How to put Democratic leaders on the defensive just like Chris Matthews 'got' Cong. Pence yesterday

self | May 6, 2009 | self

[BlueStateBlues]

Chris Matthews used a gotcha question about evolution to ambush a GOPer off his game yesterday, and gloated about it today. Now here's a way conservative reporters can get prominent Dem. leaders and other liberals to cross a line, hem and haw, or look stupid: "Sir or Madam, are you an ape? Are you a great ape? Answer this question directly, yes or no."

[LibertyRocks]

I have never gotten myself involved in this discussion here at FR really because the following is all a "layman's" viewpoint, and I am not greatly educated in either evolution or creationism as to the most commonly held views, so in reading, I ask people to keep that in mind...

And I realize that this may get me flamed, but I have a view that evolution didn't happen in the big "steps" that are so familiar to many average people (Think the poster with ape to man).

I also believe in a creator who has set up the rules, principles, and scientific laws of this world of ours. Many, many things are based on the same principles of change, subject to mutation (both good and bad), basically -- if you will -- God granted the same "free will" upon our cells and genetics as he did to the human being.

I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that the Lord created this Universe and in doing so also allowed for adaptation within nature. However, as I said I don't believe in the 'jumps' that the THEORY of evolution suggests happened...

I believe that the Lord did make a great variety of animals and organisms of all scientific classifications, along with humans. Again, He also made the "boundaries" so to say of natural evolutionary or ADAPTIVE properties. [The same way we witness viruses mutating even now -- although viruses mutated much quicker than larger more complex organisms like humans].

I guess to sum it all up; I believe in a God who created the entire universe, and created all of the scientific properties we discover today in our pursuit of scientific proof and truth. I think the THEORY of Evolution, is an OVER-explanation in some ways. And perhaps, a THEORY of Adaptation would be more close to expressing the truths of nature in these regards.

Even scientists who are avowed atheists should be satisfied with at least the part of acknowledgment of the scientific proof of adaptation of species, even if there is disagreement as to the origin of various species themselves (whether by God, as many believe, or whether as a result of massive mutations and adaptations as Evolutionists seem to believe).

I am also reminded of the following verse from Genesis, that to ME personally points to the distinct possibility of SOME kind of guided INTELLIGENT DESIGN that INCLUDES elements of the THEORY of evolution (or ADAPTATION, as I said). That verse is as follows:

From the King James Bible

Genesis 1:20-21
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, [emphasis mine]after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Again in just a few more versus we see again these phrases: [All Bold Emphasis-mine]

Genesis 1:24-25
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

According to Genesis, Man was made in God's image, AFTER all of these other creatures, which were seemingly made "after their kind" -- or species related, but not "made" at the same time.

Perhaps what scientists are really seeing is PROOF of God's creation "style" in the similarities in Genetics and the way in which he went about creating these various creatures. Perhaps these "jumps" that are seen within the THEORY of Evolution (that takes out the variable of God's existence and creation) are GOD'S SIGNATURE within his own work? After all he created the codes that gave the variations, and gave the genetics the capability of building upon itself, and mutate, and provide for a vast variety of "applications" within the progeny of all living creatures.

Again, this is all JMHO based upon my limited study of the topics at hand -- all based upon the basic education I received in both a more "God-centered" scientific exploration in my parochial classes, and the more "secular-based" science classes in my later years of schooling.

If I had to try to come up with a name for this layman's theory I would call it "Intelligent Adaptation Creationism" or something that acknowledges again the ability of adaptation within all creatures on Earth, but also recognizes the Lord God who created ALL of these things - both the organisms themselves, and the "rules" under which they maintain life, create life, and in what ways they can adapt to environment and other factors given their structure.

I've probably tried to explain too much, and confused people as to my beliefs. It's a complicated theory to be sure! LOL And again, I'm a layman, and I'm not claiming any type of expertise, so please to "both sides" be kind in critique of this THEORY, plese.

[LibertyRocks]

I just wanted to point out the following...

If Evolution was indeed “settled science” then it would no longer be officially called the THEORY of Evolution, and would instead be official considered the LAW of Evolution.

I don’t want to argue about which belief is correct either, but isn’t the above a pretty basic fact of science regarding the naming thing? A theory has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and when it is, it is said to be a LAW. [For instance Newton had a THEORY of Gravity, long before it became Newton’s LAW of Gravity.]

[LibertyRocks]

See my post at #51, if you’d like... Might be a little too much “Bible quoting” for your taste, but essentially I agree with your point of view. I’ve never understood the argument from a scientific vs. religious viewpoint.

[Quix]

Sounds reasonable, to me.

Blessings,

[Arrowhead1952]

I wonder how many people in this forum would be willing to use the same antibiotics from 30 years ago when they get strep?

OH4life - here is you final home.

[reagan_fanatic]

LOL - nice visual there.

For some of us, our existence will end there by our own choice (.i.e., denying God.) For others, the journey will continue on.

Quite a decision to make, isn’t it?

[WalterSkinner]

..Pence, Bachmann and the rest of the newer conservative leadership should never go on shows with people like Matthews unless they are prepared for full-scale war.

