Setting America's Agenda
Here’s my pipe dream list of things the Democrats ought to do:
1. Only approve judges who recognize a personal, unrestricted right to abortion, as well as a personal right to die. By holding those positions, these judges will have demonstrated respect for the crucial principle of bodily sovereignty.
2. Move forward in recognizing gay marriage at the federal level. Civil unions are not an acceptable alternative; separate but equal is a farce because separate inherently means unequal. Only outright gay marriage will do.
3. Eliminate the death penalty at the federal level, and eliminate “harsh interrogation techniques” employed against suspected enemies of the state. Torture is not tolerable, ever.
4. Eliminate laws regarding personal, adult drug use.
5. Eliminate laws regarding personal, adult, consensual sexual activity.
6. Eliminate the FCC’s ability to regulate for “indecency” and “obscenity,” as those concepts merely are a matter of personal taste.
7. Leave
8. Eliminate any connection between Church and State. Worship centers should pay taxes just like every other institution. Worship centers should not receive any federal funding under any circumstances, including school supplies for parochial schools.
9. Abolish the warrant-less domestic surveillance program, and reconsider the Patriot Act in the light of protecting civil liberties.
10. Expand federal funding of stem cell research, and fund human cloning research, as well.
posted by The Jolly Nihilist at 6:00:00 PM
23 Comments:
Who's your weed man?
wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first. grumpy old men.
you still need two thirds to pass anything and Bush has the last say so i wouldn't count on all that much changing.
1. you dont think its at all wrong to abort a baby at 5, 6 or 7 months? because if you dont you should learn to have feeling and respect towards the value and beauty of life.
2. Homosexuality is not normal, it's a choice and a choice that can be changed with help
3. yes eliminate the death penalty so we can pay even more money in taxes for those who have committed grave crimes. if we didnt torture we wouldnt find anything out. what do you think they will tell us if we just arrest them.
4. dumbest thing i ever heard. what kind of drugs do you think should be made legal?
5. what laws are you talking about here? pornography? underage sex? rape? isn't their enough sex for you all over this country?
6. yes just what we need young kids listening to howard stern on the radio or nudity on normal tv or more cussing than we already have on tv. i think, i just think you can get that stuff anyway, satalite radio, cinemax, spice and oh yeah the internet you name it you can get it on your own.
7. so the muslims bring the fight to america. the stance out of every liberal democrat leave before we accomplish anything. yes it's probably a never ending war but it is a necessary one.
8. i thought we already had seperation of church and state. by worship centers do you mean Churches?
9. if you have nothing to hide why do you care? if they prevent criminal acts from happening whats wrong with that?
10. Why so you can have a clone of micheal jordan? or tiger woods? adult stem cell if used right could be benificial, not embriotic stem cell this only leads to human doctors and scientists playing god.
YOu have a lot of irationale points of view. I know my points are only mine and you will find a way to pick them apart
i thought you said you weren't an angry person?
Leave Iraq tomorrow? Thanks but no thanks. Really, your ideals are really far left, I'm for liberals, but I dont like pushing ideals that society can't handle right now. The best way to be a moderate. Both sides cast a shadow, creating massive bias. But I agree basically with your other points
you dont think its at all wrong to abort a baby at 5, 6 or 7 months? because if you dont you should learn to have feeling and respect towards the value and beauty of life.
I don't object to abortion in the 9th month. People own their bodies, and everything growing within their bodies. The government ought not infringe on property rights.
2. Homosexuality is not normal, it's a choice and a choice that can be changed with help
Homosexual desires are innate, and there is no reason to seek change since homosexual behavior is a-OK. What consenting adults do is their own business...not yours and not mine.
yes eliminate the death penalty so we can pay even more money in taxes for those who have committed grave crimes. if we didnt torture we wouldnt find anything out. what do you think they will tell us if we just arrest them.
As long as an erroneous conviction is even conceivable, I will oppose the death penalty in all cases. Yes, that even includes Hitler, Saddam, Osama, etc. One innocent being executed would be too much. Torture simply is not on the table for debate with me.
dumbest thing i ever heard. what kind of drugs do you think should be made legal?
All of them: Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, etc. The substances that you put into your own body just aren't my business, so long as you are an adult and doing so in private. It's about bodily sovereignty being respected by the government.
what laws are you talking about here? pornography? underage sex? rape? isn't their enough sex for you all over this country?
