Who Do you plan to Vote for in the Republican Primary?

[imfrankie]

Hillary switches parties, gets the Republican nomination, and beats Obama.
That's how the Republicans could do it. Otherwise it ain't happenin. My prediction.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Hillary switches parties, gets the Republican nomination, and beats Obama.
That's how the Republicans could do it. Otherwise it ain't happenin. My prediction.

I disagree. Romney or even Newt will beat Obama next year. The others are likely to lose.

 

[amyl]

its between romney cain and newt at this point. the rest are done and are becoming annoying distractors.
i love ron paul, i wish he was taken seriously, but he isn't and obama will kick his ass.
i still love herman cain... hell i was more sexually harassed by my patient this morning after the versed then those girls... btw how come its always some unattractive woman making accusations... can't these guys find hotter women to harass? Unfortunately i think obama would eat him alive... herman says what he means, hes a no nonsense business man... thats no competition for one of the slickest slimiest politicians ever.
romney's health care debaucle is a problem but otherwise he seems like a great candidate... i don't know why people dislike him so. i think he will end up with the nomination and he is probably the best shot to beat obama.
i like newt.... but i don't think he could ever be president... he lacks charisma... which should not matter at all but it does w the voters

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Hillary switches parties, gets the Republican nomination, and beats Obama.
That's how the Republicans could do it. Otherwise it ain't happenin. My prediction.

Correctomundo. I would put a lot money on this prediction.

 

[DC DOC]

Pretty much sums up how I feel. Romney will win by default.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/299649/saturday-night-live-cold-opening-gop-debate-3#s-p1-sr-i1

 

[ssmallz]

Hillary switches parties, gets the Republican nomination, and beats Obama.
That's how the Republicans could do it. Otherwise it ain't happenin. My prediction.

Agree as well. Until the republicans get away from being the party of the far right and get a bit more toward the center I just don't think they can field a candidate that the majority of Americans will vote for

 

[periopdoc]

If they could field a sane right wing candidate they might have a chance. I don't care if you are right, left, or center you aren't getting elected if you are bat**** crazy.

- pod

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

I agree with you, there are some bad characters running wild in the GOP base, which is why guys like perry and Cain are still viable. How the hell did Herman Cain not know China was a nuclear power? and Perry forget his own damn plan on stage? And these are GOP front runners to lead the free world? This nonsense started with Palin, where our base decided to start empowering dumb-talk-crazy politicians who make the rest of the country want to spit. The smart, intelligent, and sane candidates who btw will beat Obama with their eyes closed are pushed to the sideline to watch the freak-show nomination process. Obama gained 3% points in his approval ratings in the last month without doing anything except allow the country watch the GOP nomination drama. Right now we just need damage control, nominate Romney, and hope the freak-show ends early without colossal damage to the GOP.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[cincincyreds]

I found an article that looked at the question whether the stock market does better under a democratic president or a republican president. The answer surprised me. Since 1920, the stock market has done 2x better with the democratic president. Second point, wasn't bush losing 750,00 jobs per month while Obama has been creating about 80k jobs per month. Of course, Obama did this by selling out the next generation by running up a 1 trillion dollar deficit each year. I really wish there was a candidate worth voting for.

 

[ssmallz]

Don't lose sight of the fact that Obama is still Obama, the single worst president we've ever had that took the easy way out burying us in atronomical debt. Even if the Republicans nominate Mr. Magoo or Gary Busee, Obama still is in for a dogfight.

While I disagree with a lot his policies there is a significant portion of the population who thinks he's doing an OK job and the best he can w/the hand he's dealt. They will still vote for him regardless of who the opponent is. He's also the incumbent and it's always tough to beat an incumbent unless they do something incredibly stupid. Sure the economy is in shambles but that's the same as when he got into office. It's not like it collapsed under his watch or because of his policies. If the republicans put anyone whose not Mitt Romney on the ticket he will be absolutely slaughtered. I don't really think Romney will win either because he hasn't shown enough yet to convince the independent voters. With a weak republican field Obama gets a 2nd term by default

 

[Hamhock]

which is why guys like perry and Cain are still viable. How the hell did Herman Cain not know China was a nuclear power? and Perry forget his own damn plan on stage? And these are GOP front runners to lead the free world? This nonsense started with Palin, where our base decided to start empowering dumb-talk-crazy politicians

hope the freak-show ends early without colossal damage to the GOP.