DH routinely had Matthews and his leftist friends for lunch...

[metmom]

The way that dogs adapt and evolve within a single generation is undisputable evidence of evolution before our eyes and has been studied extensively.

Care to provide a source for that?

[Aquinasfan]

The way that dogs adapt and evolve within a single generation is undisputable evidence of evolution before our eyes and has been studied extensively.

Care to provide a source for that?

I'm curious, myself.

[Mr. Silverback]

Care to provide a source for that?

I'll second that question.

You aren't actually mistaking dog breeding for evolution, are you, balls?

[metmom]

The way that dogs adapt and evolve within a single generation is undisputable evidence of evolution before our eyes and has been studied extensively.

That comment is just too funny in light of all the evohysertia that occurs when some creationist makes the same suggestion, that evolution can happen in one generation.

Too many people equate variation within species as evolution. Extrapolating evolution from variation within species is just wishful thinking.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[timestax]

bttt

[count-your-change]

It’s “settled science”, hereafter called “SS”, so no sources will be provided. Just take it on faith (oops! sorry about using forbidden words for “SS”, I slipped a bit).

[balls]

Care to provide a source for that?

I'll second that question. You aren't actually mistaking dog breeding for evolution, are you, balls?

See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts

[balls]

You are correct, of course. I misspoke. Evolution is still a theory.

[editor-surveyor]

"The way that dogs adapt and evolve within a single generation is undisputable (sic) evidence of evolution before our eyes"

Absolute gobledegook!

Balls, you have zero understanding of what you're talking about. There has been a 150 year search for any possible support for evolution, and there has yet to be any evidence found in its favor (but massive evidence against it).

You come here pretending to be a conservative, but spew the ridiculous talking points of the far left.

[editor-surveyor]

"Pence is as bonehead if he can’t spank Matthews."

Agree!

[editor-surveyor]

"The problem with having an “honest debate” between “evolution” (aka, all of modern biology) and creationism/intelligent-design/whatever is that one side is saying “it’s magic! any evidence to the contrary can be explained by more magic!”, which makes any kind of scientific debate a pointless exercise."

Problem for you is that its the evolution gang that is banking on magic.

Mathematics demolishes evolution right out of the gate; chemistry comes right behind, with 150 years of intense work in an attempt to 'aid' the process of bringing life from non-life, on the back of over 500 billion dollars of funding, without even a glimmer of success.

Meanwhile the 'fossil record' proves itself to be simply the aftermath of the "flood."

You're looking for some powerful magic!

[timestax]

bump

[Mr. Silverback]

I’m not saying that I’m not interested in the findings, but an article that has “bred for” in the first sentence has as much relevance to evolution as the existence of a Dodge Dart does.

[dennisw]

LOL!!!! I figured you were linking to that post on domesticating the silver fox same as has been done with dogs. I read Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker” years ago and agree with him on some things. I also read EO Wilson books.

Evolution explains a lot but not everything. There might be a lot of intelligent design going on. Morphic resonance is also a factor

The strident, hard core evolutionists also are atheists and libertarians which is quite revealing. They are also scientists who get irrationally upset when evolution is challanged

[dennisw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Matthews

Chris Matthews had a Catholic school education up through college even.....

So I would have said to Chris:
Are you still a Catholic today who goes to church?
Does God exist?
Are living in God’s creation?

When Chris answers “yes” to the last question he has been checkmated

[BlueStateBlues]

A nice essay, thanks.

Of course a creator exists, although this wasn’t meant as an evolution thread but a “gotcha’ democratic leader” thread. “Darwin’s Black Box” is one of the great books, and has freaked me out in wonderment ever since I read it and saw some TV about it.

[BlueStateBlues]

To China Threat, what did you mean about the size of the beds 300 years ago? Sounds interesting.

[Mr. Silverback]

Nicely put!

[dennisw]

Hi
The last line should be — “Are you, Chris Matthews, living in God’s creation?

[steve-b]

The problem is all of these people that think creationism has something to do with conservative government. It makes us all look like uneducated jackasses that can't understand complex ideas.

*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!

[ChinaThreat]

Beds used to be much shorter in length for two reasons. People used to sleep in a more reclined position than modern beds, but people on average were smaller. The majority of this difference can be accounted for to some degree by modern diets and healthier environments. But on average, people were shorter than they are today. Some of that is genetic.

[Sopater]

The way that dogs adapt and evolve within a single generation is undisputable [sic] evidence of evolution before our eyes and has been studied extensively.

So far, all of the evidence shows that dogs, over time, with careful selective breeding and intense artificial environmental pressure to remove "undesirable" genetic traits, will eventually "evolve" into dogs that look like their parents.

[metmom]

Actually, it looks like we have a loser, just like all evos....

“This account has been banned or suspended.”

[metmom]

So far, all of the evidence shows that dogs, over time, with careful selective breeding and intense artificial environmental pressure to remove "undesirable" genetic traits, will eventually "evolve" into dogs that look like their parents.

So far,almost all the dogs that have been so intensively, selectively bred have done nothing more than shown a propensity to a multitude of undesirable traits, like hip dysplasia and nasty personalities.

