Subscribe by RSS
With the Democratic candidacy decided, the GOP is beginning to assess its base. All ready, there are distressing signals from various parts of the Reagan/Bush Republican foundation.
In an article labeled “Religious Right Figure Gets Chills” by the Huntington Post, a pundit estimates nearly 40% of Christian evangelicals will vote for Barack Obama.
“With clients like Focus on the Family, Franklin Graham, and Campus Crusade for Christ, Mark DeMoss may be the most prominent public relations executive in the evangelical world. A former chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, DeMoss became then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s chief liaison to evangelical leaders.”
In a new interview with Dan Gilgoff for BeliefNet’s God-o-Meter, DeMoss explains the lack of religious enthusiasm for McCain and predicts a potential major shift to Obama.
The McCain campaign took efforts to dispel concerns over McCain’s chances, citing RCP polls that show McCain and Obama in a dead heat. Nonetheless, pundits from different news sources cite growing Republican concerns.
According to Thomas Edsall from the Huffington Post, June 8, 2008:
Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, has posted a PowerPoint study asserting that McCain currently hold slight leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Nevada, and that Ohio is “a dead heat” and that Pennsylvania could go Republican. “This is a very good position for our campaign to be in,” Davis contends
In fact, the survey data is not as favorable as Davis claims - Obama leads in all five of the most recent Pennsylvania polls by an average of 5.8 points, and he leads in Wisconsin by 2 points. Polling in the 19 states identified by RealClearPolitics as battlegrounds shows Obama in a better position than McCain, ahead in such Bush ‘04 states as Colorado and Iowa, and running very close in Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada.
In addition, the data on RealClearPolitics dispute another of Davis’ claims — that McCain has stronger favorable/unfavorable ratings than Obama. Instead, the recent average for McCain is 47.3 favorable to 40.8 unfavorable, or a +6.5; for Obama, it’s 50.3 to 38.5, or +11.8 .
In not-for-attribution interviews, a number of Republicans were neither optimistic about his chances nor positive in their assessment of his campaign so far.
“I think we’ve got a world of problems,” said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before “20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years” in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios’ description of McCain’s speech with a green backdrop that made McCain “look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad.”
Politico’s Jonathan Martin raises other older issues, such as McCain’s independent streak and temper in the June 8, 2008 edition:
After Romney, who’d been accused of altering his positions to appeal to Republican primary voters, described himself as a change candidate, McCain, sporting a smile that could cut glass, shot back with “We disagree on many things. But you are the candidate of change.†Thanks to his own personal tenacity and a weak GOP field, McCain’s penchant for the putdown never really backfired during the primary.
Now, with more attention and less margin for error, McCain may need to watch his quick tongue.
Asked about his candidate’s tone, McCain adviser and speechwriter Mark Salter said that the campaign would strive to remain civil.
“In terms of contrasting with Obama, we have to be respectful and honest,†said Salter.
Noting that Obama would challenge McCain’s reputation for independence, Salter said they would defend themselves by “honestly illustrating it with examples from his record and extend it by discussing the widespread reforms he’s running for president to achieve.â€
As the smears rise from Republican and Democratic camps, both presidential candidates are struggling to preserve their identity as a “different kind” of politician. Older issues for Obama, such as Jeremiah Wright connections and “Islamic” roots, and maverick style politics and age, will become more prominent as the race continues. From the GOP’s standpoint, the question now is how to play defense.
(4 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
It’s interesting that the MSM tries to confuse us about who’s the “in” candidate. McCain is being trashed right now in a way, while he was being doted over as his campaign resurfaced. But all of that doesn’t affect the outcome of the election. I think we cannot make too much of the Rothschild-McCain connection, or the Rothschilds’ influence on politics. That’s all I’ll say for now
.
To all posters (but specifically McCain regulars like Babs, Stalin, OBAMA_SUCKS, and the like):
Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....nning.com/
Please watch it in its entirety and tell me your thoughts.
I’m simply curious as to your reaction (or rebuttal if one needs to be made.
Michelle, of course I’m not impressed with the video, you can find hundreds of those on YouTube targeting McCain AND Obama, both Barack and Michelle. I did almost leap with joy to see Pat Buchanan speaking against McCain, that’s one less lunatic he has to denounce on the pastor side.
Other than that, all I can say is thank God YouTube and its authors won’t decide this election.
Hey, Michelle, here’s a couple of YouTubes for you (and everyone else). They’re both funny, and there’s one listed for each - Obama AND McCain.
Because after all, everybody needs a laugh on Mondays.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N-9eNSniQgg
http://youtube.com/watch?.....re=related
I do not listen to Pat Buchanan, and I do not listen or watch dumb Ron Paul supporter videos, somehow that video has a 5-star rating.
Hey Babs, thank you for the good laughs! The Obama one was outrageously funny! I couldn’t quit laughing!
