Who do you think should win the Republican nomination?

[ptfunds]

I think any candidate would be fine. I am quite happy with the array of Republican candidates. It's quite a group! Assures me that whoever they pick can't possibly win if people in this country are thinking with any modicum of logic and sense. I'm looking forward to seeing who they pick. It should be quite an interesting show.

[Falconer02]

That is why the government shouldn't have bailed them out.  If everyone understood that there were no bail outs and that wall street took risks (often excessive and occasionally illegal), then people would keep a very close eye on their money.  The best would rise and thrive and the worst would fall by the wayside and die.  I would say that a considerable amount of the blame goes to people who invest their money and pay it no mind after that (except for how much they make).  Those are as much the villains as anyone as they encourage the conduct by forgoing the most basics of personal responsibility.

I suppose our gov't just does not want another 1929 to happen and as a result they have spoiled WS to believe they are invincible. It seems either way it could have went would have economically devestated the US. I guess expecting mature decisions within all aspects of this is a pipe dream.

I absolutely agree, both of those scare the heck out of me and that they could even be proposed and that so many people are even as of now entirely unaware of them (and yet so eager to vote again in the next election) makes me wonder just how low the media has sunk.

Yeah. I'm warning everyone I can about it. It's really a red mark on any politician who supports either imo.

I wouldn't call that anti-gay preaching but simple honesty on his part.  His stating regarding his faith is entirely constitutional and in no way infringes upon this "separation of church and state" animal you speak of.

Of course it's not a problem for him stating his faith-- it's what he attached it with in the video- specifically the anti-gay statement and false facts about how kids can't pray in school, openly celebrate christmas, or "Obama's war on religion". Seriously? Is he really that outright stupid? He either is or he's obviously pushing the theocratic agenda of an outdated fearmongering way of thinking. He's about 50 years too late to be pulling garbage like this and I'm very happy that the dislike bar is like 98% red. There are a lot of response videos the Perry vid that explain how not only is he muddling voters, but he's also muddling christian groups. Check them out if interested.

Personally I consider homosexuality a bad thing and something that should be discouraged much along the lines of smoking, yet every day it is raised as if it were an issue signifying some quality that someone should want to have by people trying to justify their own guilt's against the undesirable traits of others.  I suppose that makes me anti-gay and that makes me have to ask you then what is wrong with me having that position?

You're allowed to have that position though it does not make any practical sense. I would not say homosexuality is on par with smoking as people are not sexually attracted to cigarettes-- you can't turn off sexual attraction.

It is certainly within my rights and a perfectly logical stance to take that does not suggest any bad qualities in me.

Except misinformation on the effects between say, a gay couple and the system as we know it-- for instance keeping a gay couple from marrying bans them from certain benefits such as tax exemptions, work/insurance/medical benefits, or power of attorney. Put yourself in that situation if you wanted to get married but couldn't and then something happened drastic happened to your partner. If the user Jordandog were here, she could explain it in depth of why the laws promote inequality. I wish I could find the post, but it was a real eye opener as she is in the medical field. Perhaps I broadened the spectrum here, but for the record- no I don't think you're a bad person! lol

In the above example of a gay soldier, the soldier would be a hero to me because he was a soldier and not because he was gay and the one quality does not transfer to the other or elevate it in any way.  I don't care about his gayness and would prefer it to never be mentioned to me.

Exactly! A person's sexuality shouldn't matter-- it matters what that person did in life to benefit others. So why the hell would Perry even bring junk like that up in a political ad!? Gah!

Adaptation is certainly proven and logical but there has never ever been even one single bit of evidence to indicate any evolution event ever occurring.

This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html  (recent genetic drift example)

There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.

(and you must admit that it is being taught more like fact than theory and with the worth of questions you proposed above that should offend you that the way it is presented does not invoke that worth and actually suppresses it).

Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.

[Abrupt]

I suppose our gov't just does not want another 1929 to happen and as a result they have spoiled WS to believe they are invincible. It seems either way it could have went would have economically devestated the US. I guess expecting mature decisions within all aspects of this is a pipe dream.

