Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[g5000]

How can any sane person believe inorganic, non-living molecules gave rise to Life?

Whence came God?

 

[Lakhota]

Evolution from Bacteria to Humans:

How can any sane person deny evolution?

How can any sane person believe inorganic, non-living molecules gave rise to Life?

I'm sorry, Frank, you may not be on the chart.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How can any sane person believe inorganic, non-living molecules gave rise to Life?

Whence came God?

beyond human comprehension, like an ant walking on the Giza Pyramid

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Evolution from Bacteria to Humans:

How can any sane person deny evolution?

How can any sane person believe inorganic, non-living molecules gave rise to Life?

I'm sorry, Frank, you may not be on the chart.

clearly

 

[haissem123]

the trader to the people walker is here to talk about trade? that's what our government has become. the hand of trade and nothing else. nothing free about their trade either.

 

[gtopa1]

Thank you for the debate. More in the morning I hope....7:30 pm here.

Greg

No way, no how. It is not debate with you: it is talking to a very silly person. Totally tiresome.

I agree with everything you just posted except that doubt somehow would prevent one from making amazing discoveries. In fact, doubt leads to amazing discoveries. What if no one doubted Newtonian physics or the Bible? In fact, look at those who do not doubt the Bible?

I'd bet on science any day of the week. But at some point, a new discovery is made, there is a paradigm shift, and what we thought we knew was't exactly accurate.

And after 150 years of discovery, what do you think are the chances that we are going to discover that humans are something other than anthropoid apes?

I'd say pretty small. Except of course we are not "apes".

Greg

There is no doubt whatsoever that we are, in fact, apes. You can disagree all you care to, but it isn't going to change this fact.

Humans aren t monkeys. We aren t apes either. 8211 john hawks weblog

Are you really an ape??

Greg

Hawks is welcome to his opinion, but he is playing a semantics game, and for a piss poor reason. The classification is this:

The Order primate is subdivided into the Suborders Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini. The Haplorrhini are divided into the Infraorders Tarsiiformes (tarsiers) and Simiformes (anthropoids). The Simiformes are subdivided into the Parvorders
Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World monkeys, apes and humans). the Parvorder Catarhini is subdivided into the superfamilies Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys) and Hominoidea (greater and lesser apes and humans). The superfamily Hominoidea is divided into the families Hylobatidae (lesser apes) and Hominidae (hominids-great apes and humans). The family Hominidae is divided into the subfamilies Ponginae (Orangutans), Gorillinae (gorillas), and Homininae (Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Homo - all species). Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Homo are all Hominidae. Now you can split out homo from the great ape if you want, but the genetic distinction at the superfamily level is simply not there. At the super family level, we are all the same and so it makes no sense all to make the distinction. The Great apes and lesser apes, and Homo are Hominoidea (which is what I am referring to when I say "ape"), and so are all of the species of Homo. We aren't descended from modern apes. We are related to them via a common ape ancestor, which makes more like distant cousins. We are, via our Hominoidea superfamily classification, 'apes'.

Hawks says that he doesn't like including homo with the apes because

That’s what “humans are apes” ultimately is – it’s an argument that we aren’t as great as we think we are. Whether humans are special or not should be derived from biology; I don’t think we need to make the argument by applying Orwellian coercion to the meanings of English words.

And I say to that, get over it. We are apes. End of story.

What is the "piss poor " reason? To avoid the very error that I've seen thousands of times from the less informed?

Greg

 

[Yarddog]

Evolution has nothing to do with trade. Liberals think hard hitting questions are the ones that ask the attorney general to quack like a duck.

The liberal wanted to derail the subject. Good for Walker not giving her the chance.

Your right, with all the things concerning America and Americans today, the state of the world as it relates to US policy. Why waste time asking, OR answering a question like that. An obvious attempt at a set up. Why not try to find out what a candidate thinks about really relevant issues.

 

[Papageorgio]

Sure you think Walker is a puke. You also think Obama is a great POTUS. LAMO.

Walker is a pretty successfull Governor who's beaten the lefty loons at every turn so of course he's a puke in your eyes.

But then your a lefty loon who wouldn't know a successfull Governor if one bit you in your fake native american ass.

He's been successful as Wisconsin's governor? How? List the meaningful improvements in Wisconsin's economy that he can claim responsibility for.

He has helped lower insurance costs on public employees, he broke the union forced insurance company on its union members. Very expensive and did not allow for competition. Union workers are taking home more money as a result.

