan]

In summary: out of the 7 major presidential candidates, 4 outright reject evolution, 2 clearly support it, and 1 (Gingrich) doesn't really take a clear position.  No matter how you slice it, that's a clear majority of mainstream Republican presidential candidates unapologetically rejecting one of the most thoroughly supported theories in the history of scientific inquiry.  You can't spin that.

I think you may have spun it a bit into your favor actually. The way I read their statements

Paul - rejects (1)
Huntsman - accepts (1)
Rommney - accepts the process (2)
Gingrich - accepts as a process (3)
Santorum - unclear the statement is cut off (1)
Perry - rejects (2)

Bachman - rejects (3)

That gives me a 3-3 tie with one unclear

[Phishfan]

How about we discuss how Obama has bowed to the muslims

Yep sending a secret force into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden certainly shows his complete submissiveness to that group.

[Spider-Dan]

Really ... it's not? One the leading Christians in this country who is both very educated and an atheist with an agenda was converted through science and it holds no weight? I thought the subject was Christians being afraid of science.

One person's particular beliefs are of no relevance to science as a whole.  If Stephen Hawking became a Muslim tomorrow, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

You are mistaken Dave. It's not a debate about global warming. It's the debate over if it's man made or even if it's just a cylce.

Yes, and 97% of the scientific community has agreed that man is significantly contributing to a change in climate that is more extreme than what would normally be expected as cyclical.

No offense but you sound like you bite on propaganda pretty easily.  Has some type of evolution happened? Absolutely but we didn't come from an amoeba or monkeys. The neo- Darwinism theory of evolution is not uni-formally agreed upon.  This would be the easiest to prove but unfortunately not only is evolution not happening today but it hasn't ever happened in recorded  history.

Congratulations: you have just proffered the textbook anti-evolution argument.  I have no desire to debate evolution with you (no more than I wish to debate gravity), but suffice it to say that nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that man came from monkeys.

Although I always find that particular objection hilarious when given by (Christian) creationists, given that they believe that man was literally sculpted from dirt.

[Spider-Dan]

I think you may have spun it a bit into your favor actually. The way I read their statements

Paul - rejects (1)
Huntsman - accepts (1)
Rommney - accepts the process (2)
Gingrich - accepts as a process (3)
Santorum - unclear the statement is cut off (1)
Perry - rejects (2)

Bachman - rejects (3)

That gives me a 3-3 tie with one unclear

You are unclear as to whether or not Rick Santorum believes in evolution?  Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment

The Santorum Amendment was a failed proposed amendment to the 2001 education funding bill (which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act), proposed by Republican Rick Santorum (who was at that time the United States Senator for Pennsylvania), which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools. In response, a coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations wrote a letter to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill, arguing that evolution is, in the scientific fields, regarded as fact and that the amendment creates the mis-perception that evolution is not fully accepted in the scientific community, and thus weakens science curricula. The words of the amendment survive in modified form in the Bill's Conference Report and do not carry the weight of law. As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns it became a cornerstone in the intelligent design movement's "Teach the Controversy" campaign.

So, yeah, I think we can safely chalk him up in the "no" category.

As for Gingrich, sometimes he says things like, "Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have," and sometimes he says things like, "do you think… we’re randomly gathered protoplasm? We could have been rhinoceroses, but we got lucky this week?" (link)  So at best, he's inconsistent.

However, even 3-3-1 would be a massive fail for the scientific integrity of the Republican Party.

[CF DolFan]

One person's particular beliefs are of no relevance to science as a whole.  If Stephen Hawking became a Muslim tomorrow, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Yes, and 97% of the scientific community has agreed that man is significantly contributing to a change in climate that is more extreme than what would normally be expected as cyclical.
Congratulations: you have just proffered the textbook anti-evolution argument.  I have no desire to debate evolution with you (no more than I wish to debate gravity), but suffice it to say that nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that man came from monkeys.

Although I always find that particular objection hilarious when given by (Christian) creationists, given that they believe that man was literally sculpted from dirt.

A Stephen Hawking conversion wouldn't mean a thing? Not that you would care to stay on point but again I would point to the fact the original attack was that Christians are afraid of science which isn't true ... no matter how many times you say it.  97% percent of scientist agree? You spend quite a lot of time trying to convince people you are more intelligent than the rest of us. I would think you would think just a little bit before you type. I just listed a place to see where over 31,000 in the US alone have said it isn't true. I find it hard to believe that we have 1 million scientists in the US working with global warming.

[Dave Gray]

Has some type of evolution happened? Absolutely but we didn't come from an amoeba or monkeys.

Nobody is claiming that we came from monkeys.  Where do creationists get that idea from?

[Spider-Dan]

A Stephen Hawking conversion wouldn't mean a thing?

No, it would not.  Stephen Hawking's personal beliefs about religion... or sports... or pasta doesn't change the current state of scientific knowledge one whit.

Not that you would care to stay on point but again I would point to the fact the original attack was that Christians are afraid of science which isn't true ... no matter how many times you say it.

Was the original point that every Christian is afraid of science?
No?
Then what is the purpose of naming individual persons who have managed to reconcile their belief systems (that are outside the realm of testable science) with their careers as scientists?