Read exactly what I wrote. As long as all the participants are 18 or older, and all the participants consent, there should be no rules. None of the government's business.
yes just what we need young kids listening to howard stern on the radio or nudity on normal tv or more cussing than we already have on tv. i think, i just think you can get that stuff anyway, satalite radio, cinemax, spice and oh yeah the internet you name it you can get it on your own.
"Indecent" and "obscene" are meaningless concepts. Say that I find llamas obscene. OK, now llamas are banned from TV. Say that I find Christianity indecent. OK, now Christianity is banned from TV. See how subjective and random this stuff is? None of the government's business. Let each house decide what's "offensive."
so the muslims bring the fight to america. the stance out of every liberal democrat leave before we accomplish anything. yes it's probably a never ending war but it is a necessary one.
I'm ready to wave the white flag, go home and let them have their civil war. To the winners go the spoils. None of our business, anyway.
i thought we already had seperation of church and state. by worship centers do you mean Churches?
Yes. Churches should pay taxes like everybody else. Giving worship centers a tax-exempt status clearly is giving them an undeserved preferred status. This conflicts with Church/State separation.
if you have nothing to hide why do you care? if they prevent criminal acts from happening whats wrong with that?
It's disrespectful toward the right to privacy, and that's a right I'm not willing to trade away for the illusion of security. I also distrust a government with any significant power.
Why so you can have a clone of micheal jordan? or tiger woods? adult stem cell if used right could be benificial, not embriotic stem cell this only leads to human doctors and scientists playing god.
Religious concerns should not stand in the way of scientific progress. Science must advance, religious concerns notwithstanding.
you said.
I don't object to abortion in the 9th month. People own their bodies, and everything growing within their bodies. The government ought not infringe on property rights
so if woman decide they don't like their 3 year old child they have the right to kill them? Lets face it a baby can survive completely outside the mothers body at 8 months, so that's a real living baby. God help us if this law is ever passed.
you said.
Homosexual desires are innate, and there is no reason to seek change since homosexual behavior is a-OK. What consenting adults do is their own business...not yours and not mine.
this will always be debated. i don't think it's normal, if people choose to do so that's their choice, this country doesn't need to recognize same sex marriage, period.
you said.
As long as an erroneous conviction is even conceivable, I will oppose the death penalty in all cases. Yes, that even includes Hitler, Saddam, Osama, etc. One innocent being executed would be too much. Torture simply is not on the table for debate with me.
i agree innocent people get convicted and put to death it's an imperfect flawed system, but how do argue with one who gets caught with the smoking gun in his hand? how do argue with one who has evidence after evidence pointing toward him plotting attacks or attacks carried out on us interests?
you said.
All of them: Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, etc. The substances that you put into your own body just aren't my business, so long as you are an adult and doing so in private. It's about bodily sovereignty being respected by the government.
does your agrument include being for drunk driving? because this again is the dumbest thing I HAVE EVER HEARD!!!!!!!!!!! would you want someone you love getting killed by a driver who is high on lsd or heroin or cocaine? pretty much everything messes people up beyound normal functioning. These people will never do so completely in private.
you said
Read exactly what I wrote. As long as all the participants are 18 or older, and all the participants consent, there should be no rules. None of the government's business.
i didn't know we had a problem with consentual sex. if you are talking prostatution i guess if people want to have sex with someone who has screwed the entire city of LA it's thier choice. for the most part the only one they can harm is thier self.
you said
"Indecent" and "obscene" are meaningless concepts. Say that I find llamas obscene. OK, now llamas are banned from TV. Say that I find Christianity indecent. OK, now Christianity is banned from TV. See how subjective and random this stuff is? None of the government's business. Let each house decide what's "offensive."
i don't think llamas will ever be banned from tv......yes i know that was a sarcasm. but the last thing we need is some third grade student telling their teacher to f-off because they heard it on tv, oh yeah you can already hear that on tv on comedy central after something like 10 pm as long as its not used in a sexual manner. at least the fcc has some moral values towards the indecent people of this society.
you said.
I'm ready to wave the white flag, go home and let them have their civil war. To the winners go the spoils. None of our business, anyway.
how is this not any of our business, they don't fight a civil war the fight AMERICANS you live in new york rigt? forget about 911? these are the same people we are figting in iraq! i know tommy said i was ignorant for my comments about iraq in my post earlier, but if they don't have americans to fight they will find a way to fight them, whether it's here in america or overseas where we have american interests. Do you feel all past and future wars would be unnessesary?
you said.