I would have rather we taken our lumps then instead of some now and even more than we would have taken initially, later.  When we have set it all up to be even worse now while also suffering during the event it makes about as much sense to me as plugging a wound with a rusted, crusted, germ infected knife.

Yeah. I'm warning everyone I can about it. It's really a red mark on any politician who supports either imo.

Would you guess that even 10 percent of the population is aware of these?

Of course it's not a problem for him stating his faith-- it's what he attached it with in the video- specifically the anti-gay statement and false facts about how kids can't pray in school, openly celebrate christmas, or "Obama's war on religion". Seriously? Is he really that outright stupid? He either is or he's obviously pushing the theocratic agenda of an outdated fearmongering way of thinking. He's about 50 years too late to be pulling garbage like this and I'm very happy that the dislike bar is like 98% red. There are a lot of response videos the Perry vid that explain how not only is he muddling voters, but he's also muddling christian groups. Check them out if interested.

Part of that is true though.  There are schools in the US where you cannot pray or openly celebrate Christmas (within the confines of your acts truly being considered 'free').  I wouldn't say Obama was waging a war on religion, but I would say he has a campaign against "Americanism" and American traditions and qualities.  These traits do extend into religion but I don't put it as his primary focus point (although I believe he has contempt for religion just as he does for the constitution).  I am not a big fan of Perry, although I consider him to be infinitely greater than Obama as I would likely also consider any other candidate -- be it Republican, independent, or Democratic).  Regardless I see a much greater amount of fear mongering coming from the Democratic Party and from Obama on a daily basis.

You're allowed to have that position though it does not make any practical sense. I would not say homosexuality is on par with smoking as people are not sexually attracted to cigarettes-- you can't turn off sexual attraction.

I would be curious to see the chemical comparisons between the two, actually.  Smoking certainly has the strongest desire force of the two, based on the combination of addiction qualities.  Considering homosexuality would not be part of the propagation impulse it has to be more about domination than anything else (oh I know some might read this with great annoyance and I can imagine a chorus of nelly voices shouting hateful things my way -- but if you break it down to the science and logic the truth is somewhere within what I said with the only other possibilities being mental defects).  Homosexuality is definitely more deadly to a species than smoking would be and yet it is actively encouraged here where smoking is openly (and likely rightfully) criticized.

Except misinformation on the effects between say, a gay couple and the system as we know it-- for instance keeping a gay couple from marrying bans them from certain benefits such as tax exemptions, work/insurance/medical benefits, or power of attorney. Put yourself in that situation if you wanted to get married but couldn't and then something happened drastic happened to your partner. If the user Jordandog were here, she could explain it in depth of why the laws promote inequality. I wish I could find the post, but it was a real eye opener as she is in the medical field. Perhaps I broadened the spectrum here, but for the record- no I don't think you're a bad person! lol

I cannot marry my truck either and that keeps me from having certain benefits such as tax exemptions, etc, also.  If marriage is redefined to include things that are not marriage then it should also include everything someone wants to include to the point that everyone has these tax benefits and such things by default.  The only things excluded are along the lines of family privileges and power of attorney and for them a legal document needs to be created allowing for such things.  I don't have a problem with gays being provided a legal mechanism allowing for all the rights of marriage but it must be named something else instead of redefining what marriage is, because if they redefine it for them they are going to have to redefine it for me as they would certainly be discriminating against me in that event.

Exactly! A person's sexuality shouldn't matter-- it matters what that person did in life to benefit others. So why the hell would Perry even bring junk like that up in a political ad!? Gah!

Maybe he thinks he is playing to the audience.  All politicians do this as Obama frequently demonstrates in every teleprompter read he makes it will always target the particular audience he has in front of him.  I haven't tracked the targeted release area fro the ad so I cannot be more specific in my theory as to why, but it sounds like something I would be partially in agreement with just from the description you provide (although I always 'translate' what I hear said as I tend to consider almost all things greatly exaggerated).