As a Republican Delegate to the Kentucky State Convention on Saturday, June 7th 2008 I wanted to state that the party did not allow anyone to speak other than elected officials. When delegates wanted to propose changes following party rules were completely dismissed by State Chairman Steve Robertson. Even the McCain supporting delegates were completely ignored by the state chair. The First Amendment Freedom of Speech is dead in the Republican Party of Kentucky. And the state party is divided and not in unity as the state chair is promoting around the state the last two days.
Michelle, and everyone else, here’s another good one…
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....jm5JTf7jZs
enjoy!
Thats a great one Josh!
Michelle,
I watched your video and got bored after one minute and stopped watching. That’s my reaction
Michael,
All this points to the need for McCain to pick a VP that will appeal to the Christian conservatives. McCain’s VP choice will make or break his candicacy.
haha “I inhaled frequently, that was the point”
Dig this one on Iraq being “Mission Accomplished”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FltLzeyACzY
Stalin
That video does start off kind of boring but you have to go a little further. The music doesn’t help with the excitement either.
McCain should probably just give up on trying to consolidate the conservative base (notable the ’social conservatives’) and just pick Joe Lieberman as his VP in order to concentrate on winning the election by focusing on the independents and “McCainicrats”.
Religious fundamentalist Republicans (ie: ones that supported Huckabee and powered Bush to the White House) will never warm to McCain and personally, I think its a great thing that perhaps the religious right will be losing their influence in American politics so that American modernity can catch up with the rest of the developed world.
Jeff,
The religious right is not what you see on TV down there in OZ. Please explain how the “religious right” is keeping America from becoming modern? I’ve been to OZ, a great country, but I didn’t see how you are more modern…
Nothing is wrong with the religious right, and they are not keeping us from becoming modern. In what way is being a religious conservative hurting us, I would like to know as one myself?
C’mon fellas do you really think a guy in Australia really has a clue about modern America or its politics? NO. 75% of the voters here prove every election they don’t either and they live here. How else would we wind up with worthless junk choices like Obama, Clinton and McCain? McCain sucks on economy and border policy, Obama sucks all the way around with no experience in anything, and compulsive liar Hillary wants to nuke people into oblivian….nice foreign policy, not mention she wants universal health care which will cost us a bundle in taxes and break us far worse than the current oil crisis. Yup bigger government, that’ll teach us and solve all our problems, more social programs to pay for the fat worthles bums on welfare that won’t get off thier lazy butts and make thier own living. Hillary and Obama healthcare both amount to me and you paying higher taxes to support a health program to pay for those who won’t (NOT CAN’T) won’t pay thier own way. I don’t care what race or religion you are , there are jobs and there is plenty of insurance, bust your butt to do better, it’s the American way…no wait it WAS the American way. Hillary and Obama Care = less doctors, less specialists, longer waits to get on life dependant lists for organs, lower standard of care given, longer waits for appointments, and an over all lower standard of a medical system nationwide, all paid for by jacked up taxes that we pay to support it. NO WAY IN HELL. I’ll move to Europe first and take my chances.
Great statement by McCain in Josh’s video
TAA:
There used to be a time when people were embarrased to be on public assistance. Since when did government assistance become a right? I love the scene in Cinderella Man when Russell Crowe returns his welfare money to the government. Now that’s a good Aussie.
Interesting discussion. It seems too many people want to add on to the immutable “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. It’ll only get us into trouble!
I’d say it’s more a matter of differing interpretations about how much that entails. What does one need in order to maintain that life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness? I think that’s the essential question that people wrestle around on issues like healthcare, welfare, gay marriage, ect. Honestly it’s a pretty vague statement, considering it’s a founding principal of our nation; not that I don’t truly appreciate it for being there.
Babs:
I like how you balanced it out with a funny McCain one.
Josh and Dredson:
Thanks for those videos, very nice and I hadn’t seen either one before.
The reason I posted that video is because I have a big problem with McCain’s inconsistency on his statements, and I wanted to know what his supporters could say about it. Maybe I’m just wondering why you support him given those facts.
I’m not talking about preachers.
I’m not talking about Bush.
I’m talking about how he is constantly recorded on video or audio saying one thing and then turning around and saying something completely different.
I just can’t trust someone like that to run the country.
Also,
I’d have to say as someone who is probably classified as a moderate liberal, I am pretty disapointed when I see people in my city looking for any handout they can get and living off of welfare without trying to get a job.
We are the benificiaries of 300+ years of the building of a free nation. Ameirca was the first country stemming out of the Western Civilization that struck out against the monarchy system of society.
We are no longer doomed to live as peasants and work for a king. We actually have opportunities to be whatever class of citizen you strive to be. And it hasn’t been an easy road to get to this point.
I just wish more people could appriciate it and take pride in our country and in themselves.
Michelle,
Every candidate makes mistakes and changes. if you are going to question how we support someone who has changed, look at your own candidate for the presidency and you will see he changes all the time to. One of the most recent was about Iran. He went from saying Iran was a small miniscule threat to the next day saying how Iran is a grave threat. Both candidates are always switching and changing. Look at your candidate before you start questioning me and fellow supporters about our candidates consistency.
