2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I don't get how Jim Webb, a guy with an incredible resume, broader appeal, and seemingly the most qualified candidate on the left can't get traction.

On the flip side, pure comedy on #TrumpBible

Andrew Jackson Breakup Is Awkward for Jim Webb - Bloomberg View

 

[BGIF]

Stunner, Trump, Carson, and Fiorina at 53%

Stunner, Trump, Carson, and Fiorina at 53%

Ben Carson surges to tie Donald Trump in new Iowa poll - CNNPolitics.com


By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 5:09 PM ET, Mon August 31, 2015

Washington (CNN)For the first time in more than a month, mogul Donald Trump is not leading the field in one of the first four nominating states in the Republican primary, according to a new poll.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has surged up in the pack to tie Trump in Iowa, Monmouth University found in a poll out Monday.

Trump and Carson are tied at 23%, according to the survey, making it the first time since July 26 that a poll in the first four states to select a Republican nominee did not find Trump substantially ahead of all other candidates.

Farther behind Trump and Carson were former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, at 10%; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, at 9%; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, at 7%; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, at 5%; Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, each at 4%; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, at 3%; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, at 2%. No other candidates topped 1%.

The results are a stark contrast from Monmouth's last Iowa poll, taken before the first Republican debate. In late July, Walker led with 22%, Trump had 13%, Carson had 8% and Fiorina was at 3%.

A CNN/ORC poll taken earlier this month found a similar top tier of candidates, but with a much stronger lead for Trump. In that poll, Trump was at 22%, Carson was at 14%, Walker was at 9%, Cruz was at 8% and Fiorina was at 7%.

In Monmouth's survey, when voters said they had strongly made up their mind on who they were voting for, Trump led Carson 30% to 22%. But those with only slight preferences backed Carson 25% to Trump's 16%.

Monmouth surveyed 405 registered Republican voters and likely Iowa caucus-goers from Aug. 27 to Aug. 30 by live phone interview, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

 

[bobbyok1]

Ben Carson surges to tie Donald Trump in new Iowa poll - CNNPolitics.com


By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 5:09 PM ET, Mon August 31, 2015

Washington (CNN)For the first time in more than a month, mogul Donald Trump is not leading the field in one of the first four nominating states in the Republican primary, according to a new poll.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has surged up in the pack to tie Trump in Iowa, Monmouth University found in a poll out Monday.

Trump and Carson are tied at 23%, according to the survey, making it the first time since July 26 that a poll in the first four states to select a Republican nominee did not find Trump substantially ahead of all other candidates.

Farther behind Trump and Carson were former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, at 10%; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, at 9%; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, at 7%; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, at 5%; Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, each at 4%; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, at 3%; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, at 2%. No other candidates topped 1%.

The results are a stark contrast from Monmouth's last Iowa poll, taken before the first Republican debate. In late July, Walker led with 22%, Trump had 13%, Carson had 8% and Fiorina was at 3%.

A CNN/ORC poll taken earlier this month found a similar top tier of candidates, but with a much stronger lead for Trump. In that poll, Trump was at 22%, Carson was at 14%, Walker was at 9%, Cruz was at 8% and Fiorina was at 7%.

In Monmouth's survey, when voters said they had strongly made up their mind on who they were voting for, Trump led Carson 30% to 22%. But those with only slight preferences backed Carson 25% to Trump's 16%.

Monmouth surveyed 405 registered Republican voters and likely Iowa caucus-goers from Aug. 27 to Aug. 30 by live phone interview, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Not a bit embarrassed to say Ben Carson will get my vote should he become the Republican candidate for President. Way too much common sense and character for me to not vote for him.

 

[NDPhilly]

If Ben Carson just had some political experience I'd feel more confident with voting for him. Regardless, If the Republican primary was tomorrow he'd probably have my vote.

 

[phgreek]

If Ben Carson just had some political experience I'd feel more confident with voting for him. Regardless, If the Republican primary was tomorrow he'd probably have my vote.