I am not eligible for the Republican primary and am nowhere near a conservative, so maybe I don't understand the right's thinking, but come-on:

Cain? Palin? Bachmann? Perry?

There is no need to even consider policy differences...these candidates are just uninformed clowns spewing inflammatory, emotional rhetoric.

The GOP may not like Romney, but is it worth it?

BTW: Why is no one from the right pushing for Huntsman? He is not even in the list that started this thread.

I agree with Osteoimperfecta; except that instead of Palin, I think this GOP nonsense started with GWBush.

HH

 

[BLADEMDA]

I am not eligible for the Republican primary and am nowhere near a conservative, so maybe I don't understand the right's thinking, but come-on:

Cain? Palin? Bachmann? Perry?

There is no need to even consider policy differences...these candidates are just uninformed clowns spewing inflammatory, emotional rhetoric.

The GOP may not like Romney, but is it worth it?

BTW: Why is no one from the right pushing for Huntsman? He is not even in the list that started this thread.

I agree with Osteoimperfecta; except that instead of Palin, I think this GOP nonsense started with GWBush.

HH

Huntsman? He has ZERO percent chance of winning the nomination. In about 80 days we will have 3 States voting on these candidates. By then Huntsman will be out of the race along with Bachmann and maybe even Perry.

 

[imfrankie]

Huntsman? He has ZERO percent chance of winning the nomination. In about 80 days we will have 3 States voting on these candidates. By then Huntsman will be out of the race along with Bachmann and maybe even Perry.

Cain should bail out too--no woman will vote for him. He will assure Obama of victory. IMHO.

 

[imfrankie]

I agree with you, there are some bad characters running wild in the GOP base, which is why guys like perry and Cain are still viable. How the hell did Herman Cain not know China was a nuclear power? and Perry forget his own damn plan on stage? And these are GOP front runners to lead the free world? This nonsense started with Palin, where our base decided to start empowering dumb-talk-crazy politicians who make the rest of the country want to spit. The smart, intelligent, and sane candidates who btw will beat Obama with their eyes closed are pushed to the sideline to watch the freak-show nomination process. Obama gained 3% points in his approval ratings in the last month without doing anything except allow the country watch the GOP nomination drama. Right now we just need damage control, nominate Romney, and hope the freak-show ends early without colossal damage to the GOP.

Cain didn't know China is a nuclear power? Oh my gosh. Help me Mr. Wizard. He must be on Obama's payroll.

 

[Hamhock]

Cain didn't know China is a nuclear power? Oh my gosh. Help me Mr. Wizard. He must be on Obama's payroll.

That was my point above.

Cain? Bachmann? Palin? Perry?

All are either shockingly uninformed or they are on Obama's payroll.

HH

 

[CambieMD]

It doesn't matter who's the next president, if there is one. All parties are the same, politics is just reality t.v. that actually "somewhat" affects your life. All this Democrat vs. GOP stuff is just to get people riled up, it isn't real (I used to work in Congress). Just worry about taking care of your family and making money. Don't stress about the next president, because they all are one in the same.

Very few people actually understand this.

Cambie

 

[pgg]

Very few people actually understand this.

Except it's not true.

Minor detail - presidents appoint judges, including the ones that sit on the Supreme Court, which will be hearing the health care reform case.

And here we are, justifiably anxious about what that court will say, and it doesn't matter who appoints Justices? The court's been 5-4 split on some important recent decisions. I don't want Obama appointing any more Sotomayors or Kagans (even if, as noted upthread, that the next most likely Justice to retire is Ginsburg).

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[hoyden]

Except it's not true.

Minor detail - presidents appoint judges, including the ones that sit on the Supreme Court, which will be hearing the health care reform case.

And here we are, justifiably anxious about what that court will say, and it doesn't matter who appoints Justices? The court's been 5-4 split on some important recent decisions. I don't want Obama appointing any more Sotomayors or Kagans (even if, as noted upthread, that the next most likely Justice to retire is Ginsburg).

 

[vector2]

Huntsman? He has ZERO percent chance of winning the nomination. In about 80 days we will have 3 States voting on these candidates. By then Huntsman will be out of the race along with Bachmann and maybe even Perry.

He does have a zero percent chance, and this is unfortunate for your party because he has the greatest chance of beating Obama in the general. And he's actually pretty conservative if you look at his record in Utah and his stated intended policies. However, he says he believes in evolution and climate change (two undeniable facts to anyone who's taken even a cursory glance at the scientific literature of the past 100 yrs) and he gets branded as a socialist by the GOP crazies.