This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html  (recent genetic drift example)

There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.

While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution.  There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.  Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other.  As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.

Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.

I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on.  Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).

[falcon9]

This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html  (recent genetic drift example)

There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.

While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution. 

Are you a trained anthropolist, biologist, paleo-archeologist or just nay-saying?
 

There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out. 

Like what?  can't be 'creationism' since that's even more speculative than the theory of evolution.
 

Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other.  As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.

The fossil records are incomplete.  Verifiable evidence of 'creationism' is nonexistent.

Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.

I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on.  Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).

If we are to teach only what we know for a fact, let us remove all speculation to do with 'creationism' on that basis as well.

[Abrupt]

This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html  (recent genetic drift example)

There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.

While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution. 

Are you a trained anthropolist, biologist, paleo-archeologist or just nay-saying?
 

There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out. 

Like what?  can't be 'creationism' since that's even more speculative than the theory of evolution.
 

Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other.  As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.

The fossil records are incomplete.  Verifiable evidence of 'creationism' is nonexistent.

Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.

I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on.  Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).

If we are to teach only what we know for a fact, let us remove all speculation to do with 'creationism' on that basis as well.

Let me review what valuable bit of wisdom you added to this discussion...hmm..wait..oh maybe that's it...nope...not a damned thing.

[falcon9]

Let me review what valuable bit of wisdom you added to this discussion...hmm..wait..oh maybe that's it...nope...not a damned thing.

If so, your reading & comprehension abilities are in question.  What was added was the notion that speculative opinions lacking any evidence whatsover, (such as 'creationism'), should be omitted from any school's curriculum.  On the other hand, your specious sarchasm added zilch to the discussion.

[Abrupt]

Let me review what valuable bit of wisdom you added to this discussion...hmm..wait..oh maybe that's it...nope...not a damned thing.

If so, your reading & comprehension abilities are in question.  What was added was the notion that speculative opinions lacking any evidence whatsover, (such as 'creationism'), should be omitted from any school's curriculum.  On the other hand, your specious sarchasm added zilch to the discussion.

My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable, it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard.  You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation.  Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) into your reply to me where my argument didn't even utilize 'creationism') has seemingly blinded you to clarity and reason.  You might want to get that checked out.  What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation.  As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.

[falcon9]

My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable ...

Your claim remains unsubstantiated by evidence in this instance.

it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard.  You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation. 

Actually, were your comprehension abilities at more than a minimal level, you would have discerned that I did not, in fact, impute that particular alternative to the theory of evolution to you.  What I did was to suggest that the entirely speculative 'opinion' of creationism lacks any evidentiary basis and does not need to be included in any school's curriculum.  You'd realize this if you did comprehend what was written instead of taking it as an opportunity for a smarmy 'flame'.  Parenthentically, lest you consider my response to your smarmy flame as a smarmy flame, both perceptions are largely a matter of perspective.

Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) ...

The suggestion of "hatred" is speculative on your part.  Although I find it ironic that those who support 'creationism' are singularly unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim, this cannot logically be conflated with "hatred".

 

What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation.

In other words, when asked what other alternative theories to evolution were extant, (when you wrote vaguely that there were and failed to specify what those alternatives were), one baseless alternative was suggested, ('creationism'), and this was characterized as "ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation".  Not only that, a false accusation, ("ceaseless", "obfuscation"; supported by zero evidence but, ironically having an extensive basis of posted evidence coming from you - odd, that).

As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.

Now you're speculating about what I do or do not consider to be "grandiose"?  I'll consider your hypocrisy as a winter solstice gift; thanks.

[tpeevyhouse]

My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable ...

Your claim remains unsubstantiated by evidence in this instance.

it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard.  You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation. 

