Consumer spending up, but recession still a threat
From Reuters:
WASHINGTON – U.S. consumer spending rose
at its fastest pace in five months in July, backing views the
economy was not falling back into recession, although pending
sales of previously owned homes fell.The Commerce Department said on Monday consumer spending
increased 0.8 percent on strong demand for motor vehicles,
after slipping 0.1 percent in June.Economists had expected spending, which accounts for about
70 percent of U.S. economic activity, to rise 0.5 percent.When adjusted for inflation, spending rose 0.5 percent last
month, the largest gain in 1-1/2 years and the first increase
since April.
While that’s good news, a double-dip recession is still a very real danger. The sovereign-debt crisis in Europe continue to play out, and seems destined to result in at least one and possibly more defaults. The recent brinksmanship in Washington has raised doubts both here and abroad about the sophistication and sense of responsibility among much of our elected leadership. And while corporate profits and corporate cash holdings remain at record highs, that’s dead money taken out of circulation.
As a story in today’s Wall Street Journal puts it:
Economists at JPMorgan, in their weekly reprise of economic developments, blamed the recent global stock selloff on “a sense of policy paralysis in the U.S. and Europe, which has driven home the point that there is no cavalry to ride to the rescue.”
“Fiscal policy has turned restrictive and an additional sharp tightening lies just ahead in the U.S., while monetary authorities have exhausted much of their ammunition,” they said.
Officials on both sides of the Atlantic who orchestrated the response to the global financial crisis insist the world economy would have been worse had they not acted as they did. But it’s clear that the remedies didn’t deliver the recovery for which they hoped.
Some economists, among them Harvard UniversiItty’s Kenneth Rogoff, say today’s painfully slow economic growth is the inevitable result of the massive head winds that follow a recession caused by a banking and financial crisis. Government policies, given already heavy burdens of debt on governments in the U.S., Europe and Japan, can’t overcome the relentless efforts of households and banks to reduce their debt loads.”
It would be fascinating to read how future historians and economists analyze this era and the decisions made by government and business leaders.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
904 comments Add your comment
Just Another Anonymous One
August 29th, 2011
2:04 pm
I see that Bachmann is not the only Republican with no faith in science. There seems to be an epidemic amongst the Right wing crowd. It must be something in the holy water.
Uncle Jed
August 29th, 2011
2:05 pm
Must take the White House Laundry a lot of starch to get that Empty Suit to stand erect.
A little three minute dissertation to introduce one person and it had to be scripted?
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/three-minutes-two-teleprompters
A Face in the Crowd
August 29th, 2011
2:05 pm
md
August 29th, 2011
1:54 pm
“.in respect to evolution, many present it as an alternative to religious origin……yet for all we ‘know’, they can be one and the same……………the science in inconclusive as to where the process began”
**********
I would say they are both one and the same and that both are inconclusive. The “argument” seems to be the two “sides” trying to keep from admitting that they “don’t know nuthin’ ’bout nuthin’” Those who admit that what they do “know” is precious little, generally have better sense than to get into such an argument, scientist and theologian alike.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:05 pm
“in an infinite intelligence ”
Which is the real mind blower………as we tend to want to find a constant. The whole idea of infinity is too large for us to get a handle on it. We have this propensity to envision the rest of infinity more or less like our own miniscule sliver…………………
Fred
August 29th, 2011
2:05 pm
Bruno: I WILL delve lightly into this “debate.” I agree with both you and md, as it IS the only “sure thing” in this silly conversation. you both have said repeatedly, “We don’t know.”
And we don’t. Same with global warming, (NOW comes the crap storm lol). All we know for sure about EITHER issue, is that something happened (is happening, ie global warming), but we don’t know what. While “science” struggles mightily to explain them both, it still hasn’t. There just isn’t enough “data.”
What I don’t understand is why folks refuse to accept that as an answer? What causes cancer? We don’t know. What is the genome code? We don’t know. We don’t know is a very valid and honest answer. Not knowing something is not a “failure.” It merely suggested a continuing will and effort TO “know.”
In my opinion, it’s such simple and BASIC concept that those who don’t understand that are either dumber than a box of rocks or are combative and refuse to acknowledge what they themselves know to be true because of some ulterior motive. Either way it’s pointless to try to “explain” it to them or even justify a basic human truth.