I cant trust someone who changes in 1 day his views about a country that wants to destroy the US, and wipe Israel off the map. I cant trust him to be commander in chief.
O.S.
look at 2:31 of the video. He didn’t change his mind he all out LIED and had to explain why he lied. That is the equivalent of sniper fire. but the difference is this lie is to persuade US like YOU ARE ALWAYS DOING that Iraq is so well and doing fine. Yes things may be progressing but lying is not helping. And getting caught lying makes the American people think that things are not as good as they say. Especially when this person is supposed to have all this Phenomenal Foreign Policy experience.
Now I posted that same video and i Posted a link where he just recently a week ago said things were fine and in the same area where he claims it is peaceful they had 3 separate
suicide bombings.
And your logic of not having the moral authority to question a candidate when the persons candidate of choice is guilty of the same thing is something i had been trying to get you to understand but you always side step it and stick with the same argument.
I’m glad to see that you finally see the light.
Oh Ahmadinejad did not say he will wipe Israel off of the map either.
You and the MEDIA is going off of a sound bite excerpt. Just Like McCain’s 100 year statement.
And where did they say they want to Destroy the U.S.?
I would like evidence and proof of these two claims.
Michele
you can look in this thread
http://www.youdecide2008......fits-iraq/
I tried to discuss the same video you posted.
Michelle, I think those particular insights of yours were right-on! What does it say about us as a whole when we let the media call outright lies “gaffes”? A “gaffe” is a mistake/accident, and it wasn’t an “accident” that Hillary said she was bravely walking into Bosnia and being fired upon, or that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary! Those were lies that the media called “gaffes”–a bit of psychological warfare, I’d say. And Obama and McCain are equally dishonest.
Oh, also: IndiMinded, you have a point. The government needs to work to improve the lives of citizens. The Constitution tells the government how it can do that by specifically listing the powers and making room for amendments as times change. On most things, I believe the government would serve that end by non interfering in the economy. The laws that set up HMOs, and the huge bureaucracies set up by taxation, are among the problems I see. The government has kept us dependant on it through the Federal Reserve System. We prospered more, it’s safe to say, before the Federal Reserve System and expanded government programs hurt our economy. That’s my tidbit for now.
Dreadsen,
There is some debate as to the proper translation of what your buddy Ahma;sfksad;jad said, but here is how the NYT translated it (I’m even giving you a liberal source):
“Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.”
Seems pretty clear to me what he’d like to do. If you would like some more inspiring quotes by your friend, check these out:
http://www.adl.org/main_I.....sHeading_1
It’s organized by year for your convenience.
Obama_Sucks,
As a biology student it concerns me how America is the only developed country in the world that is still heavily religious and, as a result, the only developed country that is still to come to terms with its phobia concerning evolutionary science (an annoying example of a religious conservative, not that they are all like this but a lot are, is when they feel evolution is something to be “believed in” and feel that, despite having little to no literacy in biology feel they are qualified to judge its credibility) and as a result the U.S. has one of the worst rates of science education and acceptance.
And, because American politics and popular culture has a significant influence upon other developed countries (such as Australia) I’m wary about whether a candidate is coming into power in America that will be ‘under the thumb’ of the socially regressive religious right.
By ’socially regressive’ I mean that on top of subverting science education they are also trying to stagnate stem cell research that can help better the lives of people with severe medical problems and also their insistence on interfering with a woman’s reproductive rights (which are not credible issues in developed countries where the religious right doesn’t have a foothold).
BTW, For any religious zealot here who “doesn’t believe in” evolution I recommend reading the book, “Finding Darwin’s God” by the catholic biologist Kenneth Miller:
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/
“As a biology student it concerns me how America is the only developed country in the world that is still heavily religious”
You’re kidding here, right?
Oh, and Jeff, I’m not going to get into a creation/evolution discussion except to ask you one question:
If man “evolved” from apes, why are there still apes?
Thats no different than asking why your cousins still exist if you and your siblings exist.
Humans and Chimps diverged from the same evolutionary path over 6 million years ago.
Perhaps your question is indicative of the poor science education standard in America.
Oh, and also, Humans are apes.
Simply because we have evolved the capacity to speak, write and develop advanced culture doesn’t negate the fact that we are still a species of ape and share 99.4% of our functional D.N.A. with Chimpanzees.
Also, the scientific standards and quality in a developed country is something to be concerned about especially when it relates to medical conditions as well as the health and longevity of the planet.
*LOL* That’s what I thought, you couldn’t answer it.
“If man “evolved†from apes, why are there still apes?”
Do you deny evolution?
Even many scientist now admit there are many problems with the theory of evolution. I don’t want to get into a huge debate about it, but here is an article from a non-creationist that discusses some of the problems:
http://www.godandscience......locke.html
On another note, I’m sick of people attacking Christianity, God, and the religious right. Race and Color are off limits, but it’s open season on Creed.
We evil religious people give 4 times more money to charity than non-religious people.