Erm, if he broke the union, as you claim, how is it that they are taking home more money? Are they or are they not broke? Make up your mind.

Read the insurance history with the SEIU in Wisconsin. The union ran insurance company was put in as the only insurance provider that could serve public union employees. Their rate were a lot higher than other companies but the union locked the out. When Walker ended collective bargaining the union was unable to control the public employees insurance carriers. The rate went down drastically, including the union insurance company. Competition lowered the pricing, allowed the public employees choice and better rates.

Educate yourself before puking stupidity.

I'm not a Walker fan. I think he's corrupt. But I agree that he took on the unions and won to the benefit of the people.

I don't know what to think of Walker at this point, I am still not sure about him. I a, opened minded. But with Obama in office and the possibility of Hillary and the history of Bill, I am thinking, being corrupt is what Americans want, especially liberals.

 

[Political Junky]

No one who believes in Creationism is qualified to be president - because that proves they are not rational.

So, your THEORY is that a Christian nation should not be ran by a Christian?



You should've had the balls to put that in your title, since that's what this is really about.

If the US were a Christian nation it would be a theocracy, which the Right denies. You seem confused.

 

[gtopa1]

We are evolved from apes. DNA proves it: "Along the common chimpanzee, the bonobo is the closest extant relative to humans"
"The bonobo (/bəˈnoʊboʊ/ or /ˈbɒnəboʊ/) (Pan paniscus), formerly called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee." wiki

Your study in Illinois is just that: a study at a agriculture school in Illinois: college professors (in agriculture of all things) trying to keep their tenure by publishing, publishing anything they can get attention for.

I am not going to be swayed by agriculture teachers into doing a paradigm shift regarding evolution. You may be dense, and desperate, enough to do that, I'm not. It is truly beyond comprehension why people are so exponentially afraid of being connected to apes: it's purely emotion and purely illogical. Defies reason.

Nonsense. Couldn't give a damn about it myself. I understand "divergence"..do you??

But to say YOU ARE AN APE is just.....open to question. As is all good science.

Greg

No one is saying they are an ape. They are saying they are evolved from apes: huge, monumental difference. You are trying to pretend your ideas on this are intellectual: they are not. They are silly and based in a denial of science, real science. Look, I'm done with you. I find trying to dialogue with folks like you extremely tireseome. You just are not worth my attention, so don't expect any more responses to your silliness.

we are an ape. We are just not evolved from modern chimps, bonobos, gorillas, or Orangutans. We have a common ape ancestor to those species. At the superfamily level, we are all the same - Hominoidea.

Proof that the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet..

OMG. Could you be any more idiotic?

Greg

 

[orogenicman]

Thank you for the debate. More in the morning I hope....7:30 pm here.

Greg

No way, no how. It is not debate with you: it is talking to a very silly person. Totally tiresome.

And after 150 years of discovery, what do you think are the chances that we are going to discover that humans are something other than anthropoid apes?

I'd say pretty small. Except of course we are not "apes".

Greg

There is no doubt whatsoever that we are, in fact, apes. You can disagree all you care to, but it isn't going to change this fact.

Humans aren t monkeys. We aren t apes either. 8211 john hawks weblog

Are you really an ape??

Greg

Hawks is welcome to his opinion, but he is playing a semantics game, and for a piss poor reason. The classification is this:

The Order primate is subdivided into the Suborders Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini. The Haplorrhini are divided into the Infraorders Tarsiiformes (tarsiers) and Simiformes (anthropoids). The Simiformes are subdivided into the Parvorders
Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World monkeys, apes and humans). the Parvorder Catarhini is subdivided into the superfamilies Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys) and Hominoidea (greater and lesser apes and humans). The superfamily Hominoidea is divided into the families Hylobatidae (lesser apes) and Hominidae (hominids-great apes and humans). The family Hominidae is divided into the subfamilies Ponginae (Orangutans), Gorillinae (gorillas), and Homininae (Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Homo - all species). Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Homo are all Hominidae. Now you can split out homo from the great ape if you want, but the genetic distinction at the superfamily level is simply not there. At the super family level, we are all the same and so it makes no sense all to make the distinction. The Great apes and lesser apes, and Homo are Hominoidea (which is what I am referring to when I say "ape"), and so are all of the species of Homo. We aren't descended from modern apes. We are related to them via a common ape ancestor, which makes more like distant cousins. We are, via our Hominoidea superfamily classification, 'apes'.

