Well, I did it. Voted for divided government.

Then voted Obama for President. The first time in my life I voted for a Democrat for President. And hopefully the last.

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Would you have voted for Obama if you lived in Ohio?

Maybe now we'll get spending under control - somewhat, maybe, please, just a little?.

I voted for a slew of Republicans and Libertarians for Congress and TX legislature.

Then voted Obama for President. The first time in my life I voted for a Democrat for President. And hopefully the last.

I voted Libertarian for president in 2008. Couldn't stomach McCain or Obama.

Here's hoping the GOP will finally get it's head out of its ass in 2016 and start nominating fiscal conservatives who are libertarian on social issues. Candidates that will actually cut spending, including entitlements.

And no more fundamentalist know-nothings. Jesus doesn't care if gays get married. And evolution is fact. Creationism is fantasy. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Similar, except I did vote for Johnson / Lib ticket. Hell my vote for Pres in TX wouldn't have mattered anyways.

Funny thing, this is the sanest thread going in here tonight.

Restrain spending is not something either major party is willing to do. They are more than willing to restrain the other guys spending. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Exactly. So long as each side restricts the other guys spending, we have a chance at slowing the overall pending.

You people are psychotic if you think the Democrats are going to reduce spending if they are able to raise taxes.. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Actually, if they are forced to agree to it in a Budget, they will have to reduce spending. The tax hikes are tied to spending cuts in a grand bargain.

Would you have voted for Obama if you lived in Ohio? Originally Posted by WTF

No doubt. I said I wanted divided government didn't I?

And you are an idiot if you do not understand the difference between a future prediction and scientific data.



That is exactly wtf science is...it gives you the best known answer and discounts fantasy crap like Creationism . Who do you think ran those statistical models? Scientist maybe? Just maybe... Originally Posted by WTF

Creationism is garbage, but the pro-evolutionary idiot scientists love to claim that it's the only alternative to natural selection, mutation and variation to explain speciation and the existence of life on earth.

Creationsim has NOTHING to do with the real problems of evolutionary science.

The real problems are that it just doesn't work in any numerical way..it cannot be modeled.....AT ALL.

And if you don't understand my sarcasm, I don't mean that each and every scientist is an idiot.

What I mean of course is that in all matter controversal that....

THE MAJORITY OF OPINION IS USUALLY WRONG.

If. Then you need to define what "spending cuts" mean. I'm defining it as "overall amount of spending by the US govt." It'll never happened. They may cut a domestic program or close a military base but they will not reduce gross expenditures.

Save this thread for 12/31/2012 when the Obama Tax cuts expire and the sequestration begins. Democrats will be going apeshit.

BTW, its the "Theory of Evolution." No, I'm not a Creationist.

If. Then you need to define what "spending cuts" mean. I'm defining it as "overall amount of spending by the US govt." It'll never happened. They may cut a domestic program or close a military base but they will not reduce gross expenditures.

Save this post for 12/31/2012 when the Obama Tax cuts expire. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Dudes you are sooooo wrong....

Government spending and debt are the only things keeping this economy afloat.

When the eventual debt crisis comes and it's choked off that'll be the REAL DEPRESSION.

AND LIKE THE LAST ONE IT WILL NEVER REALLY END

(without another world war to end it that is)

You're not a creationist. You're a DIPSHIT!

Creationism is garbage, but the pro-evolutionary idiot scientists love to claim that it's the only alternative to natural selection, mutation and variation to explain speciation and the existence of life on earth.

Creationism has NOTHING to do with the real problems of evolutionary science.

The real problems are that it just doesn't work in any numerical way..it cannot be modeled.....AT ALL. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

OK. So, if evolution is wrong and creationism is a false alternative that scientists like to point to, then please tell us what the "reputable" alternatives are to Creationism.

Intelligent Design? That's just Creationism dressed up to sound scientific.

There is NO scientific support for ID, either.