 

[BLADEMDA]

He does have a zero percent chance, and this is unfortunate for your party because he has the greatest chance of beating Obama in the general. And he's actually pretty conservative if you look at his record in Utah and his stated intended policies. However, he says he believes in evolution and climate change (two undeniable facts to anyone who's taken even a cursory glance at the scientific literature of the past 100 yrs) and he gets branded as a socialist by the GOP crazies.

I understand your point of view. But, I disagree with it.

1. I bet if you truly study the science behind Evolution vs. Creationism you will be amazed at just how little evidence there is for either of them. However, those who believe in the former are called "scientists" while those who believe in the latter are called "Religious fanatics or nut jobs".

2. Global Warming- Again you are buying into the media hype. The earth is probably going through a warming cycle but so what? This is just typical of cooling and warming cycles of the planet. Our CO2 emissions may or may not have anything to do with it. To ruin our economy and impose grueling taxes on an unproven theory is foolish and dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution ( I'm not saying I agree with this)


God and Science are not opposed to one another. God uses Science in an orderly fashion for His purposes.


"God does not play dice with the world."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Albert Einstein

 

[W222]

Agree as well. Until the republicans get away from being the party of the far right and get a bit more toward the center I just don't think they can field a candidate that the majority of Americans will vote for

I used to like the GOP and used to vote for them. Voted for GWB thinking he would have a moderate stance like his father, boy was I wrong. His presidency solidified my conversion to voting democrat. When you start catering to the lunatics and have an imperialist foreign policy, you lost my vote. When your party backs your every move withuot question, your party lost my vote.

 

[kazuma]

God and Science are not opposed to one another. God uses Science in an orderly fashion for His purposes.

Well said, He is the Master Scientist.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I used to like the GOP and used to vote for them. Voted for GWB thinking he would have a moderate stance like his father, boy was I wrong. His presidency solidified my conversion to voting democrat. When you start catering to the lunatics and have an imperialist foreign policy, you lost my vote. When your party backs your every move withuot question, your party lost my vote.

Sorry. GWB lost his way (if he ever had one). I consider myself a Conservative Republican and never favored the Wars or the big spending ways of GWB. For example, his Drug benefit package for the elderly was another entitlement we can't afford.

Presidents are just people. People make mistakes. GWB made a lot of mistakes. However, Obama is a socialist liberal whose policies will bankrupt the nation.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I am firmly behind Romney now for the Republican nomination. Is he my ideal candidate? No. Is he infinitely better than Obama? Yes.

 

[W222]

If President I could institute the Jessie Jackson, Jr Plan tomorrow and have 0% unemployment using an unlimited credit card. Smart people understand digging the hole deeper did nothing to begin to rebuild our economy. Unfortunately America is probably filled with more dumb people than smart people (no reference to yourself).

Borrowing trillions and trillions of dollars to prop up a facade of an economy (the "consumer economy") while simultaneously burying our future consitutes probably the worst cowardice economic policies ever put in place.

What would your alternative be? The "let them fail" attitude would have sunk the US into the greatest economic disaster in history, EVERY economist has said this was not an option. I would have preferred a government take over similar to the S&L debacle; restructure the debt, decrease risk by splitting investment banks from consumer banks, and then after a period of time re-privatize.

And Obama did NOT start the "consumer economy", we have been heading down this dangerous road for the last 50 years. US citizens have the lowest savings in history combined with astronomical debt. We no longer make products, we merely invent then and manufacture them overseas for the sheep to buy. We cannot sustain our current consumerism based on the "service" industry, we need to go back to a production based economy.

It amazes me how few people realize that this all started prior to Obama even being elected. We allowed private banks to destroy our economy and then Bush started bailing them out. TARP was started under Bush. Obama bailed out the car companies and actually made the US money. I am not a fan of his continuation of TARP but to say its all his fault is being completely dishonest.

 

[jwk]

What would your alternative be? The "let them fail" attitude would have sunk the US into the greatest economic disaster in history, EVERY economist has said this was not an option. I would have preferred a government take over similar to the S&L debacle; restructure the debt, decrease risk by splitting investment banks from consumer banks, and then after a period of time re-privatize.