Yea, I'm ok with him. I'd prefer Fiorina or Jeb, but Carson would be just fine. On the D side, I could stomach grandpa Joe....and he is the ONLY one. He may be trying to do a 3rd O term at first, but he is from a time when Real negotiations occurred, and he is a personable and humble guy. He'd be reasonably well suited to possibly make Washington functional.

Now if Trump would hold out hope long enough to be committed as a Republican...this will all work out...where he will have forced some discourse, but won't be the republican nominee, and can't go indy and split the vote. Aaand if Hillary gets upended by the Bern, and Granpa gets in...I may put the black pill away.

Just think...we could be Hilless and Trumpless by Spring 2016...

 

[Buster Bluth]

Way too much common sense and character for me to not vote for him.

“A lot of people who go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay.”

“You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control."

“You said Obamacare was the worst thing that has happened to this coutry since slavery. Why do you think it was worse than 9/11?” I asked him.

“Because 9/11 is an isolated incident,” he answered.

WALLACE: You said recently that there might not even be elections in 2016 because of widespread anarchy. Do you really believe that?

CARSON: I hope that that’s not going to be the case. But certainly there’s the potential because you have to recognize that we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all these things going on like the ISIS crisis that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and in a logical way there is no telling what could happen in just a couple of years.

I would say that the man sounds like he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs. It's unfortunate really, because he's a brilliant surgeon who just so happens to have found himself a second career as the most recent Tea Party ball fondler.

The very idea of making someone with zero political experience the most powerful man in the world makes me cringe. I was on board with criticizing Obama's lack of experience in 2008, and think it showed in his first term...so why would we repeat that?

I also think it's weird that a guy who grew up in poverty and used 1) food stamps, 2) public housing, 3) public school, etc leads the charge of the nonsensical government cutters known as the Tea Party. Carson wrote in his own book that a turning point in his life was in the fifth grade when his eye was so poor that he couldn't read letters and, well: "The school provided glasses for me, free," which allowed him to go on and prosper.

Like the rest of them, he's a hypocrite using the social/religious angle to make millions. He has zero shot at becoming President, nor should he.

 

[kmoose]

If Ben Carson just had some political experience I'd feel more confident with voting for him. Regardless, If the Republican primary was tomorrow he'd probably have my vote.

I've been very impressed by his intellect and his humility. I would like to know more about him.

 

[Cackalacky]

I would say that the man sounds like he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs. It's unfortunate really, because he's a brilliant surgeon who just so happens to have found himself a second career as the most recent Tea Party ball fondler.

The very idea of making someone with zero political experience the most powerful man in the world makes me cringe. I was on board with criticizing Obama's lack of experience in 2008, and think it showed in his first term...so why would we repeat that?

I also think it's weird that a guy who grew up in poverty and used 1) food stamps, 2) public housing, 3) public school, etc leads the charge of the nonsensical government cutters known as the Tea Party. Carson wrote in his own book that a turning point in his life was in the fifth grade when his eye was so poor that he couldn't read letters and, well: "The school provided glasses for me, free," which allowed him to go on and prosper.

Like the rest of them, he's a hypocrite using the social/religious angle to make millions. He has zero shot at becoming President, nor should he.

I honestly could not agree more. He is a fringe personality and has zero business in the WH. He also openly rejects the foundational principle of his chosen profession's philosophy. I don't trust anyone who willingly and openly does that.

 

[connor_in]

I would say that the man sounds like he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs. It's unfortunate really, because he's a brilliant surgeon who just so happens to have found himself a second career as the most recent Tea Party ball fondler.

The very idea of making someone with zero political experience the most powerful man in the world makes me cringe. I was on board with criticizing Obama's lack of experience in 2008, and think it showed in his first term...so why would we repeat that?

I also think it's weird that a guy who grew up in poverty and used 1) food stamps, 2) public housing, 3) public school, etc leads the charge of the nonsensical government cutters known as the Tea Party. Carson wrote in his own book that a turning point in his life was in the fifth grade when his eye was so poor that he couldn't read letters and, well: "The school provided glasses for me, free," which allowed him to go on and prosper.

Like the rest of them, he's a hypocrite using the social/religious angle to make millions. He has zero shot at becoming President, nor should he.