Actually, were your comprehension abilities at more than a minimal level, you would have discerned that I did not, in fact, impute that particular alternative to the theory of evolution to you.  What I did was to suggest that the entirely speculative 'opinion' of creationism lacks any evidentiary basis and does not need to be included in any school's curriculum.  You'd realize this if you did comprehend what was written instead of taking it as an opportunity for a smarmy 'flame'.  Parenthentically, lest you consider my response to your smarmy flame as a smarmy flame, both perceptions are largely a matter of perspective.

Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) ...

The suggestion of "hatred" is speculative on your part.  Although I find it ironic that those who support 'creationism' are singularly unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim, this cannot logically be conflated with "hatred".

 

What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation.

In other words, when asked what other alternative theories to evolution were extant, (when you wrote vaguely that there were and failed to specify what those alternatives were), one baseless alternative was suggested, ('creationism'), and this was characterized as "ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation".  Not only that, a false accusation, ("ceaseless", "obfuscation"; supported by zero evidence but, ironically having an extensive basis of posted evidence coming from you - odd, that).

As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.

Now you're speculating about what I do or do not consider to be "grandiose"?  I'll consider your hypocrisy as a winter solstice gift; thanks.

[Abrupt]

My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable ...

Your claim remains unsubstantiated by evidence in this instance.

Hey that made me laugh (not in an arrogant 'you are so mistaken' sort of way, but in a 'hey that was pretty funny actually' sort of way).

it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard.  You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation. 

Actually, were your comprehension abilities at more than a minimal level, you would have discerned that I did not, in fact, impute that particular alternative to the theory of evolution to you.  What I did was to suggest that the entirely speculative 'opinion' of creationism lacks any evidentiary basis and does not need to be included in any school's curriculum.  You'd realize this if you did comprehend what was written instead of taking it as an opportunity for a smarmy 'flame'.  Parenthentically, lest you consider my response to your smarmy flame as a smarmy flame, both perceptions are largely a matter of perspective.

Well in this particular instance if you will examine the quote you initially replied to ("There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.") in its context you would realize it was in regards to the articles linked by Falconer02.  I don't know if you had the opportunity to read them, but within the context of my paragraph and its point as a reply to a quote from Falconer02 it becomes quite obvious.  There was no 'creationism' mentioned or even required in my reply as the source itself leaves enough room for doubt with its use of such shaky words as "it appears", and then trying to use the ideas built upon by such language as a rebuttal to challenges.  Since they are not even positive to use any stronger language than "it appears" one cannot really take them all that seriously and must only approach the points they raise with curiosity and a measure of skepticism and not believability enough to use them as facts.  Until they can muster up more proof than the casual observation suggested by "it appears", I will not even indicate the many alternatives to the case I was able to formulate during the brief amount of time it took to read.  To make this clear this is a discussion of an example in support of evolution that was presented by Falconer02 and it doesn't even have anything to do with 'creationism' as it is presented in support of evolution and not as opposition to 'creationism'.  Creationism never entered into my reasoning on this and it was not needed as lack of evidence for the position was indicated from the pro evolution article, and many people reading it would immediately see the conclusions that were jumped to without first dismissing the other possibilities for the scenario.

I had to look up that word 'smarmy'.  I like that word and will add it to my vocabulary.  You thought I was being smarmy?  I didn't intend it that way I was aiming more for a friendly/jesting form of haughty.

Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) ...

The suggestion of "hatred" is speculative on your part.  Although I find it ironic that those who support 'creationism' are singularly unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim, this cannot logically be conflated with "hatred".

I will agree that it is speculation on my part.  It does, though, seem that you are wielding your words as a weapon and trying to beat me over the head with it in some most demeaning fashion.  I wasn't even discussing creationism yet you assailed me with the word three times and your implied disdain for creationism is obviously apparent to anyone who reads your words.  What am I to make of it then?  Surely you must concede that it is a bit odd for you to be trying to put me on the defensive of a topic that isn't even in my discussion?

What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation.

In other words, when asked what other alternative theories to evolution were extant, (when you wrote vaguely that there were and failed to specify what those alternatives were), one baseless alternative was suggested, ('creationism'), and this was characterized as "ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation".  Not only that, a false accusation, ("ceaseless", "obfuscation"; supported by zero evidence but, ironically having an extensive basis of posted evidence coming from you - odd, that).