Uncle Jed
August 29th, 2011
2:06 pm
Save your finger strokes as I am out for the afternoon. Con convention
Bruno
August 29th, 2011
2:06 pm
Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.”
Scout–As one who is well-trained in Science, I will agree with you that there is a motivation to exclude supernatural beings from scientific discussion, and for good reason. By definition, a supernatural being is not bound by any type of physical laws; events can be created by whim and can ignore natural mechanisms, e.g Biblical miracles. Such a chaotic, whimsical world could never be subject to investigation, since it all depends on the will of an unseen Being.
Joe Mama
August 29th, 2011
2:07 pm
GLL — “I agree. But the problem, at least for me, is when people on a political blog insist that a certain science is a decided science. CLIMATE CHANGE WAS CREATED BY MAN. THERE CAN’T BE ANY DEBATE, ITS SETTLED. EVOLUTION IS DECIDED. THERE CAN’T BE ANY DISCUSSION.”
Does it bother you as much when posters on a political blog say something like CLIMATE CHANGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY AT ALL AND WE CAN’T DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MIGHT. Or something like ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS A PIPE DREAM AND WILL NEVER WORK, SO LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT IT ANY MORE. Those things bother you at all?
“I have offered this argument for a long time, but for some reason, the left always insist that what the believe has always been proven and there is simply no reason to think otherwise.”
I’m not “the left” and respectfully, I’m not responsible for what you think “the left” believes. I speak for myself.
Thulsa Doom
August 29th, 2011
2:07 pm
Good little liberal,
The blood sucking parasites are just switching gears. One thing I’ve really noticed a lot of lately is that in just watching the news I’m astounded by the sheer number of new commercials I see from the bloodsuckers suing big pharma over a whole slew of well known medications. I can’t be the only person who has noticed this. I don’t watch much tv but when I do I can’t help but notice this.
A Face in the Crowd
August 29th, 2011
2:09 pm
Adam
The question of “intelligent design” and/or “science…”
md
August 29th, 2011
2:11 pm
“Yes we do. We have pretty damn good clues. That’s why it’s a theory.”
Theory being the operative word…………..
How do you know evolution wasn’t “created” during the Big Bang?
And yes, I understand the concept of evolution as a scientific theory, but not knowing the origins should lead to questions about the process…………..
jt
August 29th, 2011
2:13 pm
When this article leaded off …………..”From Washington”……………………….I moved on.
.
Most intelligent people do.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:14 pm
A Face in the Crowd: Intelligent Design is a question that is answered completely, but with faith. Science is answered through observation, and everything not observed, catalogued, tested, etc cannot be “answered” until it is.
Fred: Sure I’m with you on the “don’t know” premise, but I think you’re a bit behind on what exactly is left unanswered on both the subjects of evolution and climate change.
Talking Head
August 29th, 2011
2:15 pm
“It would be fascinating to read how future historians and economists analyze this era and the decisions made by government and business leaders.”
It will probably read something like this, “Keynesian Economic Policies: The Downfall of the American Empire”
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:15 pm
md: Theory being the operative word……
Do I REALLY have to explain why a Scientific Theory is different from “theory” in modern vernacular …. AGAIN?
md
August 29th, 2011
2:16 pm
Glad to know there are others here that admit they do not know…………….
It’s the one’s that think they do that worry me…………
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:16 pm
md: In addition, I am fascinated that you think somehow that the fact you are asking the question means that no one else has attempted to answer it. But you won’t find the answers in Evolution. You’ll have to look elsewhere.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:17 pm
“Keynesian Economic Policies: The Downfall of the American Empire”
Author: Glenn Beck.
Joe Mama
August 29th, 2011
2:17 pm
1811 — “There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.”
No. I’d be happy to refer you to some folks who can explain that to you far better than I can.
“Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.”
No. Creationists demonstrate very little understanding of extant scientific evidence and support, and are generally unwilling to make their evidence available for peer review. Given that degree of recalcitrance and ignorance, most scientists who were inclined to engage creationists in debate now dismiss them as unserious cranks who aren’t particularly interested in genuine scientific inquiry.
“Dr.” Kent Hovind would be a good example of such a creationist; is he still in jail?