And Obama did NOT start the "consumer economy", we have been heading down this dangerous road for the last 50 years. US citizens have the lowest savings in history combined with astronomical debt. We no longer make products, we merely invent then and manufacture them overseas for the sheep to buy. We cannot sustain our current consumerism based on the "service" industry, we need to go back to a production based economy.

It amazes me how few people realize that this all started prior to Obama even being elected. We allowed private banks to destroy our economy and then Bush started bailing them out. TARP was started under Bush. Obama bailed out the car companies and actually made the US money. I am not a fan of his continuation of TARP but to say its all his fault is being completely dishonest.

It started before Bush.

 

[vector2]

I understand your point of view. But, I disagree with it.

1. I bet if you truly study the science

Suffice it to say I don't really want to start a pages long derail on science in the GOP thread, but denying the reality of evolution is only possible under the massive willful ignorance that stems from extreme politicization and/or religiosity. Evolution is as essential to our understanding of modern biology as Newton was to classical physics, and the evidence for each is just as substantial.

What's the evidence for evolution?

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

History of evolutionary thought

 

[Frank Rizzo]

It started before Bush.

Exactly.

As I read this thread, The South Park episode of Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich won't escape my head. So sad.

 

[ssmallz]

It started before Bush.

Exactly. And that's why Americans won't look at Obama's policies and say "he's driving us into the ground, let's vote him out of office." The majority of Americans aren't nearly mad enough at Obama to vote for any candidate not named Obama. For that reason the republicans need to run someone who can actually convince independent voters to vote for him. Thus far I don't see a single candidate who can do that.

 

[pgg]

Religion! In a politics thread? It's more likely than you think.

Suffice it to say I don't really want to start a pages long derail on science in the GOP thread,

You're a better person than I.

I understand your point of view. But, I disagree with it.

1. I bet if you truly study the science behind Evolution vs. Creationism you will be amazed at just how little evidence there is for either of them.

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence favoring evolution.

The only creationism argument that isn't patently absurd is the one that says god used evolution as his tool of creation. Can't argue with that. (Mainly because it's not falsifiable.)


It's nice to see the church changing tactics though. Used to be, they'd just exile or execute people who contradicted scripture with science. Now, the MO has shifted to "uh, yeah, all that science stuff is true, god just chose to do things that way" ...

Of course, there are still the guys running this particular creationist museum ...

Yabba Dabba Doooooooo

Not quite on par with the dinosaur displays at the Smithsonian Natural History museum, which isn't run by creationists.

2. Global Warming- Again you are buying into the media hype. The earth is probably going through a warming cycle but so what? This is just typical of cooling and warming cycles of the planet. Our CO2 emissions may or may not have anything to do with it. To ruin our economy and impose grueling taxes on an unproven theory is foolish and dangerous.

Here's what I believe.

1) The earth is warming, probably in part because of what humans do. While I actually DO believe in coincidences, it seems naively hopeful to look at global CO2 levels, global temperatures, and the human race's history of industrialization and ASSUME it's just another typical cooling and warming cycle of the planet.

2) Poor humans are dirty, polluting, environment-wrecking marauders. Crippling our economy and impoverishing developed nations with aggressive emissions reductions will harm the environment by turning us into poor, dirty people. The United States is one of the cleanest industrialized nations on earth because our economic success PERMITS us to care about the environment.

As such I favor plans for sustainable economic growth and energy independence. If CO2 emission reductions happen to be part of that plan, great, but they shouldn't be an independent objective. A clean environment is a by-product of economic success and a middle class that can afford to care about a clean environment.

"God does not play dice with the world."

Ugh, the oft-cited Einstein "quote", which isn't actually a quote all, merely a paraphrased statement taken from the context of his early views of quantum mechanics ... which he later came to refer to as one of his his greatest mistakes as a physicist.

tldr - that quote doesn't mean what you think it means

 

[BLADEMDA]

Suffice it to say I don't really want to start a pages long derail on science in the GOP thread, but denying the reality of evolution is only possible under the massive willful ignorance that stems from extreme politicization and/or religiosity. Evolution is as essential to our understanding of modern biology as Newton was to classical physics, and the evidence for each is just as substantial.

What's the evidence for evolution?

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

History of evolutionary thought

Again, I disagree. The "left" has villianized any disagreement in this area as stupidty, ignorance or just plain craziness. But, read both sides of this argument and you will see Evolution is far, far from Fact.

http://toptenproofs.com/article_evolution.php

Evolution isn't necessary for modern thought. An open mind is.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Religion! In a politics thread? It's more likely than you think.