[steve-b]

Sounds like an abuse of moderation; there's certainly nothing sanctionable from OH4life on this thread.

[GodGunsGuts]

Don’t worry, he’ll be back. You can count on it.

[Sopater]

So far,almost all the dogs that have been so intensively, selectively bred have done nothing more than shown a propensity to a multitude of undesirable traits, like hip dysplasia and nasty personalities.

You have a very valid point. As one undesirable genetic trait is bred out, others are inadvertently bred in. Strange how some would call that evolution.

[BlueStateBlues]

Thanks. People became larger, as well, after 1955, when McDonald’s went national. Ummmmmmmm, weighty burgers.

[metmom]

In many ways, though, the question of intentionality is beside the point. Domestication was not a single event but rather a long, complex process. Natural selection and artificial selection may both have operated at different times or even at the same time.

And they expect us to believe that he did the same thing in one generation?

In setting up our breeding experiment, Belyaev bypassed that initial trauma. He began with 30 male foxes and 100 vixens, most of them from a commercial fur farm in Estonia. The founding foxes were already tamer than their wild relatives. Foxes had been farmed since the beginning of this century, so the earliest steps of domestication-capture, caging and isolation from other wild foxes-had already left their marks on our foxes' genes and behavior.

Ooops. Tainted sample already. If he was trying to prove the point of how our ancestors domesticated WILD dogs, he needed to start with WILD foxes, same as they.

Lazy, careless short cut.

To ensure that their tameness results from genetic selection, we do not train the foxes. Most of them spend their lives in cages and are allowed only brief "time dosed" contacts with human beings. Pups are caged with their mothers until they are I/2 to 2 months old. Then they are caged with their litter mates but without their mothers. At three months, each pup is moved to its own cage.

No, they did not tame the foxes. They left them alone in cages to ensure their wildness.

Honestly, if this is what passes for science, it's no wonder that most evos believe the TOE.

And that's just skimming the first part of the article.

[metmom]

Sounds like an abuse of moderation; there's certainly nothing sanctionable from OH4life on this thread.

Do you know everything they know?

It wasn't my call. Tell that to the mods.

[count-your-change]

“To ensure that their tameness results from genetic selection, we do not train the foxes. Most of them spend their lives in cages and are allowed only brief “time dosed” contacts with human beings. Pups are caged with their mothers until they are I/2 to 2 months old. Then they are caged with their litter mates but without their mothers. At three months, each pup is moved to its own cage.”

What is described here is a form of training, caging with contact with humans, humans who feed them, caging with and without mothers, constantly seeing humans close up as non threatening....as food providers, as dominate.
No training there!

[count-your-change]

Oh wellllll.

[editor-surveyor]

Fake but accurate!

[gorush]

I was in total agreement until...Meanwhile the 'fossil record' proves itself to be simply the aftermath of the "flood."

I agree that the fossil record appears to disprove evolution but I don't view it as proof of creationism.

[tpanther]

BSB: If we can get one prominent dim to say he’s not an ape, then he loses the lib crowd. Worth the asking, IMHO.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. The theory of evolution says that men and apes have A COMMON ANCESTOR. It doesn't say that humans are DESCENDED from apes themselves.

Of course it makes sense, since species classification comes directly from Darwinism. 100% of people that believe human beings are merely soulless great apes believe in evolution.

And frankly yours is a cop-out answer because it supposes men evolved from an even lesser creature than an ape.

But that's what evolution is, a cop-out on flim-flam so-called "evidence".

[editor-surveyor]

It’s proof of the flood. As for the rest, I guess you’ll believe whatever you believe.

[gorush]

"It’s proof of the flood. As for the rest, I guess you’ll believe whatever you believe."

"Believe" is an interesting word. It almost presupposes a lack of evidence. As opposed to "know" for example which (in an idyllic sense) suggests that plenty of evidence exists to honestly use the word.

I am not the one expounding on beliefs as you imply. I have no axe to grind. I enjoy my search for truth, just so you know... :{)

[tpanther]

“I know, but for some reason the ones who don’t seem to congregate on FR...”

---

Ummmm....you were saying....?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html

Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719

**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63

**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts

***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp

************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63

************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties

************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/

---

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson

[tpanther]

Actually, it looks like we have a loser, just like all evos....

“This account has been banned or suspended.”

---

LOL-ROTF!

I noticed a few of the usual closet liberals yammering him on, got really really quiet. LOL

[gorush]

Maybe our definitions of “proof” differ... and back to “believe”. You can probably find at least one volunteer from each religion willing to bet his life that his beliefs reflect the truth. (Include evolutionists in this group religions for arguments sake.) Either only one of the aforementioned are correct or none of them are.

[tpanther]

Sounds like an abuse of moderation; there’s certainly nothing sanctionable from OH4life on this thread.

---

That’s because in the liberal world, up is down and down is up....cry us a river.

btw, two thumbs up to Ad. Mod. for the cornfield banning...I loved that episode on Twilight Zone.

[MilspecRob]

"question to our your beloved Sarah"

Palin could not address simple questions and looked not ready for prime time by any standard.