Kamchak
August 29th, 2011
2:18 pm
When this article leaded off …………..”From Washington”……………………….I moved on.
When I read posts with the name ………….. Ron Paul ……………………….I move on.
Most intelligent people do.
Yup.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:20 pm
Scout: Also this: but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists
According to who/whom? Was there a judge’s panel? Because that would make more sense. Reminds me of a college debate about whether being gay is nature or nurture, where the people who won did so by throwing out catch phrases like “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” and got the crowd to cheer. What a bunch of crap!
Good little liberal
August 29th, 2011
2:20 pm
Uncle Jed
Actually, it was the same prompter, just two monitors. They used to use a system called the “presidential” that used the two little plates of teleprompter glass on both sides of the podium, but because Obama got so much grief for not being about to talk without the prompter, they started using the gigantic screens set way off as is seen in the pictures. I had wondered how they were doing it. Now I know.
Joe Mama
August 29th, 2011
2:20 pm
Adam — “Do I REALLY have to explain why a Scientific Theory is different from “theory” in modern vernacular …. AGAIN?”
Apparently so.
A Face in the Crowd
August 29th, 2011
2:21 pm
ADAM
How, my I ask of Your Holiness, have you come to the fiat that “intelligent design” is a question that is “answered completely?” This is why I made the statement that yours is as didactic and dogmatic an approach as a Medieveal pope. Your orthodoxy is narrow minded.
Good little liberal
August 29th, 2011
2:21 pm
Adam
Like Hope and Change and they got the crowd to cheer. What a bunch of crap!!!
Atlas Shrugging
August 29th, 2011
2:21 pm
Thulsa, money buys elections, whether it’s labor union money or coporate money, all of our politicans are bought and paid for by some group with sufficient funds to buy votes. These bought and paid for Dem-wits or Rep-ugnants must repay their benefactor in some fashion if they expect to recieve this funding in the future. Question: How much money did the Obomonation state that he wanted to raise in order to run for re-election? By the way we don’t elect the poor to political office because they have already demonstrated that they can’t manage there own lives much less the lives of others.
Bruno
August 29th, 2011
2:22 pm
I don’t recall specifically — did Darwin propose any actual driving mechanism *at all?* It’s been years since I’ve read Darwin, but I don’t recall him identifying any sort of driver in the process.
No, he didn’t, and in fact stated that a discovery like genes would invalidate his whole idea.
http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/25genes.html
On a day-to-day basis, though, I don’t give it much consideration. My sense is that, whatever the process is, it can continue to operate without any intervention on my part.
In my experience, one’s “worldview” does show up on a day-to-day basis, even if not explicitly. My main motivation for supporting ID is that it demands a respect for Nature that pure atheism doesn’t demand, while avoiding all of the supernatural beliefs one is required to accept if relying on a Creator.
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:22 pm
Al Gore aka manbearpig, claimed that people who don’t believe in global scamming are racists.
How dumb can that loser be?
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:22 pm
I can’t wait until I see the Republican Presidential candidate start using teleprompters. I am gonna flood you guys with it when it happens. See what kind of justifications come up. They’ll probably be fairly reasonable, except for the people who pull out “Oh yeah, well OBAMA DOES IT TOO! (whine)”
md
August 29th, 2011
2:22 pm
“Do I REALLY have to explain why a Scientific Theory is different from “theory” in modern vernacular …. AGAIN?”
Partial evidence??
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:22 pm
“I see that Bachmann is not the only Republican with no faith in science. ”
What’s stupid about people who write things like stems from the fact that said people are not scientists.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:23 pm
GLL: Like Hope and Change and they got the crowd to cheer. What a bunch of crap!!!
Yes we all know that political campaigning is equivalent to scientific debate
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:23 pm
Can’t wait till AmVet shows up to call me a flat earther. I love it when he claims to be tolerant and then throws out insults.
mm
August 29th, 2011
2:23 pm
“Bush, the elder was President when all the laws were being made by Democrats”
Please provide a list of laws the Dems passed that GWB did not veto.
I’m convinced republicans really are so stupid they believe their own BS.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:24 pm
A Face in the Crowd: Oh, are you saying there are holes in Intelligent Design?
Just Another Anonymous One
August 29th, 2011
2:25 pm
Is there really such a thing as a “creationist scientist”.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:25 pm
md: Partial evidence? Seriously? You really don’t know what I’m talking about do you?
