Is Hilary finished?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by slaughtr

Wow, what a flawed/biased poll. I answered with typical conservative Republican answers and was told to vote #1 Obama, #2 Dodd and #3 Hillary.

Did you change the sliders to weigh importance of the issues?

[MickOpalak]

Originally Posted by ivan1

I thought the evolution thing was settled a while ago:

something to the effect of - if we evolved from monkeys, how come we havent seen any more monkeys turn into humans...

Just to clear things up, Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't state that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. It states that humans, monkeys and apes all evolved from a common ancestor.

[slaughtr]

Originally Posted by Ian

Did you change the sliders to weigh importance of the issues?

Yes, after I did. No matter what I did, I never got a Republican higher than #3. Compare that to my results on the SmartSelect poll and I think we see a little bias built in to the USA today poll.

[Praksis]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Actually there is a lot of evidence of transitional forms out there. Some of evidence is in those video's. If you believe in blind faith then so be it, but I've heard both sides of the story and Science most definitely wins. The church has held up science threw out history for it's blind faith beliefs and control over people. Had they not done this I could possibly be living star trek and not watching it on tv.

Depends on which church and during which period of time. Some of the greatest minds of history were deeply religious people and I'd say quite a bit of our progress can be attributed to answering religous questions through history. History asside though, there are definitely extreme hard line groups now that are all in favor of halting or turning back science, but those I'd say are the minority of population and majority of news media.

My issue is when religious arguments are presented as scientific and the reverse as well, though my bias is towards the scientific. If it's an observable effect in nature, that will trump scripture. If scripture describes something not observable in nature, then science can make no claim for or against so scripture trumps science (for those that have faith in that scripture of course).

[ivan1]

Originally Posted by slaughtr

Yes, after I did. No matter what I did, I never got a Republican higher than #3. Compare that to my results on the SmartSelect poll and I think we see a little bias built in to the USA today poll.

Actually my results were not that far off : Giuliani, McCain, Romney

[pianomaniac]

Originally Posted by Praksis

What the does religion have to do with it? I thought we were talking about a scientific theory (sorry, came into this late so if it actually started as a religious question, my appologies). If you believe evolution to be wrong because of religion (and only because of religion), then the discussion should end as I don't share your faith so we wouldn't be discussing based on the same assumptions. It would foolish of me to think I could argue against faith, I admire it but don't share it.

If there is a scientific alternative to evolution that's been presented then please share. I've never heard of or seen anything that can, so lacking anything better we go with what we can test against. Yes the theory of evolution still has some questions in it, but that would be comparable to gravity...we don't know what causes gravity, but that detail doesn't mean we should toss the entire theory. Keep exploring that question and when we have an answer incorporate it into the theory. If it really does breaks the theory, re-evaluate all the evidence and see what fits. The questions in evolution, while important, don't invalidate the entire theory because we don't know the specific details yet. When we do, maybe we will find evidence that something's been tweaking with us in a directed maner (I doubt this, though anything is possible) but until that evidence is found we go by what has been observed and can be tested for.

Some believe that man is simply an accumulation of physical atoms,a material something, and a tangible body while some others believe that latent within him is a consciousness, a power, and a psychic nature which link him to all other members of the human family, and to a power outside himself which he must explain. The later believes in a "purpose" while the former believes that "things are what they seem and that it is not possible for men to get beyond the tangible".

They both can coexist and both are probably only a partial truth. This discussion has been going on since the beginning of man.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Praksis

Depends on which church and during which period of time. Some of the greatest minds of history were deeply religious people and I'd say quite a bit of our progress can be attributed to answering religous questions through history. History asside though, there are definitely extreme hard line groups now that are all in favor of halting or turning back science, but those I'd say are the minority of population and majority of news media.

My issue is when religious arguments are presented as scientific and the reverse as well, though my bias is towards the scientific. If it's an observable effect in nature, that will trump scripture. If scripture describes something not observable in nature, then science can make no claim for or against so scripture trumps science (for those that have faith in that scripture of course).

lol, we'll just call it a draw...

As you can probably tell I'm a science geek and I tend to keep up on new discoverys and technology. It's amazing what we as a race have learned in just the last 5 years.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by slaughtr

Yes, after I did. No matter what I did, I never got a Republican higher than #3. Compare that to my results on the SmartSelect poll and I think we see a little bias built in to the USA today poll.

That's interesting. I got a rebublican as #1, #2 and #3.

[Praksis]

Some believe that man is simply an accumulation of physical atoms,a material something, and a tangible body while some others believe that latent within him is a consciousness, a power, and a psychic nature which link him to all other members of the human family, and to a power outside himself which he must explain. The later believes in a "purpose" while the former believes that "things are what they seem and that it is not possible for men to get beyond the tangible".

They both can coexist and both are probably only a partial truth. This discussion has been going on since the beginning of man.

lol, we'll just call it a draw...

As you can probably tell I'm a science geek and I tend to keep up on new discoverys and technology. It's amazing what we as a race have learned in just the last 5 years.

Amen to both

Answering those kinds of questions have done great things for us a species, and will certainly do so for as long as we care to explore new things.

Anything other than a draw is unreasonable, the debate of ideas is the purpose.

and so I can try to claim I didn't purposefully try to derail the thread:

...Hilary's far from finished. Is she ultimately electable? Obama took more of the independants so I'd say he has the better chance based on the numbers so far, but that's only 3 states so time will tell.