Here are some other facts:
Conservatives give 30% more to charity that liberals
Conservatives are 18% more likely to donate blood
“Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red — conservative — states in the last presidential election.”
Read the full story here: The part about San Francisco and Sioux Falls, SD is very interesting.
http://www.townhall.com/c.....ity?page=1
Really interesting article here, Stalin. I like this:
“Says Brooks: “The most charitable people in America today are the working poor.” ”
I’ve always believed this myself. Maybe it’s that “elitist” thing that makes wealthy liberals more stingy?
Why does this guy have to bring up evolution? It is just not a topic to talk about because if I were to say that I believe in creation, many people would attack me. What is so wrong with being a religious person and why does Christianity always get the attacks, its like people can say whatever they want about my faith but other ones are off limits. Jeff edwards you opened up an unwanted box about evolution, now shut it.
Hey Stalin
You and Babs do me a favor. When I submit a request to O.S. I don’t need people of intelligence responding!
I can’t believe someone came in here and totally derailed this thread with evolution??
Stalin I want you to look at these videos to take everything in Context. You will see that Ahmadinejad wants the Israeli regime changed. But not the entire country wiped off of the map. There are Jewish rabbi’s who also comment on how his statement has been taken out of context. But I will tell you this. There are Jewish (or maybe it is only one?) who is part of the Iranian Parliament who cursed at Ahmadinejad for his questioning of the holocaust. The Government as a whole does not support all of the things he says. But I also have to put into context that Jewish Rabbis would not want to bring gifts and kiss on each cheek a man who wants to destroy Israel. In their meetings they have expressed SHARING a common interest in the well being of the future of Israel and what they think will bring peace.
I know he talks about wanting Palestinian people to be able to be part of a Democracy in Israel. Changing the regime is what he believes will bring this forth.
Jews in Iran. Proof that Iran doesn’t hate Jews. Good documentary.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ngttxIzXRsE
Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to “wipe Israel off the map.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
President Ahmadinejad Meets Neturei Karta Rabbis - 9/24/2007
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q
Rabbis talk about an earlier meeting with Ahmadinejad in Iran Jan of 2007
http://youtube.com/watch?.....re=related
IRANIAN PRESIDENT & RABBIS AGREE THAT ZIONISTS ARE NOT JEWS
http://youtube.com/watch?.....re=related
“You and Babs do me a favor. When I submit a request to O.S. I don’t need people of intelligence responding!”
*LOL* Dreadsen, I’m not sure what favor I can do you here!
Now do me a favor, I’d really like to hear your take on the commentary I just posted on the “Democrats for McCain” movement. Really, I mean it. Don’t fall off the chair.
Dreadsen
1) These Jews live in Iran, not Israel.
2) You are correct, he did not say “wipe Israel off the map”. Ayatollah Khomeini said it and Aha;ldkfjas;jad agreed by saying it was a wise statement.
3,4,5) Of course Ahsldksla;jad met with the Neturei Karta Rabbis, they are Anti-Zionist jews!
So basically what we have discovered here is that Ahslfkdja;sjad only hates Jews that live in Israel.
Now, I’m not pro-Israel or anti-Israel and I’m not even Jewish so I have no agenda here. I just want the record to be set straight on Ahsdl;akdjad.
Babs,
How did I not answer it? Humans diverged from Chimps 6 millions years ago and from other species of Apes even longer ago. Thats why other apes still exist (much in the same way our human cousins still exist as they came to existence through a divergent family line).
Stalin,
That link you posted is to a notorious creationist website and to understand what the reality of evolution is simply seek out credible scientific books by actual evolutionary biologists instead of reading articles from creationist websites. “Finding Darwin’s God” by biologist Ken Miller is a good start. Checking out the NCSE for objective and valid information on evolutionary science would also help.
I actually think this is a serious issue and that it is important that America doesn’t have a president that will be ‘under the thumb’ of the religious right thus will ignore a quality science education in America which would lead to people not seeking careers in medicine, environmental sciences and other related fields.
Obama_Sucks,
I wasn’t trying to attack you as a McCain supporter; I just was aiming to get a read on how you all might feel in light of those particular statements. However, there are a lot of things McCain has said that I do not see to be mistakes. I see it as having it both ways.
He says you can walk through Baghdad unarmed and unprotected. He walks through Baghdad, but surrounded by armed service men.
He says General Patreus goes out in an unarmoured Humvee. And then says he doesn’t and “There is no unarmoured Humvee.â€
He says the confederate flag is a state issue and wouldn’t vote against it, but then says that it’s an offensive symbol for many Americans. (He even admitted he made this decision for “ambition†and “all the wrong reasons.)
He says he disagrees with what the majority of the American people thinks, but tries to portray himself as a candidate who appeals to Democrats, Independents, Republicans, conservatives (basically the majority of the American people).
He says he wanted to resolve the POW/MIA issue, but voted against the Truth Accountability Bill (only one to vote against it!).