You're a better person than I.




There are MOUNTAINS of evidence favoring evolution.

The only creationism argument that isn't patently absurd is the one that says god used evolution as his tool of creation. Can't argue with that. (Mainly because it's not falsifiable.)


It's nice to see the church changing tactics though. Used to be, they'd just exile or execute people who contradicted scripture with science. Now, the MO has shifted to "uh, yeah, all that science stuff is true, god just chose to do things that way" ...

Of course, there are still the guys running this particular creationist museum ...

Yabba Dabba Doooooooo

Not quite on par with the dinosaur displays at the Smithsonian Natural History museum, which isn't run by creationists.




Here's what I believe.

1) The earth is warming, probably in part because of what humans do. While I actually DO believe in coincidences, it seems naively hopeful to look at global CO2 levels, global temperatures, and the human race's history of industrialization and ASSUME it's just another typical cooling and warming cycle of the planet.

2) Poor humans are dirty, polluting, environment-wrecking marauders. Crippling our economy and impoverishing developed nations with aggressive emissions reductions will harm the environment by turning us into poor, dirty people. The United States is one of the cleanest industrialized nations on earth because our economic success PERMITS us to care about the environment.

As such I favor plans for sustainable economic growth and energy independence. If CO2 emission reductions happen to be part of that plan, great, but they shouldn't be an independent objective. A clean environment is a by-product of economic success and a middle class that can afford to care about a clean environment.




Ugh, the oft-cited Einstein "quote", which isn't actually a quote all, merely a paraphrased statement taken from the context of his early views of quantum mechanics ... which he later came to refer to as one of his his greatest mistakes as a physicist.

tldr - that quote doesn't mean what you think it means

I am quite familiar with Einstein. He believed in God. I do understand your point of view about these issue but the question remains do you understand the other side? If Evolution was fact and not theory I can assure many like myself wouldn't defend any other position regardless of Biblical quotations. However, the evidence isn't there for anything more than theory.

Creationism is a legitimate point of view which has been demagogued by the left. It certainly makes for some entertaining TV and funny jokes.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/w...-j--larson--william-a--dembski--ellie-crystal

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/181409/january-12-2006/kenneth-miller

 

[pgg]

However, the evidence isn't there for anything more than theory.

Creationism is a legitimate point of view which has been demagogued by the left.

So long as that creationism is the (minority) flavor that postulates a god that created the universe and the laws of physics, and then hasn't intervened for 14+ billion years, OK, sure. Not falsifiable ... not really relevant either, but people are entitled to believe what they want.

They're not entitled to their own facts though.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So long as that creationism is the (minority) flavor that postulates a god that created the universe and the laws of physics, and then hasn't intervened for 14+ billion years, OK, sure. Not falsifiable ... not really relevant either, but people are entitled to believe what they want.

They're not entitled to their own facts though.

The FACTS don't support Evolution as anything more than a theory. Yet, when Religious people hold to God as a Creator they are insulted, ridiculed and dismissed as idiots.

For some of us we believe God did intervene in this world 2000 years ago and we are eternally grateful He did so.

As of 2011 there is not a scientific discovery ever made which has discredited the Bible (remember read and think with an open mind).

These days it isn't the Church persecuting the non believer; it is the Media and the Left who has decided God is dead and anyone who disagrees with that "theory" is labeled a *****.

 

[BLADEMDA]

A.S. Romer, professor of zoology at Harvard University, recently summed up the present situation when he said: "'LINKS' ARE MISSING JUST WHERE WE MOST FERVENTLY DESIRE THEM, AND IT IS ALL TOO PROBABLE THAT MANY 'LINKS' WILL CONTINUE TO BE MISSING."

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]From my testimony: "Evolution is more impossible than the Blue Fairy, the Witch of the North, Aladdin's genies, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Headless Horseman, and the mathematical definition of impossible all put together. Evolution is a religion taught in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America." (Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo) .

 

[BLADEMDA]

PGG,

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible and I believe they existed on Earth


http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

 

[BLADEMDA]

I am much more concerned with FISCAL Conservatives than Religious Conservatives. But, I do recognize that the GOP has a significant percentage of voters who decide on a candidate based solely on Religious, Social and Family Issues.

Hence, Huntsman is out of the race and Romney is fighting to gain support.
That said, the base will rally around the GOP nominee and that will be Romney.