Wow, really? Lovely

 

[phgreek]

I honestly could not agree more. He is a fringe personality and has zero business in the WH. He also openly rejects the foundational principle of his chosen profession's philosophy. I don't trust anyone who willingly and openly does that.

..What are you talking about?

 

[pkt77242]

..What are you talking about?

He doesn't believe in evolution.

 

[phgreek]

Wow, really? Lovely

Just wait ... this is the stage where they use mind numbing generalizations. Just wait 'til a Republican candidate is chosen...then shit gets real angry. Typical.

Keep your sense of humor...

 

[phgreek]

He doesn't believe in evolution.

thanks...

I mean I know a number of scientists who recognize the evidence that species evolve...but they believe in some form of intelligent design. Not sure you can be in "biological" science and not recognize adaptation, natural selection, and the impacts to species, so I need to go see where Ben lives on the continuum of creationism and strict evolutionism.

 

[Buster Bluth]

thanks...

I mean I know a number of scientists who recognize the evidence that species evolve...but they believe in some form of intelligent design. Not sure you can be in "biological" science and not recognize adaptation, natural selection, and the impacts to species, so I need to go see where Ben lives on the continuum of creationism and strict evolutionism.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YPqq6fr2CF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I actually agree with him in the sense that science could easily be used as proof of the existence of god. I wouldn't point to biology and all of its flaws, though.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Wow, really? Lovely

I've used that metaphor a half-dozen times on here. It's not directed at any individual here.

I'm on record saying the GOP's bases have been slowly walked into crazyland and are paying the price with their candidates. To me, Ben Carson and Donald Trump are merely two different manifestations of the same delusion. Donald Trump plays the aggressive loon, Ben Carson plays the compassionate loon. But they're basically playing the same roll for Republicans worshiping a mythological version of Ronald Reagan.

The proof is in the pudding, every election some crazy person shows up willing to tell the millions of faux conservatives what they want to hear. They're just fondling their balls for book sales and TV gigs. Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, etc etc. He's just the latest one.

 

[pkt77242]

thanks...

I mean I know a number of scientists who recognize the evidence that species evolve...but they believe in some form of intelligent design. Not sure you can be in "biological" science and not recognize adaptation, natural selection, and the impacts to species, so I need to go see where Ben lives on the continuum of creationism and strict evolutionism.

Ben Carson on Evolution: ‘Life Evolve From Non-Life? Incredible Fairy Tales’

 

[Cackalacky]

Ben Carson on Evolution: ‘Life Evolve From Non-Life? Incredible Fairy Tales’

Wow...that first paragraph.....it's worse than I thought ..Those are straight up thoroughly debunked Creationist canards and philosophical landmines. There are multiple competing theories for abiogenesis but that really isn't where evolution in Darwinian terms even starts and has its own theory with lines of very good evidence.

Anyone who knows a lick about that would never claim evolution is capable of describing life arising from no life. It doesn't and can't. That is deep creationist propaganda.

 

[Cackalacky]

thanks...

I mean I know a number of scientists who recognize the evidence that species evolve...but they believe in some form of intelligent design. Not sure you can be in "biological" science and not recognize adaptation, natural selection, and the impacts to species, so I need to go see where Ben lives on the continuum of creationism and strict evolutionism.

Point of order and a little peeve of mine. There is no ism after evolution. It's not a belief. Also intelligent design is not a valid theory at all. It has been shown to be easily falsifiable with no evidence what so ever and even in a court of law was determined to be creationism rebranded. (Kitzmiller v. Dover). Evolutionism is also used by creationists to bring evolution down to their level and treat evolution in the same manner they have to treat their terribly flawed logic and shifty so called science. Based on that interview I would say he is pretty well over on the side the creationists though I don't think he is quite as down as the a Discovery Institute "fellows." Like Ken Ham and Casey Luskin.

It makes more sense now hearing some of the other ridiculous quotes of his.

Apologies to y'all......the Discovery Institute is actively trying to inject themselves into biology using already debunked canards (which they just repackage with nice new shiny names) and their desired results already formulated, which is antithetical to the scientific method. These people and their associates are dangerous to science. Do not like at all.