Yes. Churches should pay taxes like everybody else. Giving worship centers a tax-exempt status clearly is giving them an undeserved preferred status. This conflicts with Church/State separation.
the government DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY CHURCH IN THIS COUNTRY! The money christian churches recieve are from people like myself who give money that HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The government already does enough double dipping when in comes to taxing.
You said.
It's disrespectful toward the right to privacy, and that's a right I'm not willing to trade away for the illusion of security. I also distrust a government with any significant power.
if you distrust goverment with any significant power then how would you trust any democrat that is in our government? Because they have power to do things, maybe even power enough to to the things you want.
yes it's unforntunate that the goverment has to spy on american people but when people move here to this country who hate this country and have only intensions of hurting this country i'm all for spying. they have caught and prevented many things that we will never even know about. in fact i think that's how they squashed the ny subway plot. i could be wrong.
you said
Religious concerns should not stand in the way of scientific progress. Science must advance, religious concerns notwithstanding.
science that wouldn't involve people trying to play god and creating human life in a peitry dish. like i said if stem cell research consentrated soley on adult stem cells i wouldn't have a problem, the only reason scientists want to use embilical stem cells is to ultimatley produce human clones. so i guess your in favor a future society much like what was in the movie The Island?
Matthew 7:13,14 = Jesus says: "Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it"
Life should be valued by all and we should not let it be defiled by the evil and sedistic ways of satan. so i encourage all to try and follow the narrow road because it's the TRUE WAY to eternal life. God has given every man on this earth the right to make choices he set us free to do so. If everyone was destined for heaven their would be no point to this earth, thier would only be heaven. God wants man to make the conscious decision to follow him he does not force man to follow, this is the beauty of life that God has given to man. It's pretty simple if you really think about it, if you don't want to follow God that's your choice that's why the path to destruction is so large because people value the ways of satan because they are easier. but those who follow Jesus and God the road is narrow and will be difficult but you will gain the ultimate prize and that is eternal life. Every person in this planet has that choice because Christ is known by all.
So you're okay with killing an innocent baby, but not a mass-murderer.
So you're okay with killing an innocent baby, but not a mass-murderer.
Fetuses are the property of mothers-to-be. Mass-murderers are the property of nobody. That's the key difference.
Abortion restrictions violate the personal property rights of mothers-to-be. Thus, I oppose them in all cases.
--Jolly
to Jolly,
(from cscc1981)
take some time and check these sites out
http://www.wasdarwinright.net/
http://www.angelfire.com/ak/hotone/creation.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
It's never too late!
You certainly are entitled to believe in “creationism” if that’s what you would prefer, but I am a staunch evolutionist whose mind will not be changed unless presented, by the mainstream scientific community, with tremendous counterevidence to evolution. Right now, almost every relevant scientist accepts the truth of evolution; indeed, evolution is the very backbone of modern biology.
You might find this interesting:
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
The “theory” of creation did not arise naturally from the scientific evidence, but rather is a transparent attempt to squeeze the scientific evidence into a pre-established Biblical framework. Many Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant and unfailingly true. That being the case, they are willing to ignore the real evidence and accept the blatantly false narrative of creation that is presented in the Bible. Did you ever notice that there are almost no atheistic creationists? That’s because, when looking at the evidence objectively (i.e., not through a Biblical prism), all signs point of the theory of evolution rather than the pseudoscience of creation.
By the way, I should note that creationism is not science, but rather a blend of religion and philosophy. Science deals with natural explanations for natural phenomena. Creationism involves the “supernatural,” which is a very suspect concept in itself. The supernatural does not fall under the heading of science, and thus cannot be admitted into science curricula. Even on the miniscule chance that evolution is incorrect and creation is correct, it still doesn’t belong in science classes on the basis of the fact that supernatural things aren’t covered in science.