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Cain should bail out too--no woman will vote for him. He will assure Obama of victory. IMHO.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGGpK7bSWc[/YOUTUBE]

Thank God we still have Romney and Newt.

 

[periopdoc]

Just because Pubmed doesn't index the evidence for evolution...

- pod

 

[OB1🤙]

Just because Pubmed doesn't index the evidence for evolution...

- pod

Well played, sir.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Just because Pubmed doesn't index the evidence for evolution...

- pod

Because the "evidence" doesn't exist. To deny Creationism (or at least that God is part of the Evolutionary plan) is to deny God.
That is your right but in the end every human will be shown the truth.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Is this your idea of evidence?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html


"This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists," lead scientist Jorn Hurum said at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History.
"It is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years."
A team of amateur fossil hunters discovered the near-perfect remains inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt in 1983.
Experts believe the pit was a volcanic caldera where scores of animals from the Eocene epoch were killed and their remains were kept remarkably well-preserved.
Though the pit has been a bountiful source of other fossils, the inexperienced archeologists didn't realize the value of their find.
Years later, the University of Oslo bought the 95%-intact fossil and Hurum studied it in secret for two years.
His colleague, Jens Franzen, hailed the discovery as "the eighth wonder of the world."
"We're not dealing with our grand, grand, grandmother, but perhaps with our grand, grand, grand aunt," Franzen said.
The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.
A History Channel film on the discovery will air next week.
A book release and a slew of other documentaries will follow.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3082655...link-primate-likely-stir-debate/#.TsLqi_J7SuI

Mother of all monkeys

 

[BLADEMDA]

Paleontologists suspect that certain transitional structures might never be found because of biases in the fossil record. For example, some believe that the human ancestors who became bipedal were forest dwellers. If this were true, we may never see the hard evidence, since forests teeming with hungry scavengers and bacteria are usually bad environments for preservation.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ll_paleontologists_find_the_missing_link.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

The notion of "missing links" in the fossil record predates even the theory of evolution. Charles Lyell, a mentor to Darwin, used it in 1851—eight years before the publication of On the Origin of Species—to describe an abrupt transition in the types of fossils he found in adjacent layers of sediment. In 1863, a Scottish physician named John Crawfurd uttered the phrase for the first time as a critique of evolution: He demanded the missing fossil evidence to show "how a monkey became a man."


While most paleontologists agree that the discoveries of Homo erectus in 1891 and Australopithecus africanus in 1924 answered Crawfurd's charge, his use of the phrase to describe a common undiscovered ancestor of human and nonhuman primates captured the popular imagination and still hasn't let go. (The use of the phrase to describe the new fossil has ignited debate between creationists and evolutionists, though the discovery says nothing about man's relationship to apes.)

 

[ssmallz]

Why is it that every argument about evolution starts w/the premise that creationism is correct and it's up to the other side to prove it isn't and that their idea is better? Where is the evidence for creationism? And don't give me some book that was created by man 2000 years ago as evidence. To say that the theory of evolution has holes is fine but don't forget there are much bigger holes in the theory of creationism.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So what do we have with “Ardi”? We have an extremely crushed “Irish stew” fossil that has undergone extensive reconstruction in order to become part of a PR campaign to make bold claims of ancestral status to the human line, even though at base its qualities are very similar to previously known fossils, and there’s a lot of skepticism about the claims being made. In other words, we have the typical media circus that we find every time a new “missing link” is found.


http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/se.../exceptional-humans-did-not-evolve-from-apes/

 

[imfrankie]

Woo! Hoo! Well I guess I tuned-in for some spirited conversation! Yee-hah!

To weigh in, in fairness, My Declaration of Conflicts:

I am a Christian. That is, I do believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son who became man, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. Period. I believe that to be factually true.

A. PGG seems like one of the brightest bulbs on this forum. With all due respect, the "mistake" Einstein spoke of was related to his work in General Relativity (on the cosmological constant) and not Quantum Mechanics ( a theory with which he never was comfortable )

B. With all due respect to Vector2, Newton's formulation of physics has been thoroughly refuted and is merely an approximation that has quite limited applicability.

C. It is important to define what we mean when we use the loaded term "evolution" and PGG makes a good point about the falsifiability of what is my position.

D. Kurt Goedel proved there are an infinite number of true statements which cannot be proven.

all IMHO