 

[connor_in]

Not a hundred percent sure where I stand on the subject (or Ben Carson), but I'd like to ask a few questions on evolution.

Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, or constant gradualism?

Could you explain how gradualism's improbability led directly to multiverse theory?

Why must an infinite number of universes be posited to make the probability of random gradualism non-zero?

Can you tell us the rate of constant change necessary for genetic complexity to have randomly gone from 0 to what it is now? And how do those figures compare to observed rates?

 

[phgreek]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YPqq6fr2CF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I actually agree with him in the sense that science could easily be used as proof of the existence of god. I wouldn't point to biology and all of its flaws, though.

He is about where I'd have guessed...he believes in god and recognizes the stuff I'd expect...

 

[phgreek]

Point of order and a little peeve of mine. There is no ism after evolution. It's not a belief. Also intelligent design is not a valid theory at all. It has been shown to be easily falsifiable with no evidence what so ever and even in a court of law was determined to be creationism rebranded. (Kitzmiller v. Dover). Evolutionism is also used by creationists to bring evolution down to their level and treat evolution in the same manner they have to treat their terribly flawed logic and shifty so called science. Based on that interview I would say he is pretty well over on the side the creationists though I don't think he is quite as down as the a Discovery Institute "fellows." Like Ken Ham and Casey Luskin.

It makes more sense now hearing some of the other ridiculous quotes of his.

Apologies to y'all......the Discovery Institute is actively trying to inject themselves into biology using already debunked canards (which they just repackage with nice new shiny names) and their desired results already formulated, which is antithetical to the scientific method. These people and their associates are dangerous to science. Do not like at all.

little peeve = few words...just sayin.

OK, Evolutionism...not intended to take Evolution down, or disparage it. It is absolutely intended to separate the theory from those who use the theory in a self-assured, closed minded way...without giving the theory its due uncertainty. That is not to say Evolution is without a great deal of support, nor is Creationism "better" supported, but rather to say Evolution as we know it has some uncertainty, and does not disprove some level of creation. Some don't see it. For them...I make it an "ism" because they close the gaps of uncertainty with faith...or whatever you call it when you don't know but act like its absolute anyway.

Intelligent Design
not intended to be a shell game. In discussing this topic it has been my experience that those who want to intimate an understanding outside the Pinocchio type creationism use Intelligent Design, and then describe their thoughts. People have a range of beliefs from inspired lightning to something short of Adam and Eve as the starting point...Intelligent Design seems to be used as a bucket for an entire range of possibilities. Is it on the creationism side...well sure.

 

[Cackalacky]

Not a hundred percent sure where I stand on the subject (or Ben Carson), but I'd like to ask a few questions on evolution

This is a much larger topic so I will keep it susinct

Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, or constant gradualism?

I don't believe in either one. There is plenty of data to support that stance. However I am not familiar with constant gradualism. I guess you mean phyletic gradualism which Gould described? If you mean that animals evolve slowly over time then yes they do but constant gradualism implies a constant rate of change, which we can see from the fossil record does not follow. It also it used for larger taxonomic groups over larger geographical areas where PE most effectively describes speciation which can and does occur in small areas fairly quickly. Gradualism is also one of the original ideas of Darwinism though he himself assumed no rate of change in speciation. See here for more Punctuated Equilibria

Could you explain how gradualism's improbability led directly to multiverse theory?

you will have to be more specific because this is not something I recognise, nor do I know who posited this claim. It seems that you are implying gradualism is improbable but if you read the Link above it may provide more answers for this question

Why must an infinite number of universes be posited to make the probability of random gradualism non-zero?

Again I don't know where this claim is coming from nor who is claiming it nor do I know what evidence is used to justify it. I am assuming you are attempting to raise doubt in gradualism.....see above

Can you tell us the rate of constant change necessary for genetic complexity to have randomly gone from 0 to what it is now? And how do those figures compare to observed rates?

Yes you are definitely trying to muddle the concept of gradualism and evolution on different levels of taxonomy. I see....Read this and we can discuss further 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent and specifically29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

Prediction 5.8: Genetic rates of change

Rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide substitutions, must also be consistent with the rate required from the time allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between species.