I could, metaphorically, talk myself blue in the face telling you about the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the widely accepted theory of evolution. However, I imagine that you are a devout Christian who will not accept a scientific theory that flies in the face of the tale presented in the Bible. That’s fine. But, in case you would like to know the basics of evolution theory, here are some good sites:
www.talkorigins.org
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I appreciate the fact that you are trying to “save” me and lead me to your perceived truth of Christianity. However, it’s only fair to inform you that I am a staunch atheist whose mind will not be changed, save for the most extraordinary of evidence in support of Christianity’s veracity. After a thorough inspection of the Christian faith, I find it incompatible with science, natural laws, rationality and reason. I have no place in my consciousness for any gods, an afterlife, a “soul,” the supernatural, the paranormal, angels, demons, etc. For, all of those are highly extraordinary claims, none of which is supported by even ordinary evidence, let alone the extraordinary evidence I would demand.
Moreover, notions like an immortal, immaterial soul are in such conflict with established scientific fact that I immediately am repelled from the faith positing them. Another good example of this would be the scientifically impossible Lazarus and Jesus resurrection tales. Those are, flat out, impossible according to the laws of science as we’ve discovered them. To accept the resurrection tales in a literal manner would be to spit in the face of science, as well as the laws of nature under which we live.
Finally, I also do not think Yahweh, even if he were to exist, is worthy of worship. For example, according to Old Testament writings, Yahweh is homophobic. I find that completely reprehensible. Yahweh’s moral views on homosexuality are 100% opposed to my permissive views on homosexual activity. I certainly am not going to worship an entity that possesses moral opinions that I find hateful and repellent, especially when said entity will damn people to eternal torture merely for living in a manner that is inconsistent with its moral whims. I have no desire to subject myself to such a deity, even on the tiny chance it does exist.
I’m happy to engage in discussion with anybody and everybody, but I will not be evangelized.
--Jolly
(cscc1981)
i would like to start by saying, what a great monday night football game....yeah right. at least my tea tastes good.
To Jolly
the information from those sites was a bit beyound my very uneducated mind, you see i hated school and i didn't go to college, i would have gotten into a load of trouble because i'll i wanted to do was party, my entire senior year in high school was one large party. I can't remember for the life of me if I was taught evolution throughout school. i went to a public school.
I read some of your stuff in other postings, you grew up catholic and changed in college, so i see where you get the knowledge of the bible that you have. i also probably saw some of the same books you had in college because I saw the books my wife had to study the last few years.
This is a debate that won't be won by any human on this earth.
If we evolved from monkeys and evolution happens to better the species according to scientists, than why do monkeys still exist? wouldn't they all have evolved into humans if it was better for thier species? Why don't monkeys continue to evolve into humans. And if we evolved from monkeys are we going to evolve into something esle? something better than human? You see where does evolution stop? Are humans the ultimate species for the next 10 billion years?
Fact is that no man has ever personally seen a monkey turn into man. Man has seen Jesus and they wrote about it man predicted the coming of Jesus and wrote about it. Man continues to find Jesus everyday. I've seen miracles from Jesus in my life. My wife's grandfather was diagnosed with cancer about 12 years ago, I was not with her then, he was given six months to live because the cancer was complete thoughout his body. He didn't take cemo. 12 years later he is still alive I have known him for 7 years and he doesn't have one trace of cancer in his body, a cancer doctors said couldn't be cured only lead to death. My dads best friend was nearly killed in a motorcyle accident about 4 years ago, he nearly lost his leg, he recovered to only have more complications a year later related to past things and the accident. He was hospitalized with liver failure, the doctors told him that he wouldn't make it throught the night, he said his good byes to his family and they left him alone. two people (he didn't know nor his family) that night well after visting hours walked into his room and laid hands on him and prayed for him. He was released from the hospital a few days later. Two years later he just a few days ago he recieved a liver transplant and is doing very good. These things can only happen from Someone and Something greater than we are.
You said you didn't believe that Jesus could be raised from the dead and that you don't believe that Jesus could have raised Lazereth from the dead. Well God is God and anything is possible through Him.
You see I've whitnessed people change I've read and heard about people changing thier lives, heck I've changed my life. A few years ago I believed some of the things you do. You have to have the desire to change and you have to make the choice to change. You grew up in the church so I know deep down in your heart that you believe in Jesus, it's up to you what you want to do.
everything I have ever seen about evolution is that man evolved from Monkeys I saw the books my wife had from college the last couple of years and they should a timeline and evolution tree of monkeys slowing turning to man. i only write what i know from what i've read.
Has man ever seen with his naked eye one species mutate and completely change to another species? Has evolution been 200% proven accuratley?
Maybe your belief in evolution differs from others that argue this case with me. This may show that thier are many concepts of evolution. There is only one concept of the Creator.