Just google “scientific theory.” Read more than one link.
Doggone/GA
August 29th, 2011
2:25 pm
“Theory being the operative word”
Gravity is just a theory
Good little liberal
August 29th, 2011
2:26 pm
Thulsa Doom
I hate to admit it, but I was producing commercials for the blood suckers in Atlanta, and yes, they are all going for the big bucks in the medical field. That’s one of the reasons why I moved to the mountains. I’m pretty sure that people who produce commercials for lawyers have a special place in hell. I’m worried enough about the new administration building that was built in hell just to keep up with my life in the 70s.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:27 pm
Doggone: Special Relativity is also a theory – one that we use to have GPS.
Thulsa Doom
August 29th, 2011
2:27 pm
stands for decibels
August 29th, 2011
1:25 pm
Let’s see, if a program on TV is a show…does that mean a program on radio is a hear?
stands for decibels,
You know your point is pathetically weak when all you can do is parse words over whether NPR is a show or a program. Good grief. If it makes you feel better it is a program.
A Face in the Crowd
August 29th, 2011
2:27 pm
ADAM
I am saying just that…and they are a gaping as the ones in science…
And with that, I’ll leave this discussion and go and contemplate the fuzz in the cosmic navel…
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:28 pm
GLL: I’m pretty sure that people who produce commercials for lawyers have a special place in hell.
They’re capitalists, entrepreneurs, etc. Job creators!
Granny Godzilla
August 29th, 2011
2:29 pm
Funny thing about intelligent design, alot of people were not designed to be intelligent.
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:29 pm
What rat voters rant about. global warming, race, race, race, slavery and race.
Try something new, rat voters.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:29 pm
Hmm, so Intelligent Design is a concept that has holes in it. Who knew? Because when I read up on it, it basically answered every otherwise unanswered question with faith in an “Intelligent Designer”
Good little liberal
August 29th, 2011
2:29 pm
Doggone.
Afternoon, Dear.
There are some sciences that are determined to be finite, at least in this area of the universe. But there are others that require way too many unproven theories to be considered proven and the causes of climate change is one of those sciences.
Bruno
August 29th, 2011
2:30 pm
Fred–It merely suggested a continuing will and effort TO “know.”……In my opinion, it’s such simple and BASIC concept that those who don’t understand that are either dumber than a box of rocks or are combative and refuse to acknowledge what they themselves know to be true because of some ulterior motive
md– Glad to know there are others here that admit they do not know…………….It’s the one’s that think they do that worry me…………
Fred and md, count me in your camp today. The extremists on both sides worry me as well. In a practical way, one’s worldview DOES show up in a myriad of ways, as I alluded to Joe Mama. Excluding uncertainty is a dangerous place to start, IMO.
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:30 pm
“alot of people were not designed to be intelligent.”
Especially people who don’t know that “a lot” is two different words.
Doggone/GA
August 29th, 2011
2:30 pm
“You know your point is pathetically weak when all you can do is parse words over whether NPR is a show or a program”
And YOUR point might be a little less funny if you addressed it to the person who actually posted what you quoted. And I didn’t “parse” over whether NPR is a show or program, I “parsed” whether an NPR program is a “hear” as oppsed to a “show”
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:30 pm
Granny: I like to liken the very term Intelligent Design with extreme narcissism. So, there is an Intelligent Creator, and we are Intelligent, THEREFORE we came into being with POOF, *sparkle sparkle*
md
August 29th, 2011
2:31 pm
“Gravity is just a theory”
An awful lot we don’t know about gravity as well………but I don’t think i’d want to compare it to the origins of everything…………….
Good little liberal
August 29th, 2011
2:32 pm
Adam
“Yes we all know that political campaigning is equivalent to scientific debate”
In the area of Climate change, there is actually little difference between scientific and political debate.
Doggone/GA
August 29th, 2011
2:32 pm
“Funny thing about intelligent design, alot of people were not designed to be intelligent”
Personally, I think it’s a committee. Ever hear the definition of a camel as “as horse designed by a committee”?