He says he’s all about straight talk, but is always contradicting his own words, saying one thing to appeal to one group, and then another to appeal to different group
Jeffrey
Don’t tell me where to find my information. I have done plenty of reading on the subject and don’t need any advice from you. I don’t care whether or not the website is notorious or not, frankly I don’t have that much time on my hands. Why don’t you counter the arguments put forth instead? Actually, don’t, because I don’t want to continue this discussion as I said before.
What is much more troubing to me is that you think the religious right is trying to keep people from seeking careers in the sciences. You need to crawl out of the Bush and get back to reality guy. For the last 300 years, the United States has produced nearly every major scientific invention and breakthough….AS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY! Your theory is both insulting and ridiculous. By the way, I’m an engineer AND I believe in GOD.
I also believe in God, I just have a problem with religious fundamentalists who feel they are authorities on biological evolution (simply because their religion offers an alternative explanation) when such an issue should be obviously deferred to the expertise of qualified and objective biologists like Sean B. Carrol, A.J. Petto and Neil Shubin.
Certainly not people like Michael Behe (biochemist) or William Dembski (mathematician) who are motivated by a religious disquiet with evolution and, as non biologists, have made faulty and erroneous critiques of the evolutionary process (And, isn’t it highly suspect when non biologists feel they are qualified to “debunk” evolution?).
Here is a link to a page at “Rational Wikipedia” clarifying all of the generic creationist themes found within the conservative pundits Robert Locke’s page, “The Scientific Case Against Evolution”:
http://rationalwiki.com/w.....e_to_Locke’s,_%22The_Scientific_Case_Against_Evolution%22
Religious people should not view evolutionary theory as a threat as I’m sure God would want us to use our faculties of reason to accept everything science has to teach us. As the Reverand and travelling preacher of evolution Michael Dowd says, “Facts Are God’s Native Tongue”:
http://thankgodforevolution.com/
Nietzsche, the model for Nazism, got his outlook from Darwin. So did Marx. Has evolution done ANYTHING beneficial for humanity? It says that power matters most, which Nietzsche took to an extreme that Darwin himself would have been horrified about.
Whoa there, to be fair Nietzche was NOT really the model for Nazism. In point of fact, Nietzche strongly disagreed with the Nazis, and was disgusted by antisemitism. The just took his writings post-mortum and twisted them to meet the Nazi ideals. The poor guy’s writings still hasn’t recovered from the stain that left on his image.
On a side note, does a scientific theory have to do something beneficial for humanity to be true?
I mean, if I ask it real nice is the theory of relativity going to pay my rent one of these days? I’m just saying, because if I ask, and it says ‘no’ I’m going to feel kind of foolish.
Good rebuttals, IndiMinded. You get me thinking
. I think I should have approached it differently. I guess what I was noting is that Darwin has been used, probably against his intent, as the antithesis of America’s basic doctrine of everyone having equal value. The idea of a “superior race” came from Darwin. Hitler adored Nietzsche and believed in evolution, but I don’t mean to imply that Darwinism inevitably leads to genocide. Certainly not every Darwinist approves of genocide. But it gave a philosophic basis to Nazism. Let me know if I’m missing something that you noted, IndiMinded.
I understand where you’re coming from. There’s been social Darwinism, and of course the Ubermench as embraced by Hitler. But the Romans were sort of the same way, long before the idea of evolution came along they had a similar conception of valuing strength and laughing at weakness.
I do worry about where genetic research is leading though. With the ability to analyze genetics and pick up defects even before birth, I wonder if 10 years from now we’ll be looking back on Gattaca as eerily predictive.
I will say though that it seems to me that evolution, as a concept, has been thoroughly proven. If you don’t believe it, get a microscope, we can watch it happen. Animal breeders have known about the basic idea since as long as they have been animal breeders.
Look at some of the crazy looking dog breeds around today. Do you think dogs that looked like them were EVER grabbed up from the wild? No, sorry, in many cases we’re looking at what happens when mankind decides to bend a species to our fancy. You go out hunting for wild Toy Poodle if you want, let me know how that goes. Your best bet is the suburbs.
Evolution exists, and everyone knows it exists. It happens all around us. We can watch it happen and we can make it happen - on smaller scales at least. Even those who say they don’t believe in evolution - really I bet you believe in the process of evolution. What you might not believe is that you and I are descended from a monkey.
I just wish people would start saying “I don’t believe we’re descended from monkeys” instead of “I don’t believe in evolution”. Because that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn’t it?
“I just wish people would start saying ‘I don’t believe we’re descended from monkeys’ instead of ‘I don’t believe in evolution’. Because that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn’t it?”
That is such an astute statement. I’d never thought of genetic changes as “evolution” before, just metamorphoses into completely different species! There really is a difference between descending from dissimilar species such as monkeys versus the changes in the gene pool that cause different breeds of dogs. The sizes of animals are evidence of this. I am of the belief that history didn’t happen from “the era of dinosaurs” to “the era of humans”, first because I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and second because numerous ancient art pieces depict monsters. (I know, though, that those who believe in Jurassic, Triasic, etc. believe humanity has overlapped with dinosaurs.) Dinosaurs are, in my opinion, very large breeds of animals. Some giant lizards that we call dinosaurs, for example, are minimally different structurally from what we know today. I also think dinosaur species have become extinct because humans have hunted them down as they’ve ravaged people.