Hawks says that he doesn't like including homo with the apes because

That’s what “humans are apes” ultimately is – it’s an argument that we aren’t as great as we think we are. Whether humans are special or not should be derived from biology; I don’t think we need to make the argument by applying Orwellian coercion to the meanings of English words.

And I say to that, get over it. We are apes. End of story.

What is the "piss poor " reason? To avoid the very error that I've seen thousands of times from the less informed?

Greg

Did you not read the text in quotes?

 

[Lakhota]

Evidence
The evidence on which scientific accounts of human evolution is based comes from many fields of natural science. The main sources of knowledge about the evolutionary process has traditionally been the fossil record, but since the development of genetics beginning in the 1970s, DNA analysis has come to occupy a place of comparable importance. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how humans evolved. The specific study of the origin and life of humans is anthropology, particularly paleoanthropology which focuses on the study of human prehistory.

Much More: Human evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A president's religious beliefs affect how s/he governs!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Is this supposed to cut me? I could give a fuck about Walker. I just think lefties are lame for making issues out of nothing. Whether a politician believes in evolution doesn't even crack the top 1,000 for me because I'm not a tool like you or lakunta.

Anyone who lacks even a very basic understanding of science has no business deciding national science policy. Period.

Oh, can it. It's called the theory of evolution. Don't try to justify your bigotry. Period.

Erm, how does your response relate to my post?

You say that anyone that is a creationist is not qualified for the presidency. That's just hardcore bigotry. Nothing less. Most of our presidents if not all of them have been creationists by the way.

First of all, it is not bigotry to acknowledge the ignorance of another any more than it is bigotry to acknowledge that a dead man is dead. Secondly, you have no idea whether or not all of our presidents have been creationists. Obama certainly is not. Many politicians claim religious belief whether or not they actually believe, because despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to prevent people from holding office because of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof (good luck trying to get elected if you don't express a belief in the almighty). Be that as it may, I have no issues with what people believe. Believe what your conscience allows. But if "god did it" is the only explanation a candidate can come up with for all the natural phenomenon we see in the universe, we don't need or want him in the white house because he is useless in advancing science in this country, and hence the economy, when some of the highest paying jobs are in science and advanced technology, and that require people with advanced science education.

1. I'm sorry, but is it called 'evolution' or 'the theory of evolution?' You're trying to then say that those (Christians) who have not accepted a theory as fact are not qualified to be president (over a matter that pales to most matters, too). Sorry, dude; but that's hardcore bigotry. You may think you're being sly about it; but you ain't.
2. Yes, I have a very good idea that most if not all our presidents were creationists (some on a serious level, others on a superficial level). And now you want to say that only those who deny creationism are qualified to be president? Bigotry.
3. Just about all politicians are crooks (as you say). And you want to make the litmus test about a relatively obscure scientific concept rather than restoring honor to the land? You are a deluded bigot. I'm not even a Walker fan. I think he's phony. But I don't hate him because he has the gall to have religious beliefs that he's not even pressing upon you when asked in this instance. I an't a bigot like you is why.
4.

But if "god did it" is the only explanation a candidate can come up with for all the natural phenomenon we see in the universe, we don't need or want him in the white house because he is useless in advancing science in this country,

Creationism is not a denial of science. It's not even a denial of evolution as a scientific concept. A belief in God does not exclude a recognition of the merits of science. Your bottom line is bigoted. You are a bigot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

LONDON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Wednesday dodged a question about whether he believes in evolution.

Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London, Walker was asked: "Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?"

"For me, I am going to punt on that one as well," he said. "That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I'm here to talk about trade not to pontificate about evolution."

More: Scott Walker Dodges Question On Whether He Believes In Evolution

Punt? Well, Scotty, if you have any serious hope of becoming president - you'll have to answer that question. It sounds like you've already signaled that you don't believe in evolution. What about global warming?

Why does he have to answer that question?

 

[Lakhota]

Creationism is also a denial of carbon dating.

 

[Lakhota]

Gov. Scott Walker refuses to take down religious tweet

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker believes he can do all things through Christ, but an atheist group charges that he cannot do all things through Christ on his official social media platforms.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has demanded Walker remove posts from his official Facebook and Twitter feeds that read, “Philippians 4:13.”

“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” the verse reads.

More: Gov. Scott Walker refuses to take down religious tweet - Fox News

Well, that's some scary shit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Creationism is also a denial of carbon dating.

Radiocarbon Dating A Closer Look At Its Main Flaws Great Discoveries in Archaeology

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

He's been successful as Wisconsin's governor? How? List the meaningful improvements in Wisconsin's economy that he can claim responsibility for.