Let me state this I do believe mircoevolution occurs. a frog's skin becomes darker or it becomes bigger, but a frog is still a frog, it doesn't change to a lizard to better itself.
everything I have ever seen about evolution is that man evolved from Monkeys I saw the books my wife had from college the last couple of years and they should a timeline and evolution tree of monkeys slowing turning to man. i only write what i know from what i've read.
You are confusing monkeys and apes. They are not the same. Also, modern man did not evolve from modern apes. Rather, modern man and modern apes have a common ancestor, which lived about 6 million years ago.
Here's a wonderfully educational hominid evolution timeline:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
Has man ever seen with his naked eye one species mutate and completely change to another species? Has evolution been 200% proven accuratley?
1. Evolution is a S-L-O-W process. It's been happening, literally, for billions of years. Our own species only has been around for about 195,000 years. The human lifespan is only about 80 years. So, no, nobody has witnessed instantaneous speciation. But, nobody would expect to. That's not how evolution works.
2. Neither has anybody seen, with his own two eyes, God create a man or design an immune system. So, I think the "own two eyes" standard is fallacious and, perhaps, the stick holding up a man of straw.
Maybe your belief in evolution differs from others that argue this case with me. This may show that thier are many concepts of evolution. There is only one concept of the Creator.
Nobody contends that a monkey birthed a man. You have conflated monkeys and apes.
Different versions of "creation," as listed by Dr. Michael Shermer:
1. Young Earth Creation
2. Old Earth Creation
3. Gap Creation
4. Day-Age Creation
5. Progressive Creation
6. Intelligent Design Creation
7. Evolutionary Creation
8. Theistic Evolution
9. No Creation
10. Slain Monster Creation
11. Primordial Parents Creation
12. Cosmic Egg Creation
13. Spoken Edict Creation
14. Sea Creation
Let me state this I do believe microevolution occurs. a frog's skin becomes darker or it becomes bigger, but a frog is still a frog, it doesn't change to a lizard to better itself.
Why isn't the cumulative effect of microevolution macroevolution? That is, why wouldn't accumulating microevolution inexorably lead to macroevolution?
--Jolly
Yeah I got a little exicited about the monkey thing forgot to use apes.
Do you think man will evolve into something else or do you believe that we are the end of the chain?
Do you think man will evolve into something else or do you believe that we are the end of the chain?
A very common misperception about evolution is that it's goal oriented. In truth, it emphatically is not. Evolution does not work toward a pre-determined goal. Nothing is destined to evolve. Evolution does not accumulate positive mutations in hopes of achieving some particular end. Rather, evolution simply accumulates those mutations, and they lead wherever they happen to lead.
Humans, as we exist, just happened to evolve. Certainly, we might never have. When evolution first began billions of years ago, it did not have foresight and intent to evolve humans. We just happened to come about, which is lucky for us. Therefore, it would be extremely arbitrary to say humans are "the end of the chain." In fact, it's precisely analogous to saying fruitflies are "the end of the chain."
In short, yes, future species will have homo sapiens sapiens are their common ancestor. We might be extinct by then, though. After all, we diverged from the great apes about six million years ago by way of a common ancestor. That common ancestor now is extinct. So, too, might we by the time our "branches" are well developed.
I'm sure this is a stupid question but i'm going to ask anyway because you seem to be the only evolutionist to answers constructively.
Do they know what that common ancestor is? or do they just speculate? Do they have proof? ANd if they know where we came from and how we got here why can't they recreate the senario to completely proove it?
The reason I don't understand evolution of man is because when I talk to different people who believe in evolution they all have different points of view, they seem to argue different points and not know how do back them up.
Just for fun is this a correct definition of Evolution?
Evolution
concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.
Quoth PGC:
"Do they know what that common ancestor is? or do they just speculate? Do they have proof? ANd if they know where we came from and how we got here why can't they recreate the senario to completely proove it?"
Since I am not very strong in science, I will attempt to answer your question as best as my understanding allows. I am sure that Jolly can provide a better answer than me though.