Christopher,
You do realise that the Genesis account was written by several hebrew writers who were influenced by similar Mesopotamian creation stories and that it was never intended as a scientific or historical document?
And also, just because you choose to believe that the Genesis account, which was authored by hebrew writers trying to make sense of their world around them, is “literally true” and that you only feel the need to “pick and choose” from evolutionary theory what suits your worldview doesn’t change the fact that human evolution is a reality that no credible biologists have any problem with (for instance, the “missing links”, which is old fashioned language creationists like to use, are extremely numerous and include Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus and Homo Rudolfensis, just to name a few).
Mammals were only the size of small rodents while the dinosaurs lived because it was impossible for them, let alone humans, to grow and emerge because dinosaurs dominated the environmental niches of the world for 200 million years. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
Modern humans, Homo Sapiens, only emerged approximately 100,000 years ago.
I recommend reading the book, “Finding Darwin’s God”, written by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller which is a book written by a christian on how christians can accept human evolution as the fact that it is while still adhering to their faith:
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/
“I actually think this is a serious issue and that it is important that America doesn’t have a president that will be ‘under the thumb’ of the religious right thus will ignore a quality science education in America which would lead to people not seeking careers in medicine, environmental sciences and other related fields.”
Jeff, to comment on your comment and steer this discussion back to something relevant to the thread, you might want to rethink your statement as it relates to the campaign. I believe it was Obama who met with all the staunch religous leaders this week, was it not? McCain hasn’t done so, at least yet. I think you believe only conservative republicans would do such a thing. *L*
Also, the “religous right” has never historically discouraged health related fields. America is awash in health care professionals.
What I know to be the political reality is that if a Democrat is elected President they won’t feel pressured to block stem cell research into treatment that can help the lives of people with severe health problems and a Democratic President wouldn’t feel obligated to reverse ‘Roe V. Wade’ thus regressing the reproductive rights of women because the Democrats are not beholden to the religious right in the way that the Republican party is.
And, it is people within the religious right that want religious ideologies taught in science classes and with that point of view exerted upon a President they are certain to show them sympathy (such as in 2005 when Bush said he felt “Intelligent Design” creationism could be taught in science classes as well even though he knew nothing about it, how the scientific community roundly rejects it and how in December 2005 a District Court in America ruled it unconstitutional and not science).
Jeff, please take note of how many years (with the exception of Clinton’s years) that Republicans have been in the White House as well as Congress, and none of your fears have come to past. I don’t see this as an issue in the campaign.
Thanks for mentioning the book, Jeff. If anything, I’d be interested to just read the logic, although I have read many arguments like what you’ve mentioned. I don’t believe that the Genesis account was a continuation of Mesopotamian myths–but I won’t go further into that. Embryonic stem cell research has had little to no success, while adult stem cell research has. It’s a Planned Parenthood excuse. And evolution is far from proven. I’m not trying to take some of Darwinism and leave other parts out; I flatly reject Darwinism but accept that the gene pool changes and creates different breeds of animals–but structural changes and metamorphoses from fish into animals are Darwinian myths.
Some myths about Stem Cell Research that you won’t see in the MSM:
Myth 1. Stem cells can only come from embryos. In fact stem cells can be taken from umbilical cords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, adult tissues and organs such as bone marrow, fat from liposuction, regions of the nose, and even from cadavers up to 20 hours after death.
Myth 2. Christians are against stem cell research. There are four categories of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and adult stem cells. Given that germ cells can come from miscarriages that involve no deliberate interruption of pregnancy, Christians in general oppose the use of only one of these four categories, i.e., embryonic stem cells. In other words, most Christians approve of three of the four possible types of stem cell research.
Myth 3. Embryonic stem cell research has the greatest promise. Up to now, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already cured thousands. For example, bone marrow cells from the hipbone have repaired scar tissue on the heart after heart attacks. Research using adult cells is 20-30 years ahead of embryonic stem cells and holds greater promise. This is in part because stem cells are part of the natural repair mechanisms of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells do not belong in an adult body (where they are likely to form tumors, and to be rejected as foreign tissue by the recipient). Rather, embryonic stem cells really belong only within in the specialized microenvironment of a rapidly growing embryo, which is a radically different setting from an adult body.
Myth 4. Embryonic stem cell research is against the law. In reality, there is no law or regulation against destroying human embryos for research purposes. While President Bush has banned the use of federal funding to support research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 2001, it is not illegal. Anyone using private funds is free to pursue it.
Myth 5. President Bush created new restrictions to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The 1996 Dickey Amendment prohibited the use of federal funds for research that would involve the destruction of human embryos. Bush’s decision to permit research on embryonic stem cell lines created before a certain date thus relaxes this restriction from the Clinton era.