I didn't read you asking that at all.  You did skim some of the context then if that is what you think you asked and it is no wonder there is confusion.  Being true to context it would be more precise to say you were asking me to show some alternate explanations for the observations in the salamanders indicated under the ring species articles (to use one case as an example).  I indicated above why I don't feel it is necessary to do this.  Your presentation here is enough to show obfuscation and distraction, even though it was the result of your failure in comprehension of the subject matter being discussed.  So, for your satisfaction, I will entire your entire post I am replying to as evidence of the charge of obfuscation and distraction since it has not a thing to do with the reply I made to Falconer02 and only serves to draw away from that discussion.

As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.

Now you're speculating about what I do or do not consider to be "grandiose"?  I'll consider your hypocrisy as a winter solstice gift; thanks.

Well you have passion that comes through in your words.  You have certain patterns as well, that one can sense you gain a bit of delight in performing.  This is not a fault, it is a trait of writing and oft found in those that enjoy putting down their words.  It is a quality that both of us must posses to some degree to sustain the depth of back and forth that we, on occasion, reach or over reach.  I wouldn't imagine that either of us would put much effort into something that we didn't enjoy, and to extend (via adversarial empathy) a part of my justification, I can only assume it holds true to you as well.

[trucktina]

Do you folks hijack everyone's thread like this, or is it just mine? All I asked is who people think should win. LOL

[falcon9]

Well in this particular instance if you will examine the quote you initially replied to ("There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.") in its context you would realize it was in regards to the articles linked by Falconer02.  I don't know if you had the opportunity to read them, but within the context of my paragraph and its point as a reply to a quote from Falconer02 it becomes quite obvious.  There was no 'creationism' mentioned or even required in my reply as the source itself leaves enough room for doubt with its use of such shaky words as "it appears", and then trying to use the ideas built upon by such language as a rebuttal to challenges.

As it happens, I did skim through the articles linked by Falconeer and am aware of the context contained in them.  The reason that 'creationism' was interjected was not because you'd overtly raised that as an alternative to evolution but, because you didn't specify any of the "many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out", (whether these are nominally within the context of evolution or, the meta-context of 'how did all those critters get here?').  The inherent implication of your casting doubt upon theories of evolution was that there were other theories which account for species development.  While it is true that I was anticipating 'creationism' as one of those theories, this was due partly to your failure to specify and partly to your previously established general stance on such matters.

Since they are not even positive to use any stronger language than "it appears" one cannot really take them all that seriously and must only approach the points they raise with curiosity and a measure of skepticism and not believability enough to use them as facts. 

So you're essentially doubting some paleo-biological interpretations of fossil remains? Like dinosaur fossils showing feathers on a reptilian beastie or, what?

Until they can muster up more proof than the casual observation suggested by "it appears", I will not even indicate the many alternatives to the case I was able to formulate during the brief amount of time it took to read. 

There's a bit more support for it than "casual observation" however, if Falconeer wishes to present examples of these, he no doubt can.

To make this clear this is a discussion of an example in support of evolution that was presented by Falconer02 and it doesn't even have anything to do with 'creationism' as it is presented in support of evolution and not as opposition to 'creationism'.  Creationism never entered into my reasoning on this and it was not needed as lack of evidence for the position was indicated from the pro evolution article, and many people reading it would immediately see the conclusions that were jumped to without first dismissing the other possibilities for the scenario.

The discussion did not indicate a lack of evidence to support theories of evolution; it indicated your doubt concerning the interpretation of fossil and other records/biological processes.  The only alternative to theories of evolution which completely lacks supportive evidence is 'creationism'; which was the reason I raised the matter, (instead of implying that you did).