Anyway, to put it simply, in examining the fossil record, humanoid fossils dated several million years ago are closer to apes, but have enough differences that they can be differentiated. As you progress forward in time, the humanoid fossils resemble humans more and more until about 100,000 years or so ago, they pretty much are us, with the exception of the Neanderthals. However, the appearance of people like Andre the Giant make me wonder if maybe some of our ancestors did breed with Neanderthals! :-)
As Jolly explained, macroevolution is sllllllooooooowwwwww. If someone who purports to believe in evolution tells you that a gorilla or a chimp gave birth to a human, then they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
So how might the evolution of humanity from an apelike ancestor have come about? One factor is a population of a particular species being divided geographically. Let's hypothesize that two bands of our ape ancestors lived in a jungle area where all of the food they would need to eat could be found on the ground. Thus, it would be advantageous to walk on all fours. But say one group of the population is forced to leave the jungle either through conflict with other groups or some other reason. They venture to an area where the main food consists of fruit hanging on trees. In order to reach the fruit, they have to stand on their hind legs. If they permanently settle in the area, then after several generations, walking on hind legs becomes the normal mode of getting around. Natural selection will favor those who are most adept at standing upright, because they will be more successful at getting the food, and thus pass on their genes to future generations, resulting in creatures that are completely bipedal.
Somewhere closer in time, an ape-man may observe that a falling tree limb has knocked some fruit out of a tree. He might get the idea that if he picks up the branch and hits the fruit that is beyond the reach of his hands, that he can use the branch to knock that fruit out of the tree. The use of simple tools has just been discovered.
Maybe after some generations have passed and using tree branches to knock high hanging fruit from trees is standard practice, somebody got the idea to try clubbing an animal over the head with a stick, like in 2001 A Space Odyssey.
I have to get back to work now, so I will leave it there for now and pick up later.
I'm sure this is a stupid question but i'm going to ask anyway because you seem to be the only evolutionist to answers constructively.
Do they know what that common ancestor is? or do they just speculate? Do they have proof?
What we have is a steady chain of intermediate forms from chimp-like to human-like. Actually, "chain" isn't a great word because branches, going in different directions, emerge from the "tree." The road from apehood to humanity was not a singular, narrow one. It's full of false starts and incestuous crossover.
Here's a list of intermediate forms, ending with us, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
You can look up plenty of information on them all. They are, in a very real sense, our ancestors.
ANd if they know where we came from and how we got here why can't they recreate the senario to completely proove it?
1. Evolution operates by non-random selection of random mutations. We cannot simply cause random mutations to happen as we wish they would. In nature, a particular mutation does not happen because it would be fortunate to have it; it happens randomly, whether fortunate or unfortunate.
2. Recreating evolution in a lab would not convince one single creationist. Why? Creationists then would say, "See, we told you. An intelligent mind is needed after all." The creationist camp simply would stake out a new plot of land, claiming that science has proven intelligent design.
The reason I don't understand evolution of man is because when I talk to different people who believe in evolution they all have different points of view, they seem to argue different points and not know how do back them up.
These people, quite frankly, might be ignorant of science. They might just be regurgitating what they've heard other people say, never having gotten a true understanding of the underlying principles.
It's also possible that they simply disagree on minor points, but agree on all the major ones. That's fine. Science is bound to have disagreements here and there with respect to the finer details. But, the main points largely are beyond contention.
On which evolutionary principles have you heard vehement disagreement? Chances are, one of the above explanations is applicable.
Just for fun is this a correct definition of Evolution?
Evolution
concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.
That seems appropriate to me.
As to the definition answer I find it funny that you say yes and I poised the same question to two others without giving the website where I found that definition and they said that the definition wasn't correct because I added to it. I than gave them the site they looked at it and said ah yeah it's right but something (i can't remember exactly what they said)was added to it. I found that answer funny because it was the first website that popped up when I did a search on evolution from yahoo. Just goes to show their are many different interpretations out thier or they are not being taught right by their teachers thus resulting in faulty textbook information.
Yes, and here's something to add to the list: Now that our side has a majority in both houses they should actually USE the subpoena power in January and launch a REAL independent investigation into 9/11. Let’s take a few moments and look at some of the details of that horrible event that precipitated the "war on terror" and around which America’s foreign policy has been inextricably wrapped ever since.
One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch, with someone who was there when he was attempting to fly a small airplane saying that Hanjour was so clumsy that he was unsure if he had driven a car before. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports after Mohammed Atta supposedly leaves two rental cars at two impossibly far-removed locations. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name ("Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham"), more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces most no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.