I guess for me, the real issue is that the structural changes, while very minor from generation to generation, do add up over time. I mean I clearly don’t know for certain that if I trace back the family line of a toy poodle long enough I will find something very wolf-like and not at all toy poodle-like, but I guess I’ve always taken it as a given.
And if this is true, well surely most wolves see as little resemblance between themselves and a Dachshund as when they look at a human and some species of monkey. It would take a blind man to mistake a wolf for a dachshund, and even then he’d have to be mostly deaf! I’d say there’s been some rather marked structural change.
But not “fish to mammal” change, I’ll certainly grant you that. Even imagining a species making that progression does seem like something from a bad sci-fi movie. The most difficult changes to imagine an entire species making are the major adaptations. Fish learning to breath and progressing into a land creature, land creatures growing wings and learning to fly. I understand that skepticism.
But can I ask what you thought of the spectacle drawn to Snakeheads in recent years? Here you have a fish with both gills and functioning lungs that can move about on land and breath our air. I mean, evolution or not, that’s an impressive feat, isn’t it?? And while their existence certainly doesn’t prove or disprove anything, doesn’t it at least lend some credibility to the notion of fish abandoning the sea?
Because if more fish had lungs and a means to get around, they might want another adaptation or two - but the lungs and ground transportation are probably the two biggest steps.
You really get me thinking, IndiMinded
. I like discussing things with you. What we’ve learned about Snakeheads is truly impressive. I can see how it can look like evidence of evolutionary processes, too. I don’t know why those fish can do those things. To the creationists who do not believe in the “millions of years of evolution” timetable, like myself, it is evidence of the diversity God created, rather than a sign of evolutionary transition. Not to imply that all Darwinists are out to deceive, but I’ve read so many stories of the science establishment having to explain why the new discovery of an evolutionary transition was a fraud. To give a little testimonial here about what “wow”ed me about the Genesis Flood, I went to the science museum at Hays, Kansas and saw the “Fish within a fish”, fossilized while one fish was eating another. Something happened suddenly there! I know a lot of people have tried to reconcile creation and evolution, but none of that logic ever adds up for me. I’m always open to listening!
Christopher,
The story of the great flood originated in the “Epic of Gilgamesh” which spawned many subsequent stories of worldwide floods.
Why do you believe the Genesis account to be a factual account? How is it anymore valid than the creation account of Australian Aboriginal or Canadian Eskimos? All creation stories represent respective cultures trying to grapple with the unknown world around them via regional mythology and no creation stories are meant to act as, or replace, scientific evidence and research. Isn’t it far more likely that you have grown up believing a certain creation story to actually be true and that has made it difficult for you to be objective by seeing that the Genesis account has its origins in Babylonian culture.
For instance, the bible also states, “the world is established, it can’t be moved” and, “the Lord set the Earth on its foundations it can never be moved” yet I’m sure you accept that the Earth does revolve around the Sun and also, that over the 4.3 billion history of Earth that the continents have shifted.
Scientists don’t make up their conclusions or base them on “faith” but instead upon repeatedly tested and scrutinised evidence.
So, do you believe that the world’s scientists, who accept and support human evolution, are either themselves deluded or are apart of some sort of conspiracy? I can assure you that scientists do not promote human evolution because of some sort of “atheistic agenda” or because of some sort of conspiracy but they do so because there are mountains of evidence that support human evolution. We all live in the same reality and that reality includes scientific research and evidence which tells us about the history of our planet and of our species, thus, it is important to use our God given faculty of reason and logic.
Most prominent religious branches have endorsed evolution and don’t see it as undermining their faith (ie: the Catholic Church originally said it was fine too accept and that Genesis was not a literal account back in the 1950’s) and only extreme fundamentalist groups adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis both because of a extreme religious culture and a lack of scientific understanding.
Science is always tearing itself down and remaking itself anew. Things that we knew to be true 30 years ago aren’t true anymore, and new truths emerge every day. 30 years from now I’m sure that will be as true as it is today. I really don’t doubt that science as we know it will be turned on it’s head numerous times in the next decade.
The fact is that I don’t think a month goes by anymore that I don’t read a science article or hear about a new discovery about the workings of the world that is simply mind-boggling. On the radio today I heard that scientists now believe that 20% of the earth’s oxygen is sustained by a marine micro-organism called Prochlorococcus. We’ve been breathing this air for a very long time, but who knew?
If there are holes to evolution, or if theorists turned out to be way off base I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. Scientific discovery is much more reliable than the interpretation.
But I’ve always been a little bit skeptical of the scientists who advocate intelligent design, because it seems like finding evidence to back intelligent design theory often takes a back seat to finding holes in evolutionary theory. That just seems unsportsmanlike. Why preoccupy yourself with tearing down an opposing theory rather than building up your own?