He has helped lower insurance costs on public employees, he broke the union forced insurance company on its union members. Very expensive and did not allow for competition. Union workers are taking home more money as a result.

Erm, if he broke the union, as you claim, how is it that they are taking home more money? Are they or are they not broke? Make up your mind.

Read the insurance history with the SEIU in Wisconsin. The union ran insurance company was put in as the only insurance provider that could serve public union employees. Their rate were a lot higher than other companies but the union locked the out. When Walker ended collective bargaining the union was unable to control the public employees insurance carriers. The rate went down drastically, including the union insurance company. Competition lowered the pricing, allowed the public employees choice and better rates.

Educate yourself before puking stupidity.

I'm not a Walker fan. I think he's corrupt. But I agree that he took on the unions and won to the benefit of the people.

I don't know what to think of Walker at this point, I am still not sure about him. I a, opened minded. But with Obama in office and the possibility of Hillary and the history of Bill, I am thinking, being corrupt is what Americans want, especially liberals.

Based on what I've read, imo, Walker is taking at least a good portion of his gains against the unions and throwing them to corporate benefactors. Him and Christie are birds of a feather. I can see why people think he's different or want to believe he's different; but it's smoke and mirrors.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No one who believes in Creationism is qualified to be president - because that proves they are not rational.

So, your THEORY is that a Christian nation should not be ran by a Christian?



You should've had the balls to put that in your title, since that's what this is really about.

If the US were a Christian nation it would be a theocracy, which the Right denies. You seem confused.

The US is symbolically a Christian nation. I don't know why you're being pedantic. I'm very much a Constitutionalist.

 

[orogenicman]

Anyone who lacks even a very basic understanding of science has no business deciding national science policy. Period.

Oh, can it. It's called the theory of evolution. Don't try to justify your bigotry. Period.

Erm, how does your response relate to my post?

You say that anyone that is a creationist is not qualified for the presidency. That's just hardcore bigotry. Nothing less. Most of our presidents if not all of them have been creationists by the way.

First of all, it is not bigotry to acknowledge the ignorance of another any more than it is bigotry to acknowledge that a dead man is dead. Secondly, you have no idea whether or not all of our presidents have been creationists. Obama certainly is not. Many politicians claim religious belief whether or not they actually believe, because despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to prevent people from holding office because of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof (good luck trying to get elected if you don't express a belief in the almighty). Be that as it may, I have no issues with what people believe. Believe what your conscience allows. But if "god did it" is the only explanation a candidate can come up with for all the natural phenomenon we see in the universe, we don't need or want him in the white house because he is useless in advancing science in this country, and hence the economy, when some of the highest paying jobs are in science and advanced technology, and that require people with advanced science education.

1. I'm sorry, but is it called 'evolution' or 'the theory of evolution?' You're trying to then say that those (Christians) whom have not accepted a theory as fact are not qualified to be president (over a matter that pales to most matters, too). Sorry, dude; but that's hardcore bigotry. You may think you're being sly about it; but you ain't.

I am saying that creationists (and make no mistake, every creationist organization in the country holds to this tenet) want to force their religious beliefs on our children in the schools, and would love nothing more than to cut every science budget in the country to the bone. I am saying that creationists are as ignorant and just as dangerous to this country as the morons who refuse to vaccinate their children. And just like people who refuse to vaccinate their children have no place being on the board of any health department, people who deny the very fundamental principles of modern science have no business making decisions regard our economy or the education of our children. That is not ignorance. That is common sense.

2. Yes, I have a very good idea that most or all our presidents were creationists. And now you want to say that only those who deny creationism are qualified to be president?

Good luck proving that. I won't wait up, but you are welcome to try.

3. But if "god did it" is the only explanation a candidate can come up with for all the natural phenomenon we see in the universe, we don't need or want him in the white house because he is useless in advancing science in this country,

Creationism is not a denial of science. It's not even a denial of evolution as a scientific concept. A belief in God does not exclude a recognition of the merits of science. Your bottom line is bigoted. You are a bigot.

Creationism is not merely a belief in god, bubba. It absolutely IS a denial of basic science (evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, and even cosmology and more). These people have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars trying to revise science education in this country to accommodate their narrow evangelical dominionist religious beliefs. I won't stand for it, and neither will millions of Americans. You really should educate yourself on the subject before you post your accusations. Anyone who believes the universe is only 6,000 years old is not fit to lead this country. End of story.