VP DEBATE TONIGHT

[Roadie]

Republicans/conservatives reject evidence in favor of mythology. Ryan is a prime example.

Ah, I just love generalizations, they are so much easier than seeking the truth..

Can I play?

Gun Owners reject peace in favor of violence. level.eleven is a prime example.

Oh, that WAS easy!

 

[Roadie]

I will even get back on topic a bit.. let's look at ole Uncle Joe's "facts"..

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

There wasn't much information because the conservative brain child, the policy wonk, when pressured, couldn't name a single loophole he would close. A true policy wonk would have had his bullet point list memorized.

I do agree with you about the debates from an information standpoint. The truth is these men spout numbers that we have no way of identifying as accurate or false. Hell, Romney used a "study" for "The Kirby Institute"* as fact in the Presidential debate. I laughed at the screen. Who? I would like a numbers-free debate. Lets talk philosophy.

Yes, it's really hard to keep up with the numbers because let's face it, they don't know where the money is going either.

I think the numbers that mean the most to me are the deficit and the debt, but I have no idea how either one of those numbers are to be manipulated in a positive fashion for the American people........and I'm pretty educated....

That being said, this is probably why political rhetoric comes down to ideology and appeals to individual worldview, IE, Abortion, Religion, Pushing granny off of the cliff, etc..... IE, Politicians can't appeal to our logical senses therefore, go for the emotional home run.

At the end of the day, I have a sinking feeling that this is a lost election for the moderate independent because we really don't have a candidate that speaks to our values..

What do I mean? We're broke. Someone please fix our money because every single political concept that we endeavor.......... cost money.....

Our biggest fear is that the Democrats and Republicans will be so engrossed in the blame game and not letting the other side win, that we may filibuster ourselves into extinction.

I hope we can collectively fix this because as strongly as we feel about our individual viewpoints,


we're all in this together as one population, American citizens.....

 

[Bunnykid68]

The earth used to be flat too.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The earth used to be flat too.

I would say you are a winner. Everyone was right. It was flat and evolved into a sphere just in time for Columbus to sail!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Both should be taught in public school....it is very confusing to a child to be told all their life about Adam and Eve and then have some teacher say your parents are lying to you. I think most religions have a great creator...those who do not believe in a creator can opt out their children.The parents should decide what younger children learn and when they get in HS the kids decide. After all it is the theory of evolution, just like the theory of creation. A theory does not make it an exact science.

A scientific theory requires the ability to measure things in our natural world in order to accrue empirical evidence supporting or contradicting said theory.

Since the concept of God is not measurable in our natural world, the God question cannot even be asked by science - let alone answered.

Any form of creationism that involves God, therefore, is not a scientific theory - since the scientific method cannot be applied to confirm or scrutinize the concept.

That does not mean the concept is false - it means that it is not natural science and cannot be honestly taught as such - it is religion.

It is not the duty of the public school system to teach religion - that can be supplemented at home however the parents choose. The fact that some children are confused by the discrepancies between religious teachings and scientific theories is not the fault of the public school system - and cannot reasonably remedied be remedied within the public school system.

 

[John James]

I will even get back on topic a bit.. let's look at ole Uncle Joe's "facts"..

Why are you trying to cloud the matter with truth?

 

[level.eleven]

Yes! You are proving my point.

Science works. It adjusted its position based on evidence and observation! It continued to add to the annals of science! At no point did it yield to mythology.

 

[Roadie]

Yes! You are proving my point.

Science works. It adjusted its position based on evidence and observation! It continued to add to the annals of science! At no point did it yield to mythology.

..and you are still confusing mythology and ID..

 

[pudly]

Sorry if this is a dupe. I haven't kept up with all 400+ posts in this thread.

The White House explains why Biden was so rude. It was all Paul Ryan's fault.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

..and you are still confusing mythology and ID..

As long as the proponents of the ID theory claim that God is the creator - it does not fall into the realm of scientific theory.

See above...

Now, if they remove all claims of an unnatural entity, and present it in a general sense - then it falls into the realm of scientific theory.

The problem is, even if they do remove God from the theory - they would still have to establish enough empirical evidence supporting their theory to become a commonly accepted and taught theory - which is the problem many proponents of intelligent design face.

Doppler's theories did become well known and taught.

 

[level.eleven]

..and you are still confusing mythology and ID..

How old is the Earth?

 

[Roadie]

Einstein once said he believed in "Spinoza's God", Spinoza believed God exists but is abstract and impersonal.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#cite_note-tws908-0

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful. Einstein said in correspondence,

"[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."

Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because

"such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."

It appears, that Einstein knew you..

 

[Roadie]

How old is the Earth?

I believe the general consensus is 4.5 billion years..

Remember, we are discussing ID here, not Christianity, and not necessarily my personal beliefs..

 

[Roadie]

As long as the proponents of the ID theory claim that God is the creator - it does not fall into the realm of scientific theory.

See above...

Now, if they remove all claims of an unnatural entity, and present it in a general sense - then it falls into the realm of scientific theory.

The problem is, even if they do remove God from the theory - they would still have to establish enough empirical evidence supporting their theory to become a commonly accepted and taught theory - which is the problem many proponents of intelligent design face.

Doppler's theories did become well known and taught.

ID does not proclaim "God" as in the Judeo-Christian God, rather an Intelligent Designer..

Why must it remove a designer? Has the existence of a designer been disproved? You are injecting your personal beliefs as a condition of science..

Yes, exactly my point with Doppler. He was ridiculed, and his theories said to be wrong by the majority, until he was proved right.. I am only suggesting that to discount ID, may just be the same as discounting Doppler, the Wright Brothers, etc.. see my point?

 

[Bunnykid68]

How old is the Earth?

42

 

[Caleb]

How old is the Earth?

12,000 years

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

ID does not proclaim "God" as in the Judeo-Christian God, rather an Intelligent Designer..

Why must it remove a designer? Has the existence of a designer been disproved? You are injecting your personal beliefs as a condition of science..

Yes, exactly my point with Doppler. He was ridiculed, and his theories said to be wrong by the majority, until he was proved right.. I am only suggesting that to discount ID, may just be the same as discounting Doppler, the Wright Brothers, etc.. see my point?

Actually, most of the ID proponents do include God - which is why it was so loudly criticized as not being natural science.

If you ask most proponents of ID if aliens could be the creators - you will often be met with quite a reaction.

Those that attempt to advance the theory of ID (without including God), are at this point in time struggling to provide supporting evidence - which is why it is not taught in public schools.

 

[Survivalcookie]

A scientific theory requires the ability to measure things in our natural world in order to accrue empirical evidence supporting or contradicting said theory.

Since the concept of God is not measurable in our natural world, the God question cannot even be asked by science - let alone answered.

Any form of creationism that involves God, therefore, is not a scientific theory - since the scientific method cannot be applied to confirm or scrutinize the concept.

That does not mean the concept is false - it means that it is not natural science and cannot be honestly taught as such - it is religion.

It is not the duty of the public school system to teach religion - that can be supplemented at home however the parents choose. The fact that some children are confused by the discrepancies between religious teachings and scientific theories is not the fault of the public school system - and cannot reasonably remedied be remedied within the public school system.

The problem is they teach this at school and parents and the church teaches creation it does confuse children...especially small children...hell it confuses me. I have to believe someone is wrong somewhere.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The problem is they teach this at school and parents and the church teaches creation it does confuse children...especially small children...hell it confuses me. I have to believe someone is wrong somewhere.

Just because it confuses children does not mean we should teach religion as if it is natural science.