 

I will agree that it is speculation on my part.  It does, though, seem that you are wielding your words as a weapon and trying to beat me over the head with it in some most demeaning fashion.  I wasn't even discussing creationism yet you assailed me with the word three times and your implied disdain for creationism is obviously apparent to anyone who reads your words.  What am I to make of it then?  Surely you must concede that it is a bit odd for you to be trying to put me on the defensive of a topic that isn't even in my discussion?

As indicated, the interjection of 'creationism' was made because it is an inherent aspect of xtian opposition to theories of evolution.  If you can show disdain for theories of evolution surely others can show a similar disregard for alternatives which completely lack any evidentiary support.


 

I didn't read you asking that at all. 

Quote from: Abrupt on 24-12-2011, 21:46:11:
There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.


response from: falcon9 on 24-12-2011:
Like what?  Can't be 'creationism' since that's even more speculative than the theory of evolution.

You did skim some of the context then if that is what you think you asked and it is no wonder there is confusion.  Being true to context it would be more precise to say you were asking me to show some alternate explanations for the observations in the salamanders indicated under the ring species articles (to use one case as an example).  I indicated above why I don't feel it is necessary to do this. 

Indicating why you felt it was unnecessary to show alternate explanations is not the same thing as offering them after directly stating that, (unspecified), alternate explanations are extant.  This being the case, I'd asked if you were a trained paleo-biologist or, had some reasoned basis for asserting that, (unspecified), alternative explanations exist.

Your presentation here is enough to show obfuscation and distraction, even though it was the result of your failure in comprehension of the subject matter being discussed. 

None of your characterizations are accurate; my interjection of 'creationism' was as an inherent opposition by religious believers to evolution and not as an obfucatory distraction.  If you are suggesting, (by implication), that 'creationism' has nothing to say in opposition to theories of evolution, then I agree.  What I do comprehend is that, without some theory of evolution, the inherent default position is that species were 'created' as they now are and it was this position that I objected to, (expanding the overt context to the meta-context of discussion).

[falcon9]

Do you folks hijack everyone's thread like this, or is it just mine? All I asked is who people think should win. LOL

Not always.  Your thread still exists however, it experienced 'subject-drift' - a relatively common phenomenon during discussions, (which is why the thread title was altered to read "Re: Who do you think should win the specious species nomination?").  It's just a subthread, although the OP could have started a new thread, they may have gotten caught up in the 'pagentry' of it all.

[Falconer02]

I would have rather we taken our lumps then instead of some now and even more than we would have taken initially, later.  When we have set it all up to be even worse now while also suffering during the event it makes about as much sense to me as plugging a wound with a rusted, crusted, germ infected knife.

HA! I like this. Though I see it as more of a balloon that needs to be deflated by a group that has the ability to put 'deflation laws' into the mix rather than immediately pop it which would startle everyone that's already suffering from shell-shock.

Would you guess that even 10 percent of the population is aware of these?

I'm not surprised.  

Part of that is true though.  There are schools in the US where you cannot pray or openly celebrate Christmas (within the confines of your acts truly being considered 'free').

My best guess is those were probably private schools. I looked this up and couldn't find anything saying people couldn't pray in public schools. If there are stories, I'm sure they have to do with noise levels or the methods they were doing it (maybe trying to lead others unwillingly or something). And as far as celebrating xmas goes, it's probably the same story. Though I will say there are religions that are against celebrating xmas and I'd wager they are the ones causing this "scare". For instance my brother works at a middle school and one of the students was a Jehovah's Witness. The parents came into the students class after school one day and asked if the entire class wouldn't celebrate xmas because it left their kid feeling out and xmas was wrong by "godly standards". Of course the teacher declined doing so as it's completely illogical. Heck, I'm an freethinker and I know xmas does not have christian roots, but I don't mind people praying publically at all and I love xmas! The majority of americans do too, and I don't see that changing. Getting back to Perry though-- he's just using old and irrational scare tactics on what's probably the older generation.

Regardless I see a much greater amount of fear mongering coming from the Democratic Party and from Obama on a daily basis.

Sounds like election time is right around the corner. Personally I see more mud-slinging from dems than fearmongering, though both can be mixed quite easily.