Personally the rumors of Bloomberg running sound interesting, but would have to see what would come with that. Prefering financially conservative and socially liberal doesn't leave too many ideal & viable choices right now.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by MickOpalak

Just to clear things up, Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't state that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. It states that humans, monkeys and apes all evolved from a common ancestor.

I know M.O. is a big evolution proponent from prior posts. It is correct that the monkeys to humans concept is an oversimplification of Darwin's theory.

Problem is, my concept of God is that he is smart enough to use evolution as a tool if he so desires. Even Einstein believed in a creator: "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."

What would be the "dream team" among the candidates, left right and middle, to transform our country into a better place for our children?

The way that McCain speaks of Lieberman, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lieberman chosen as a running mate. Both of them are class acts IMO.

That reminds me of the Saturday night live skit with Clinton and Lieberman in the hot tub with champagne, where he hands him the rose and he accepts. Hysterical, especially when they intertwine their arms as they sip the champagne.

[exarkun1178]

i got 1)ron paul, 2)rudy, and 3)romney. in that order. i d say that poll is very accurate, and i answered the question with out trying to bias the outcome.

[Eye Candy]

I have heard that Obama and Clinton have both raised about the same amount of money for their campaigns. Last night someone mentioned that Clinton's major source of contributions was special interest groups, whereas Obama was getting contributions primarily from individuals. That may put him in a better position financially if his momentum continues.

[slaughtr]

Originally Posted by exarkun1178

i got 1)ron paul, 2)rudy, and 3)romney. in that order. i d say that poll is very accurate, and i answered the question with out trying to bias the outcome.

Haven taken both, I think the Smartselect is more accurate.

I took the USA Today one again and got Republicans 1-3 but pretty much had to answer "let the free market decide" to everything, not a true represention of my views. In fact, there were many questions that had no answer in line with my views.

[MickOpalak]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Problem is, my concept of God is that he is smart enough to use evolution as a tool if he so desires.

Problem is, the supernatural can be used to explain anything. Therefore, it explains nothing.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Problem is, my concept of God is that he is smart enough to use evolution as a tool if he so desires. Even Einstein believed in a creator: "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."

That's how I look at it too.

Couldn't have "God" created man by starting out with a simple life, and evolving it until man became the way we are?

The whole DNA/chromosomes/etc. is just too fantastic and complicated to have just "happened". Why can't it be both, that some "intelligence" created the basic ingredients and physical laws to start the universe, guided things along a path, and stood back and allowed the galaxies, solar systems, planets, and plan and animal evolution to happen.

My only fear is that in "the other world", there are many "Gods", and we (our universe) are just an elementary school science project of one of their childred...

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by MickOpalak

Problem is, the supernatural can be used to explain anything. Therefore, it explains nothing.

Referring to Einstein's quote above:

Too bad we are both married. If you could prove I am blind, and I could prove you are lame, we could hook up in a gay marriage and file for some dandy disability benefits at the government's expense and live happily ever after.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by slaughtr

In fact, there were many questions that had no answer in line with my views.

And thus the bias. Some of the questions had no answer that I liked, and even when weighed low at the end, affect the results. The other "poll" allows for "none of the above" in most places.

[Praksis]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

...
Problem is, my concept of God is that he is smart enough to use evolution as a tool if he so desires. Even Einstein believed in a creator: "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."

What would be the "dream team" among the candidates, left right and middle, to transform our country into a better place for our children?

The way that McCain speaks of Lieberman, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lieberman chosen as a running mate. Both of them are class acts IMO.
...

There I can agree with you. No one can say if something beyond our understanding worked through the processes we can see in nature, so no problems with that philosophy. I'm in favor of a nice set of things going on beyond our understanding, particularly if it means at the end I'm more than just worm food, but can't say any religion out there has ever seemed right to me and that whole lack of anything but faith always gets to me.
I like Einstein's statement, though I'd tweak it to purpose (or maybe perspective) rather than religion. Where you draw perpose/perspective from will vary, but have to look at things from a broader view to appreciate it.

I've heard the idea of McCain Leiberman before and definitely like the idea, though not knowledgeable enough on all the canidates out there to really pick a dream team. Would be interesting to see how both parties reacted to it, make them outcasts or embrace the chance to head down a different path?

The smartstart quiz was interesting, I've seen one prior that was a bit better (though I have no idea what the name was) gave a much more detailed explanation of each issue and each answer. Still ended up with similar results: 1) Obama 2) Bloomberg 3) Hilary, though reading further into the writeup's of each Bloomberg jumps out more. Now if only he were both running and had a chance of winning I'd be set

[Praksis]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

That's how I look at it too.

Couldn't have "God" created man by starting out with a simple life, and evolving it until man became the way we are?

The whole DNA/chromosomes/etc. is just too fantastic and complicated to have just "happened". Why can't it be both, that some "intelligence" created the basic ingredients and physical laws to start the universe, guided things along a path, and stood back and allowed the galaxies, solar systems, planets, and plan and animal evolution to happen.

My only fear is that in "the other world", there are many "Gods", and we (our universe) are just an elementary school science project of one of their childred...

Yarp, nothing to say that's right or wrong...but it is neat to contemplate.

Though the science project bit is especially amusing.

[evomind]

we have gone from stupid hilary c to shiithouse philosophy.....
coincidence?
i think not,