Confirmation:

What we must compare are the data from three independent sources: (1) fossil record estimates of the time of divergence of species, (2) nucleotide differences between species, and (3) the observed rates of mutation in modern species. The overall conclusion is that these three are entirely consistent with one another.

For example, consider the human/chimp divergence, one of the most well-studied evolutionary relationships. Chimpanzees and humans are thought to have diverged, or shared a common ancestor, about 6 Mya, based on the fossil record (Stewart and Disotell 1998). The genomes of chimpanzees and humans are very similar; their DNA sequences overall are 98% identical (King and Wilson 1975; Sverdlov 2000). The greatest differences between these genomes are found in pseudogenes, non-translated sequences, and fourfold degenerate third-base codon positions. All of these are very free from selection constraints, since changes in them have virtually no functional or phenotypic effect, and thus most mutational changes are incorporated and retained in their sequences. For these reasons, they should represent the background rate of spontaneous mutation in the genome. These regions with the highest sequence dissimilarity are what should be compared between species, since they will provide an upper limit on the rate of evolutionary change.

Given a divergence date of 6 Mya, the maximum inferred rate of nucleotide substitution in the most divergent regions of DNA in humans and chimps is ~1.3 x 10-9 base substitutions per site per year. Given a generation time of 15-20 years, this is equivalent to a substitution rate of ~2 x 10-8 per site per generation (Crowe 1993; Futuyma 1998, p. 273).

Background spontaneous mutation rates are extremely important for cancer research, and they have been studied extensively in humans. A review of the spontaneous mutation rate observed in several genes in humans has found an average background mutation rate of 1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation. This rate is a very minimum, because its value does not include insertions, deletions, or other base substitution mutations that can destroy the function of these genes (Giannelli et al. 1999; Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129). Thus, the fit amongst these three independent sources of data is extremely impressive.

Similar results have been found for many other species (Kumar and Subramanian 2002; Li 1997, pp. 180-181, 191). In short, the observed genetic rates of mutation closely match inferred rates based on paleological divergence times and genetic genomic differences. Therefore, the observed rates of mutation can easily account for the genetic differences observed between species as different as mice, chimpanzees, and humans.

Potential Falsification:

It is entirely plausible that measured genetic mutation rates from observations of modern organisms could be orders of magnitude less than that required by rates inferred from the fossil record and sequence divergence.

Also just because you see doubt between some lines if evidence does not negate the validity of evolution. It's support is provided by numerous scientific disciplines not just what we find in the fossil record. For someone to deny evolution they are in fact denying hard data compiled by numerous disciplines including neurobiology.

And again evolution can't say anything about creation in the sense of where life came from, only what happened after it did.. but creationists especially young earth creationists such as the DI make claims that are verifiable false and misrepresent what the science says.

 

[Cackalacky]

little peeve = few words...just sayin.

OK, Evolutionism...not intended to take Evolution down, or disparage it. It is absolutely intended to separate the theory from those who use the theory in a self-assured, closed minded way...without giving the theory its due uncertainty. That is not to say Evolution is without a great deal of support, nor is Creationism "better" supported, but rather to say Evolution as we know it has some uncertainty, and does not disprove some level of creation. Some don't see it. For them...I make it an "ism" because they close the gaps of uncertainty with faith...or whatever you call it when you don't know but act like its absolute anyway.

Intelligent Design
not intended to be a shell game. In discussing this topic it has been my experience that those who want to intimate an understanding outside the Pinocchio type creationism use Intelligent Design, and then describe their thoughts. People have a range of beliefs from inspired lightning to something short of Adam and Eve as the starting point...Intelligent Design seems to be used as a bucket for an entire range of possibilities. Is it on the creationism side...well sure.

I meant Little Pet peeve= a constant source of complaint, though in this case, a minor one

I hear all of this and I agree with how you are using the words but no scientist uses the word evolutionism and ID will forever be associated with young earth crestionists. There is no going back after Kitzmiller v. Dover. And again evolution cannot make claims of first causes nor does it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is and its implications. The ID people are using creation to debunk evolution when you just can't. It is verifiably incorrect to do so and a belief in a creator does not by default make evolution untrue. A claim of a creator is however unverifiable anyway and therefore has no place in scientific discourse. Which is why I despise the DI and its purpose to inject this into the discussion.