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:32 pm
Bruno, md, Fred, like I said to just Fred before, yes science doesn’t answer everything and there is much we don’t know. But on the subjects of evolution and climate change, there is much MORE that we know that you guys are not admitting to. There are very few questions that haven’t been answered in both camps, and not one of them doubts the basic premise of either.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:33 pm
And Adam, you may be wise to take your own advise and look it up………and take note of words such as “available”, “known”, “samples”, “may” etc………………………
Tommy Maddox
August 29th, 2011
2:33 pm
GLL – those lawyer commercials do blow.
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:33 pm
Where’s Owl Gore these days?
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:33 pm
md: but I don’t think i’d want to compare it to the origins of everything
Nor should you compare the origins of everything to evolution, since that’s not what it is.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:35 pm
GLL: In the area of Climate change, there is actually little difference between scientific and political debate.
There is a stark and very important difference:
Scientific: Earth is warming overall due to CO2. CO2 is being added to, in a statistically important way, by humans. Ergo, humans are adding to the effect.
Political: What to do about the fact that the earth is warming, knowing that we are contributing to the cause.
Bosch
August 29th, 2011
2:37 pm
know others will disagree but part of the reason I believe in an infinite intelligence is because in just about every science or math program I watch on nova, discovery, etc. there is shown to be an order, a design, and a pattern to everything that we see. JMHO but its not something that in my view could possibly be an accident
The Golden Ratio, Fibbonachi’s (?sp) sequence and other mathematical equations found in nature are hardly anything new or random; they are what makes nature, nature, but it still doesn’t mean it was created by a supernatural creature.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:38 pm
“Nor should you compare the origins of everything to evolution, since that’s not what it is.”
Then tell us what you think it is.
Doggone/GA
August 29th, 2011
2:38 pm
Adam – I think what trips up most anti-evolutionists is that you can’t see evolution happening. What you CAN see is adaptation, but adaptation does not become evolution until the original population and the adapated population become so different that they can no longer interbreed. And that can be an extremely slow process, well beyond the ability of humans to maintain obeservation time on.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:39 pm
“they are what makes nature, nature, but it still doesn’t mean it was created by a supernatural creature.”
And the opposite is also true…………….
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:39 pm
md: An explanation of how species change over time.
I would ask if you get it now, but I answered that question numerous times already.
Bruno
August 29th, 2011
2:39 pm
Gravity is just a theory
Special Relativity is also a theory – one that we use to have GPS.
Doggone and Adam–You are confusing observable phenomena with our EXPLANATIONS of observable phenomena. The phenomenon of gravity has remained the same from the beginning of time, as far as we know. However, man-made explanations of gravity have changed greatly through the years, from Newton’s “action at a distance”, to Einstein’s “curved space”, to particle physicist’s talk of “gravitons”. Ditto for evolution and global warming. No one is arguing with observation, only mechanism.
Joe Mama
August 29th, 2011
2:39 pm
Bruno — “My main motivation for supporting ID is that it demands a respect for Nature that pure atheism doesn’t demand”
Doesn’t demand, but doesn’t reject. Some atheists have great respect for nature; others don’t. There’s no orthodoxy in atheism; if you ask a dozen atheists about their beliefs, like as not you’ll get a dozen distinctly different answers. And there will likely be a wide variation in those answers.
Thulsa Doom
August 29th, 2011
2:39 pm
Competent people- the ones who know enough to know that the more they know the more they realize just how much they don’t know.
Incompetent people- those who know enough to be dangerous- those who think they know but don’t know enough to know how much there is that they really don’t know- but yet they unequivocally know.
Doggone/GA
August 29th, 2011
2:39 pm
“And the opposite is also true…………….”
How was that supernatural creature created?
Just Another Anonymous One
August 29th, 2011
2:40 pm
I suspect we know enough about gravity to satisfy most people that want to know about gravity. Jump! Higher! Higher! Higher! Higher!
jt
August 29th, 2011
2:40 pm
From the Drudge———————
.Central Park—–NY.NY.—-
“Twenty Seven kites destroyed…..winds up to 24mph………Irene to blame………..Officials decry no “Kite Flying Permits”…………..Developing……………………………………………..
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:41 pm
Doggone: I’m more convinced what trips up anti-evolutionists is the false idea that it is a replacement for religion.
