Huntsman: Earth not flat; Christie: Sun does not revolve around Earth

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Idiots. You can't win the Republican nomination by being the pro-science candidate.

one order of political party breakdown by science degree, please.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Idiots. You can't win the Republican nomination by being the pro-science candidate.

one order of political party breakdown by science degree, please.

Even if the Republicans have a larger number of people with science degree than the Democrats, I don't see how it disproves my statement in any way.

well, if the majority of real scientists reject the pro-science candidate, maybe the pro-science candidate is not very scientific in his/her thinking.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I suppose "real scientists" are similar to "real Americans"...

similar, but different

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Even if the Republicans have a larger number of people with science degree than the Democrats, I don't see how it disproves my statement in any way.

well, if the majority of real scientists reject the pro-science candidate, maybe the pro-science candidate is not very scientific in his/her thinking.

What are we calling a science degree now?  Any B.S./M.S degree?  Only those in certain fields?  Who exactly constitute the "scientists" group?

I'd say the min was a B.S. in a science degree (e.g. engineering, physics, biology, etc....political science is not what I consider a "science")

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

wow, those are some eye-opening stats, esp this table:



basically the opposite of what I have seen, though maybe my perception is off because my career has been spent in energy and finance.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

wow, those are some eye-opening stats, esp this table:



basically the opposite of what I have seen, though maybe my perception is off because my career has been spent in energy and finance.

If you follow the link this appears to be a poll of AAAS members, which tends to mean actual scientific researchers with PhD's. If you polled, say, engineers, doctors, geologists (oil/mining, not univ.), etc., with a BS or MS, you'd get very different results. Research scientists tend to be very Democratic, even though many other professionals who use science are Republican.

The reasons for this are complex; partially it has to do with economic status (researchers are more likely to be dependent on government funding and working for non-profits, other science professionals are highly white-collar/private sector/non-union, which is a very GOP combo), and partially it has to do with the complicated way in which science intersects with culture and public policy. There is a certain combination of engineering and technical expertise with disbelief in evolution by natural selection or anthropogenic climate change that is actually quite common among well-educated evangelicals but almost unknown among researchers.

thanks, I was really scratching my head and wondering how I could have been in a galaxy far far away even though I’ve met so many professionals with science degrees…but, with your clarification, it seems my feet are firmly planted on the ground. 

*sigh of relief!*

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would never consider somebody, who holds a B.A. degree with a major in economics "an economist" just on the basis of that degree. Hell, I myself had a math major - this doesn't make me a "mathematician". I would suggest using the same policy for (natural) scientists. The liberal arts education is not designed to produce professionals, but "gentlemen" (and ladies), capable of further (possibly, professional) study.

understood, but I'm not discounting those who didnt choose to pursue a graduate degree in a field, simply because having an advanced degree doesnt mean you have any more common sense....so, as long as you have a BS in a field of science (including math, biology, physics, etc), I consider you capable of abstract scientific thought.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For that matter, even to properly understand the doctrine of Trinity one has to be quite ingenious at it ) This has nothing to do w/ science, though

no one understands the doctrine of the Trinity

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

Dude you sound like a dumbass. I recommend you stop now.

no, I recommend you understand what the argument is about (vertical evolution) instead of what it is not about

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So your argument is that species just evolve to a certain degree and that's it?

what I am saying is that if you take a bacterium and bastardize the heck out of it over 100 million generations, it's offspring are still going to be nothing more than a bunch of single-celled bacteria bastards.  It aint gonna become multi-celled, much less sprout arms and legs.  Now, once in a while one of those bastards might be paled skinned and red haired, but that doesnt mean it aint also a bastard...heck we gots one of those right here on the forum.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So your argument is that species just evolve to a certain degree and that's it?

what I am saying is that if you take a bacterium and bastardize the heck out of it over 100 million generations, it's offspring are still going to be nothing more than a bunch of single-celled bacteria bastards.  It aint gonna become multi-celled, much less sprout arms and legs.  Now, once in a while one of those bastards might be paled skinned and red haired, but that doesnt mean it aint also a bastard...heck we gots one of those right here on the forum.

It depends on whether we can give it a niche where it would be better of having more than one cell. Again, why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?

well, grab a knife and start chopping things off yourself and you'll find out why

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It depends on whether we can give it a niche where it would be better of having more than one cell. Again, why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?

well, grab a knife and start chopping things off yourself and you'll find out why

Again, you sound like a retard. I suggest you stop.

Yeah, you asking "why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?" is just too profound for me to grasp.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dude, we are multi cellular organisms. We need most of those cells to survive. So if I went around cutting sh**t off, it might not end so well.

but the very end would bring peace

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ag, then how many millions of generations are required for vertical evolution?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just curious, Jim. How old DO you believe the Earth is? Really. No ducking the question, please.

probably billions

why?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just curious, where does your apparantly creationist view cross with the Earth being billions of years old?

on what grounds would my creationist views be in conflict with any age of the earth greater than 6000 years?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Approximately how long ago do you asciribe the---let's say "appearance"--of humankind?

from a creation standpoint, at least 6000 years....but 6 trillion years works also from a creation standpoint, as does 600 quadrillion years

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Genesis 1 can fit in with an evolutionist view (i.e. the water teeming with life was bacteria; the animals Adam no longer enjoyed and felt lonely with before God made Eve were the apes).  Genesis 2 is the weird one.

dude, just go to bed

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Badger, is not having a point just part of your charm, or do you intend to get some place with your line of questioning?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ag, pick any organism you want, single cell or multicell,  and run it through however many generations you want to run it through...let me know when it becomes something else

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Badger, you are aware that individual words have multiple meanings right?

also, the sun and moon were created until the 4th day (or was it the 3rd?), so the days before had nothing to do with timint the position of the sun in the sky..

...and the 7th day was an ETERNAL day, as interpreted by none other than the bible itself...meaning, the biblical interpretation of the duration of the 7th day is eternity and that interpretatoin is explicitly give and is not questionable

so, the lengths of the days were anywhere from undefined to eternal, or a mix of undefined and eternal

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ag, pick any organism you want, single cell or multicell,  and run it through however many generations you want to run it through...let me know when it becomes something else

Well, let's just run one generation. You are not the same thing as your mother. Enough?

Every question you ask just makes one doubt: did you really graduate from high school? Or was it that sciences were not required wherever you grew up?

correct me if I am wrong, but evolution states that somewhere along the line life formed and evolved into more complex organisms....I do have that part correct, that is the theory, right?  then form as many experiments that you'd like and see if an organism becomes more complex over time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

actually, Genesis doesnt say whether there was a process, or whether things just came into being with a poof...the creation account is both timeless and process-undefined...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, what position are you advocating here?  I can't really tell.  

that God created the entire universe with purpose and design....but the timetable and processes (if any) he used to do so are not defined in the bible.