 

[JughedJones]

Feel the Bern

 

[IrishJayhawk]

little peeve = few words...just sayin.

OK, Evolutionism...not intended to take Evolution down, or disparage it. It is absolutely intended to separate the theory from those who use the theory in a self-assured, closed minded way...without giving the theory its due uncertainty.

Yet it seems that you've chosen to emphasize the word "theory" as a way to disparage it, i.e., it's just a guess.

This is a theory:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Apologies if that's not what you meant.

 

[phgreek]

Yet it seems that you've chosen to emphasize the word "theory" as a way to disparage it, i.e., it's just a guess.

This is a theory:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Apologies if that's not what you meant.

I did not intend to disparage it...but rather emphasize the point that evolution theory is not complete, cannot explain all. ...I did say evolution was well supported. However, all theories are works in progress, and evolution is one of them. There are questions that the theory of evolution cannot answer right now, and it either will as more data comes in, or it will be modified to explain the unexplained. As you can see I've not interjected creationism here...rather, simply by the nature of theories, they are incomplete.

I understand that Creationism can't suddenly claim Evolution false...I can "see" evolution right in front of me. BUT, as I said, it is also not necessarily true that Evolution debunks all conceptions of what I call intelligent design, which indeed is on the creationism side of the continuum.

The point...If Christ shows up, and fills in all the holes, and explains the "start" mechanism, would Evolution be Debunked? No. Just people who believe Evolution disproves the existence of God.

 

[phgreek]

I meant Little Pet peeve= a constant source of complaint, though in this case, a minor one

I hear all of this and I agree with how you are using the words but no scientist uses the word evolutionism and ID will forever be associated with young earth creationists. There is no going back after Kitzmiller v. Dover. And again evolution cannot make claims of first causes nor does it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is and its implications. The ID people are using creation to debunk evolution when you just can't. It is verifiably incorrect to do so and a belief in a creator does not by default make evolution untrue. A claim of a creator is however unverifiable anyway and therefore has no place in scientific discourse. Which is why I despise the DI and its purpose to inject this into the discussion.

I agree with most of this...I really am not offended by whatever inspires people to press on. If they believe their scientific pursuits prove existence of God, and they generate really great data, I'll decide for myself what the data is telling me. In terms of the specific discussion regarding pitting Evolution against Creationism... Makes for a charged argument...

 

[Cackalacky]

I agree with most of this...I really am not offended by whatever inspires people to press on. If they believe their scientific pursuits prove existence of God, and they generate really great data, I'll decide for myself what the data is telling me. In terms of the specific discussion regarding pitting Evolution against Creationism... Makes for a charged argument...

This is where I just can''t go and get recalcitrant over. Its not about believing...its about what you can prove and God is an unverifiable premise that is unnecessarily injected and therefore any data obtained with that goal in mind is erroneous. They won't ever generate really great data under these circumstances. No rational conclusion can be drawn when your conclusion is your premise. For example, the sun is yellow because of the wavelength of light it emits and the interference caused by our atmosphere and our eyes ability to discern those emitted wavelengths. Those are verifiable, scientifically obtained values. The sun is yellow because God said so is unverifiable and serves zero purpose in understanding our world.

Anyway... it should not be a charged discussion but it is because the people promoting creation based science with the premise of proving God's existence provide data (LOL) from a fundamentally poor and dangerous misuse of the scientific process. And it requires much debunking and correction in the public which is really wasted time, manpower and resources.

 

[kmoose]

Why do we care if a candidate believes in creation, or evolution? I mean, does his/her view on the origins of life have the sqaure root of fvck-all to do with negotiating international trade agreements, or brokering nuclear deals? Or his ability to recognize and address domestic social and economic injustices? I'm not saying that it's not a valid debate, but is it really a deal breaker for anyone?

 

[ACamp1900]

That's where I am at... I couldn't care less... his lack of experience is the potential deal breaker for me, since we all seem to finally care about job experience in regards to this position...