It’s always useful to have people questioning the status quo, but if intelligent design were to be taught in schools, as some have advocated, than proving it’s merit as a science is significantly more important than finding flaws in the dominant theory. I’ll admit though, it’s possible that I simply haven’t heard much of the existing body of evidence…
That fish within a fish sounds pretty fascinating. It’s hard to imagine how that flash-fozzilization could have taken place, but certainly someone had a rude interruption to their meal.
It’ll be interesting answering you, Jeff–here goes. I think the stories of a worldwide flood are too universal to NOT be true. Even the early American cultures recorded such a story. Please understand that I am not the best apologist, as I am better at understanding and believing something than passing it onto others. I’m not as knowledgeable as some on radio-carbon dating, but what some experts say is that severe changes in the environment (climate, natural disasters, etc.) speed up the aging process, if I remember correctly. The scientific establishment says that the Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of erosion instead of a sudden onslaught of water. I like to compare it to the sudden deposits that the Mt. St. Helens explosion left behind. Mt. St. Helens’s erosion over millions of years could have done the same thing, but scientists were able to measure how quickly such a thing could happen. For scientists to think that a certain kind of earth at a certain layer indicates a specific timetable of how many millions of years ago it happened, is too presumptuous for me to accept. There’s no way that they could be right when they can’t even predict the future climate and weather correctly half the time. But perhaps, Jeff, you have a different perspective.
IndiMinded, that’s a good point about creation science being rather unsportsmanlike. There is considerably more effort in creation science towards disproving Darwinism, but I have seen some neat evidence towards proving the Genesis Flood. If you’re interested, you can investigate Creation on the Web - creationontheweb.com . Try typing “Dragons” in the search engine there. It’s a site my older brother recently discovered.
Christopher,
I notice how creationists like referring to evolutionary theory as “darwinism” as if evolutionary science has barely changed since the time of Charles Darwin in the 19th century. It may surprise you to realise that a lot of evolutionary mechanisms today are non darwinian in nature because of advances in genetics and other fields. Therefore, as science progresses and evolves over the years scientists may dispute evolutionary mechanisms however they certainly agree that evolution is a natural process.
Also, I assume you are not a biologist and not even a scientist? Thus, don’t you think it is logical to leave the enquiry of carbon dating and evolutionary science to actual objective scientists and biologists who base their judgements on the tested research and evidence? It seems foolish to me that non scientists feel, simply because they are religious, that they are in a credible position to judge the validity of evolution and other scientifically complex fields. Scientists may still have some work to do on some aspects of human evolution but human evolution as a scientific issue is as real as the Earth revolving around the Sun or as real as New Zealand being a country that exists in the southern hemisphere.
There is no physical evidence for any ‘world wide flood’ and while it is a mythology that prevails throughout many cultures that in no way means it is a reality. The following link provides a concise history of flood mythology and how it got its start in the ‘Epic of Gilgamesh’ and popularised in the hebrew written ‘Book of Genesis’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
Another good book I’d like to suggest is “Thank God For Evolution” which is written by the former christian preacher Michael Dowd who travels America giving presentations at churches on how evolution is our “great story”. Another phrase he uses that I agree with is that, “Facts are God’s native tongue”, thus, we shouldn’t resent science or try to manipulate it to adhere to a strict ideology (which is what the IDers do) because everything science has to teach us gives us a greater understanding of God’s creation:
http://thankgodforevolution.com/
Thanks for the recommendations, Jeff. I am always open to learning about other perspectives. Could I ask you what you think about EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED ? The movie doesn’t try to prove creation over evolution as much as show that even suggesting intelligent design as a possibility gets a scientist blacklisted. Do you think that’s right? I don’t think it’s objective and unbiased of science teachers to give students F’s for using the word “created”. Might you disprove specific creationist arguments beyond citing other scientists’ opinions? I’d like to see your perspective further. The science establishment is divided over creation vs. evolution, as with global warming. Intelligent people are adamently defending both sides. I don’t think it’s a sign of burying your head in the sand to not believe the theory of evolution. But I understand why you would feel that way. No hard feelings
.
The science establishment is not “divided” over creationism and evolution. It is religious fundamentalists and scientifically ignorant people who support Creationism and its new incranation, “Intelligent Design Creationism”. For instance, the main supporters of “ID” are William Dembski, who is a mathematician, and Phillip Johnson, who is a lawyer and both are religious fundamentalist without a science education. Clearly the Creationist movement is not backed by any objective scientists.
The “National Center For Science Education” has established the website, “Expelled Exposed” ( http://www.expelledexposed.com/ ) which lists in details falsehoods cited in “Expelled” concerning the so called expelled “scientists” and how it is clear that the film was devised by religious fundamentalist with no honest or scientific understanding of evolution.
Remember, evolution (including human evolution) is not something to be “believed in” as a matter of faith as it is supported by mountains of evidence thus the scientific community accepts it as the reality it is. If you are interested I have the entire downloaded PDF of “Thank God For Evolution” on my computer, I could email it to you as an attachment if you would be interested (the book used to be available to download for free from his website but I think he has now disabled that feature).
I’m always open to listening
. schwinger@juno.com