Debunking Popular Mechanics lies:
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6880
someone else debunking Popular Mechanics crap:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
still more debunking Poopular Mechanics:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5505
and still more debunking of Popular Mechanics:
http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm
Poopular Mechanics staff replaced just before laughable “debunking” article written:
http://www.reopen911.org/hiddenhand.htm
another neo-con 9/11 hit piece explodes, is retracted:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/180806hitpiece.htm
Professor Steven Jones debunks the N.I.S.T. “report” as well as the F.E.M.A. one and the 9/11 commission "report":
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_buildings_collapse_steven_jones.htm
N.I.S.T. scientist interviewed:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id235.html
F.B.I. says no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 which is why his wanted poster says nothing about 9/11:
http://forum.afghansite.com/index.php?showtopic=9349
Fire Engineering magazine says important questions about the Twin Tower “collapses” still need to be addressed:http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID
Twin Towers’ construction certifiers say they should have easily withstood it:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104easilywithstood.htm
USA Today interview with the last man out of the South Tower, pursued by a fireball:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm
Janitor who heard explosions and escaped has testimony ignored by 9/11 whitewash commission:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ignoring_9-11.html
Janitor starts speaking out about it and his apartment is burglarized, laptop stolen:
http://kurtnimmo.blogspot.com/2005/08/apartment-of-nine-eleven-hero-william_28.html
Firefighters tell of multiple explosions:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html
Eyewitnesses tell of explosions:
http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/essays/TheHorrorTheHorror.html
Interview with another firefighter telling of explosions:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
Firefighter saw “sparkles” (strobe lights on detonators?) before “collapse”:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt
Other eyewitnesses talk of seeing/hearing explosions:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-proof-911-inside-job-witnesses-to.html
Surviving eyewitnesses talk of multiple explosions there:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
Cutter charge explosions clearly visible:
http://www.rense.com/general63/cutt.htm
The pyroclastic cloud (that dust cloud that a second before was concrete) and how it wouldn’t be possible without explosives:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/physics/
Detailed description of the demolition of the Twin Towers:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Freefall rate of “collapses” math:
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
More about their freefall rate “collapses”:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/second_wave.htm
Video footage of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/
Video footage of the controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
More of WTC # 7 controlled demolition:
http://www.wtc7.net/
Naudet brothers' video footage of the North Tower crash:
http://www.911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml
Photos of the Pentagon’s lawn (look at these and see if you can tell me with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed there):
http://www.911blimp.net/cached/HuntTheBoeing!.htm
More photos of this amazing lawn at the Pentagon:
http://cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%20the%20amazing%20Penta-Lawn%202000!%20(9-11).htm
Very unconvincing fake “Osama” “confession” tape:
http://welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape/
More about the fake “Osama” tape:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html
Fake “Mohammed Atta” “suicide” letter:
http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/fake-letters.txt
Commercial pilots disagree with “official” 9/11 myth:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/september_11_us_government_accused.htm
More commercial jet pilots say “official” myth is impossible:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/2001/10/31/commercial_jet_pilots_analysis_of_the_twin_tower_attack.htm
Impossibility of cell phone calls from United 93:
http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm
More about the impossible cell phone calls:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html
Experiment proves cell phone calls were NOT possible from anywhere near the altitude the “official” myth has them at:
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9
Fake Barbara Olson phone call:
http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm
Where the hell was the Air Force?
http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/af-scramble.txt
More about the Air Force impotence question:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0331-11.htm
Sept. 10th 2001, Pentagon announces it is “missing” $2.3 trillion (now why do you think they picked THAT day to announce it? So it could be buried the next day by 9/11 news):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0513/p05s01-wosc.html
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan mentioned:
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan
More on Unocal Afghan pipeline:
http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1031
The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the summer of 2001, months before 9/11:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Pentagon deliberately misled 9/11 Commission:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887
Evidence destruction by authorities and cover-up:
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html/
9/11 whitewash Commission and NORAD day:
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml
The incredible fish tales of the 9/11 Commission examined:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478
Jeb Bush declares state of emergency 4 days before 9/11 for Florida, saying it will help respond to terrorism:
http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/news/jebknew.htm
Steel debris removal from Ground Zero, destruction of evidence:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
Over two hundred incriminating bits of 9/11 evidence shown in the mainstream media:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html
Tracking the “hijackers”:
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
“Hijacker” patsies:
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersPatsies.shtml
“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm
Several accused "hijackers" still alive and well, wondering why they are accused:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Yet the F.B.I. insists that the people it claims were the "hijackers" really were the "hijackers":
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_denies_mix_up_of_911_terrorists.htm
No Arabs on Flight 77:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
Thirty experts say “official” 9/11 myth impossible:
http://911fraud.blogspot.com/2005/06/us-governments-offical-911-story-is.html
“Al Qaeda” website tracks back to Maryland:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/alqmaryland.html
Al Qaeda videos uploaded from U.S. government website:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/140704governmentwebsite.htm
Operation: Northwoods, a plan for a false-flag “terror” attack to be blamed on Castro to use it as a pretext for America to invade Cuba, thankfully not approved by Kennedy back in 1962 but was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to his desk:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_terror_plan_cuba_invasion_pretext.html
Wow you must have wrote this on thanksgiving while watching the Lions get dismantled by the Dolphins. Or you were upset this past sunday when USC jumped Michigan in the BCS.