Only evolution has a scientific basis, even if not every single single aspect of evolution has been explained yet. Evolution is an enormous puzzle and it will take time to figure out all aspects of it. But at least it is moving in the right direction and is based on FACTS.

What is needed is time. As more and more time goes by and we understand genes better, we will actually observe evolution as it occurs in small increments and we will be able to explain the changes. It will be a long stretch (decades, generations), but the puzzle will be solved.

Just look how long it took astronomy to figure out the size and movements of the universe. Or do you dispute that to?

Anyhow, returning to the political nature of this thread, the Bible thumpers have seen the high water mark of influence inside the GOP. Just look how many of the Tea Party supported Congressional candidates got their asses handed to them yesterday, including Akin and Mourdock.

BTW, its the "Theory of Evolution." No, I'm not a Creationist. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You are correct. I wrote evolution strictly for shorthand.

But, over time, theories are disproved or are refined until they can fully explain a phenomenon. At which point they are accepted as fact.

Relativity is also properly called "theory of relativity". But it is not really disputed either.

Here is a telling quote from Wiki about relativity:

"Einstein stated that the theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories". As such it employs an analytic method. This means that the elements which comprise this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery. The empirical discovery leads to understanding the general characteristics of natural processes. Mathematical models are then developed which separate the natural processes into theoretical-mathematical descriptions. Therefore, by analytical means the necessary conditions that have to be satisfied are deduced. Separate events must satisfy these conditions. Experience should then match the conclusions."

This is the process that evolution is going through. The empirical discoveries related to evolution are leading to an understanding of the general characteristics of the natural process.

Which is not something that has happened or will ever happen with Intelligent Design or creationism.

OK. So, if evolution is wrong and creationism is a false alternative that scientists like to point to, then please tell us what the "reputable" alternatives are to Creationism.

Intelligent Design? That's just Creationism dressed up to sound scientific.

There is NO scientific support for ID, either.

Only evolution has a scientific basis, even if not every single single aspect of evolution has been explained yet. Evolution is an enormous puzzle and it will take time to figure out all aspects of it. But at least it is moving in the right direction and is based on FACTS.

What is needed is time. As more and more time goes by and we understand genes better, we will actually observe evolution as it occurs in small increments and we will be able to explain the changes. It will be a long stretch (decades, generations), but the puzzle will be solved.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

You don't need any alternative theory.

If no theory has been advanced which can work then that's where it sits...period. We don't know.

There's a lot of things in the physical universe we can't yet explain.

Ultimately we may never be able to explain the core issues of the physical universe.

What I can't stand about scientists is that they claim otherwise, but they don't really know.

Intelligent design is a theory based on circumstances and has a lot of explainatory power, but no one knows how it could be proven yet.

For that matter maybe evolution could somehow be proven by some as yet undiscovered means, but for now we have to throw it in the junk heap of wrong ideas along with psychoanalysis, marxism, behaviorism, and a host of other nineteenth century quackery.

You don't need any alternative theory.

If no theory has been advanced which can work then that's where it sits...period. We don't know.

There's a lot of things in the physical universe we can't yet explain. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Actually, you DO need an alternative theory. You don't just say "Fuck it. Let's not bother anymore." At least REAL scientists don't

You keep studying the evidence until either you disprove a theory entirely (and start over) or you modify it until the Imperfections are worked out.

There may be gaps in evolutionary theory that need to be filled in, but it has never been disproved. So it is a work in progress.

Intelligent design is a theory based on circumstances and has a lot of explainatory power, but no one knows how it could be proven yet.

For that matter maybe evolution could somehow be proven by some as yet undiscovered means, but for now we have to throw it in the junk heap of wrong ideas along with psychoanalysis, marxism, behaviorism, and a host of other nineteenth century quackery. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Intelligent design is 20th century quackery.

Real science doesn't try to prove anything. Science develops theories and then tries
to set up experiments that DISPROVE the theory. If the theory withstands attempts to disprove it repeatedly, then over time the theory is accepted as true. That is the scientific method.