I would be curious to see the chemical comparisons between the two, actually.  Smoking certainly has the strongest desire force of the two, based on the combination of addiction qualities.  Considering homosexuality would not be part of the propagation impulse it has to be more about domination than anything else (oh I know some might read this with great annoyance and I can imagine a chorus of nelly voices shouting hateful things my way -- but if you break it down to the science and logic the truth is somewhere within what I said with the only other possibilities being mental defects).  Homosexuality is definitely more deadly to a species than smoking would be and yet it is actively encouraged here where smoking is openly (and likely rightfully) criticized.

Both are well-known for being criticized and there are studies that show homosexuality can be dangerous to the persons involved (though heteros engage in similar dangerous things too...). Homosexuality is also very abnormal behavior seen all throughout nature too. But the major point we're forgetting is these people are fully-grown adults that are more than capable of making decisions based upon what they want out of life. If they want to be together, who cares? If you want to smoke, who cares? It's their life. Not yours or mine.

I cannot marry my truck either and that keeps me from having certain benefits such as tax exemptions, etc, also. If marriage is redefined to include things that are not marriage then it should also include everything someone wants to include to the point that everyone has these tax benefits and such things by default.  The only things excluded are along the lines of family privileges and power of attorney and for them a legal document needs to be created allowing for such things.

Why would you marry your truck? This isn't Japan! "Sentience" is the major word here-- 2 sentient beings both agreeing to something. Gay marriage really isn't a big deal though according to the statistics-- nothing would majorly change and within a few years gay marriage would be even a smaller minority then it would be if it were fully-legalized (if the statistics stay parallel to other countires who have legalized it such as the Netherlands- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands ). It would just be 2 sentient beings being wed. Nothing more. There's no reason to create a work-around system and treat people like second-class citizens.

I don't have a problem with gays being provided a legal mechanism allowing for all the rights of marriage but it must be named something else instead of redefining what marriage is, because if they redefine it for them they are going to have to redefine it for me as they would certainly be discriminating against me in that event

"I don't have a problem with blacks being provided a legal mechanism allowing for all the rights of voting but it must be named something else instead of redefining what voting is, because if they redefine it to include them they are going to have to redefine it for me as they would certainly be discriminating against me in that event."

While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution. There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.  Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other.  As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.

It would only be shooting blindly if they didn't have the millions of fossils/extinct creatures that show slowly-developing features to peruse. Remember-- millions of scientists around the world have studied these aspects and it's overwhelmingly accepted. Since neither of us are in the field of biology (unless my assumption is incorrect), I would have to say that you are nay-saying because you haven't suggested any reason to banish the most important aspect in biology class, haven't stated any examples refuting these claims, and haven't suggested any decent alternatives as to why there are transitional fossils, atavisms, etc.

I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on.  Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).

You think teaching people of pesticide resistance in bugs is a waste of time? That's another perfect example of evolution. Genetic variation in bugs scares the hell outta me and the effect it's having in other countries is quite staggering.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/1/l_101_02.html
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Pesticide_resistance.asp  
Damn you, evolution! Daaammmnnnn yyyyooouuu!!!

Anyway, take your time getting back to me if you wish. I'll try to respond to the posts below yours later. HOPE YOU ALL HAD A MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[falcon9]

[quote from: Abrupt]:
While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution. There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.  Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other.  As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.

It would only be shooting blindly if they didn't have the millions of fossils/extinct creatures that show slowly-developing features to peruse. Remember-- millions of scientists around the world have studied these aspects and it's overwhelmingly accepted. Since neither of us are in the field of biology (unless my assumption is incorrect), I would have to say that you are nay-saying because you haven't suggested any reason to banish the most important aspect in biology class, haven't stated any examples refuting these claims, and haven't suggested any decent alternatives as to why there are transitional fossils, atavisms, etc.

I concur with the excellent points you raise; which is why it was inferred that an unspecified alternate theory was being tacitly implied.