This sounds like a Michael Moore fairy tale. Ah Ha the government was behind 911 the whole time......right. Is this what fahrenheit 911 1/2 is about? because if it is it will save me the time from even the thought of watching it.
“If we evolved from monkeys and evolution happens to better the species according to scientists, than why do monkeys still exist? wouldn't they all have evolved into humans if it was better for thier species?”
If parents give rise to children, why are there still children? Your question is basically no different to that, and it therefore betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of common descent. You think of evolution as purely a “ladder”. It’s better to think of it as a tree.
And why should a species evolve into the same thing as some of its relatives? What “obligation” do monkeys have to evolve into us? Intelligence is not necessarily better for survival, because it comes at a cost. An organism that “invests” in intelligence will divert resources away from other things that it could have used them on, and on average, the less brainy individuals might do better. Large brains are expensive; we should not expect them to be favoured all the time.
“Fact is that no man has ever personally seen a monkey turn into man.”
Fact is that the fossil record clearly shows a lineage of primates that become progressively more human-like. Sometimes, the fossils are so intermediate that it isn’t clear whether to place it into this genus or that, or in this species or that. Your request for actually seeing a monkey turn into a man is frankly ridiculous. You should know full well that such a request won’t ever be granted, and that it has no bearing at all on the matter. In fact, we should be positively worried if such a thing ever happened, for it bears more resemblance to special creation than to cumulative evolution! No one says that a monkey one day turned into a man, or that a monkey gave birth to a human.
“Has evolution been 200% proven accuratley?”
For all intents and purposes, yes.
“Let me state this I do believe mircoevolution occurs.”
Oh well, how nice of you!
“a frog's skin becomes darker or it becomes bigger, but a frog is still a frog, it doesn't change to a lizard to better itself.”
This is another blunder. No one claims that a modern species should turn into another modern species, and that we should be looking for the “frog-lions” or the “turtle-camels”. A “frog”, by the way, is not a species but a fairly large group of related species. Some frogs are very similar to each other, both morphologically and genetically.
The concept of ring species, as I’ve previously explained, strikes a blow at the idea that species are absolutely discrete, separate islands. If a species can change into another species, what is to stop it from evolving still further, and further still, until you arrive at something that doesn’t look like a frog?
“Do you think man will evolve into something else or do you believe that we are the end of the chain?”
That’s really hard to say, because we would need to know the future environments humans find themselves in and how they might respond to the respective selection pressures. We also have to take into account genetic engineering (true intelligent design) and how that would affect the picture. But even now, there is evidence that humans are undergoing microevolution, and that different populations of humans have slight differences to one another. Given another million years or so, we may well change into something quite different as this slow, cumulative process continues to play out.
Also, you’re assuming that humans are the “ultimate” evolved creatures. We’re just one of millions of species on this planet. All lineages alive today have had exactly the same time to evolve; you could have started at any other twig of the tree of life and asked the same question. Humans are the ultimate in terms of intelligence, but bats and dolphins are the ultimate in echolocation.
“As Jolly explained, macroevolution is sllllllooooooowwwwww. If someone who purports to believe in evolution tells you that a gorilla or a chimp gave birth to a human, then they don't know what the hell they are talking about.”
Absolutely; if anyone tells you that this is what evolutionists believe, you can be sure that they are either confused, lying, or are complete quacks.
Sorry, I meant to say "Why are there still parents"?
Post a Comment
<< Home