So, how exactly do you set up a scientific experiment to test for the existence of an external intelligent being that controls the design of living creatures. The answer is you can't. And that's why intelligent design is NOT and never can be science. It is only a faith based idea.

Actually, you DO need an alternative theory. You don't just say "Fuck it. Let's not bother anymore." At least REAL scientists don't

You keep studying the evidence until either you disprove a theory entirely (and start over) or you modify it until the Imperfections are worked out.

There may be gaps in evolutionary theory that need to be filled in, but it has never been disproved. So it is a work in progress.


Intelligent design is 20th century quackery.

Real science doesn't try to prove anything. Science develops theories and then tries
to set up experiments that DISPROVE the theory. If the theory withstands attempts to disprove it repeatedly, then over time the theory is accepted as true. That is the scientific method.

So, how exactly do you set up a scientific experiment to test for the existence of an external intelligent being that controls the design of living creatures. The answer is you can't. And that's why intelligent design is NOT and never can be science. It is only a faith based idea. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Creationism is a faith based doctrine that relies on a creation myth; intelligent design does not.

Intelligent design is merely the old teleological argument for the necessity of a designer if you conclude that the universe, or life in it, could not have happened randomly.

I agree with your characterization of the ideal way science should operate.

But the problem is that scientists become charged with emotion, doctrine, and ideology and do not conform themselves ideally to the scientific method ideal when it comes to grey areas which are not easily addressed emperically.

In terms of natural selection, variation and mutation to explain speciation.....it cannot be modeled and the numbers can't be made to work. That's the way in which the theory has been positively disproven.

The theory has been disproven by the correct means available - numerical modeling.

In the absence of that the hypothesis that life did not occur randomly has a lot of explainitory power and should be taken seriously. No one, least of all psychologists, have yet been able to even model or explain the basics of the human mind, so it's nonesense to opine that we understand enough about any mind to disprove that mind isn't operating directly in the functioning of evolutionary processes. All these remain open issues, but the hypothesis that life necessarily requires a mind of somekind to engineer it cannot at this point be dismissed.

Now let's address some more fundamental issues....

Science may not be the only way of knowing anything.

When I was doing government work at MIT in the1980s I was exposed to various means of knowing, reaching conclusions, which did not involve the scientific method.

In my opinion emperical science is extremely valuable, but limited in answering certain basic questions, and I know from my experience that many of the most accomplished scientists agree with me.

There is a minority of highly accomplished scientists, many in the Universities in California and Boston, who are pretty wild about this, and by now I think a lot of that has come to light.

Refreshing to see a Republican talk sense in terms of compromise. I feel the same way. The Dems have to give on entitlements and the GOP has to give on tax increases. Frankly, I don't know that a Romney win doesn't put us in the same position. I disagree with Romney on almost everything but he is a numbers guy and I think he will give on the tax increase in return for Dem concessions on spending. And with Romney in the White House, I think the house republicans will be much more willing to compromise.

Can't believe I just typed that..... Originally Posted by timpage

You typed it because it's the truth.

I voted for Romney, the Democrat that was running against Ted Cruz, Libertarians, Robert Shaffer for judge and against all bonds. At least the judge won.

Now let's address some more fundamental issues....

Science may not be the only way of knowing anything. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Of course not because "knowing anything" involves the human mind but not necessarily the physical world.

Science is the only way of knowing anything about the physical world. Eventually it may be the best way to know about knowing from a physical (chemical and electrical) standpoint and we are just starting to get there now and understand some tiny little bits and pieces of how the mind actually works. Eventually it is likely to turn out that we can know everything about the mind (like we do a computer from its physical, electrical and magnetic makeup) from its physical makeup, but for now we only have hints of that. Maybe there are some things outside of the physical world and we will never know this in full though. Of that I'm willing to say we just don't know.... yet.