The story of the atheist who found Jesus is highly prized by believers, but is not particularly noteworthy when you consider that the vast majority of American atheists grew up in religious households and converted to atheism (this certainly applies to me).

97% percent of scientist agree? You spend quite a lot of time trying to convince people you are more intelligent than the rest of us.

When did I claim to be a scientist?

I would think you would think just a little bit before you type. I just listed a place to see where over 31,000 in the US alone have said it isn't true. I find it hard to believe that we have 1 million scientists in the US working with global warming.

First of all, I never claimed that 97% of American scientists are in consensus on climate change.  Since the U.S. is the only Western nation with any serious institutionalized support for that anti-scientific viewpoint (much like anti-evolution), it makes sense that virtually all of the petitioners would be based here.

Second, are you claiming that all 31,000 of these American scientists are employed in the field of climate science?  That would be in error, since in actuality, 0.48% (151) of the 31,487 have a background in either climatology or atmospheric science (link).  The rest are largely people with degrees in unrelated fields (e.g. computer science, math, engineering, medicine, etc.) who lend their credence as "scientists" to this petition.

Of the scientists who actually, you know, work in the climate science field, the consensus is overwhelming:  97%+ of publishing climatologists agree that human activity is a significant factor in climate change.  (link 1 link 2).  Even if you slice and dice the numbers, the lowest you can get that number for people who actually work in the field of climate science (i.e. people who know what they are talking about) is around 87%.  That's still overwhelming consensus.

Is it actually your point that there are many American pediatricians and math professors and architects and electrical engineers who disagree with climate change?  I'm not sure what weight that's supposed to carry.

[Sunstroke]

I know a guy, Lee Strobel, who used science to convert to Christianity.

We have different definitions of "science."  I still define it as, you know, "science."

Not sure what this other guy said that made you believe such a ridiculous scenario, but there is NO science involved in religion. There is faith at the low end, and the desire to control and manipulate others at the top. Unless you can tell me that we've found God and did a little carbon testing on the Big Guy, then there isn't anything "scientific" that applies to religion.

[badger6]

I honestly don't get the stick your head in the sand and blame "the white guys" and their prejudices for everything. It doesn't make other issues get better.

Oh, you noticed too ? I thought I was the only one that could see it....

[CF DolFan]

We have different definitions of "science."  I still define it as, you know, "science."

Not sure what this other guy said that made you believe such a ridiculous scenario, but there is NO science involved in religion. There is faith at the low end, and the desire to control and manipulate others at the top. Unless you can tell me that we've found God and did a little carbon testing on the Big Guy, then there isn't anything "scientific" that applies to religion.

Lol... Science is testable and explainable knowledge. He is a lawyer who studied verifiable evidence to come to a conclusion. Whether or not you would have come to the same conclusion does not mean it wasn't tested knowledge.

[Dave Gray]

Whether or not you would have come to the same conclusion does not mean it wasn't tested knowledge.

It does.

That's what science is.  A hypothesis, followed by testing, the removal of variables, more testing, a published finding and then a consensus of peer review.

[CF DolFan]

No it doesn't. A trial is based on science. Evidence is presented as eyewitness testimony and  scientific testing. They are both science. Well for arguments sake ... forget the testimony and just go with scientific tested evidence. Besides the fact you usually two different experts interpret it differently to the jury ... you will also have the jury itself that will interpret it differently. It doesn't mean it's not science. It just means people interpret the results differently. 

[Dave Gray]

Science is a process.  Tests will show up erroneously positive or negative all the time.  You will have conflicting evidence because you start testing with very loose guidelines.  It's all part of the process.  You test with a bunch of variables at first.  Then, if that test shows that there may be some findings, you isolate variables and test again, testing more and more to eliminate all variables but what you're trying to determine.  If you are confident that you have discovered something, there is still a possibility that your personal biases or other factors that you did not consider have caused a false result.  So, you publish your findings and let the scientific community independently and definitively reproduce your results.

[Spider-Dan]

No it doesn't. A trial is based on science.

A trial is based on nothing of the sort.  A trial is based on laws which are set forth governing the rules of the trial.  And laws are created by a simple vote as to what the law should be.  Saying that a legal trial is based on science is like taking a poll of the message board as to whether humans co-existed with dinosaurs and calling the results science.

If you really believe that science is no more than "some people interpret things one way and other people interpret things a different way," the conservative attitude towards evolution and climate change is made that much more clear.

[bsmooth]

Not hat I don't think you know the answer but let' let's see. When was the last time Israeli terrorists killed a bunch of Americans ... or even threatened Americans? Ok. When the last time someone from one of those groups you mentioned threatened us? Probably already today. Pretending they are not a problem in general does not make it go away.

I honestly don't get the stick your head in the sand and blame "the white guys" and their prejudices for everything. It doesn't make other issues get better.

To use your example, it would be Jewish terrorists and not Israeli, since you used Muslim instead of the actual countries the small number of extremists come from. But then again Christians have killed Americans over religious beliefs. Should all Christians be painted with the same broad brush? I think not.
Also when was the last time an Islamic country actually attacked us directly? Because Israel knowing attacked one of our clearly marked naval vessels in international waters and killed 34 Americans. That is an act of war. Even today the surviving members still state it was a deliberate attack.