Joe Mama
August 29th, 2011
2:42 pm
Adam — “THEREFORE we came into being with POOF, *sparkle sparkle*”
Ah seen that on that there Star Trek show oncet.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:42 pm
“I think what trips up most anti-evolutionists is that you can’t see evolution happening. ”
Anti-evolution as the opposite of creationism, or anti-evolution as junk science??
Evolution as we “know” it explains the process as it is………..not necessarily as it was………….
Doggone/GA
August 29th, 2011
2:43 pm
“I’m more convinced what trips up anti-evolutionists is the false idea that it is a replacement for religion”
Yes, that too…and the fact that they keep losing sight of one of the bed-rock foundations of scientific theory: that it should be able to make predictions. And that is why “intelligent design” can never be a scientific subject, because it cannot be used as the basis for predictions.
Doggone/GA
August 29th, 2011
2:43 pm
“Anti-evolution as the opposite of creationism, or anti-evolution as junk science??”
both
Bosch
August 29th, 2011
2:44 pm
md,
No, not really. Math is just math — it was something we humans gave to repeating patterns we found. To me, it’s the same thing as the question, did God create man in his own image? No, of course not, we created him in our own.
The things we don’t understand we have to have some kind of concrete filler to explain it and most people just call that “God.”
(And of course, this is all my opinion)
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:44 pm
md: Evolution as we “know” it explains the process as it is………..not necessarily as it was
Evolution explains the process as it was, is, and will continue to be for all species on this planet.
Again with the not getting the SCIENCE part.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:46 pm
“How was that supernatural creature created?”
Don’t know……….one way or the other.
Bosch
August 29th, 2011
2:46 pm
“My main motivation for supporting ID is that it demands a respect for Nature that pure atheism doesn’t demand”
That’s just crazy talk. Most athiests I know respect nature a whoooolllleeee lot more than religious folks. It’s been my experience that the exact opposite of what Bruno wrote to be true.
Granny Godzilla
August 29th, 2011
2:47 pm
Zap
How gracious of you to correct my spelling. It is regularly atrocious as are my keyboarding skills.
Thanks….I think you have found something worthwhile to do.
Please check my spelling always, OK?
I’ll count on you, you wild and crazy Canuck.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:47 pm
“No, of course not, we created him in our own. ”
And you know this how?
Joe The Plumber too.
August 29th, 2011
2:47 pm
now if only bedwetter liberals could evolve.
Thulsa Doom
August 29th, 2011
2:48 pm
Bruno,
I think there is an intelligent design, not necessarily proof of a supernatural being- a God. My belief in a God as the infinite intelligence is one that I acknowledge as being of faith and not something I can prove.
Bruno
August 29th, 2011
2:48 pm
So, there is an Intelligent Creator, and we are Intelligent, THEREFORE we came into being with POOF, *sparkle sparkle*
I have to disagree regarding your proposed motivation, Adam, and with your mischaracterization of ID once again. The intelligence which organizes the Universe starts at the sub-atomic level, and isn’t limited to humans. Which is what leads me to a Jainist-like respect for all of Nature, not just us. Also, though a strong percentage of IDers are also religious, it’s not true across the board. Is there any good reason that you keep misstating this fact??
The Golden Ratio, Fibbonachi’s (?sp) sequence and other mathematical equations found in nature are hardly anything new or random; they are what makes nature, nature, but it still doesn’t mean it was created by a supernatural creature.
Bosch–Squarely in your camp as well today.
Bosch
August 29th, 2011
2:48 pm
Doom @ 2:39
And then there’s people like you who feel they know more than others and are constantly injecting the need to “educate” us.
Kamchak
August 29th, 2011
2:48 pm
Hey Bosch
Drogba got knocked out Saturday.
AmVet
August 29th, 2011
2:49 pm
Bruno, haven’t gone back through most of the posts, but if I understand correctly, your position for teaching ID in public school science classrooms is because Darwin’s theory is not yet proven and that this is an equally valid one?
Seems like a very low bar to me.
I’ve not read much about it but I know of no credible institutions that proffer that ID/creationism is scientifically supportable.
As for absolute proof, numerous other significant and nearly universally accepted scientific theories have not yet met that “criteria” either.
Allowing cloaked religion and repackaged creationism in science classes is a dangerous precedent, in my view.
If it is presented in comparative religion, philosophy or mythology classes, that is fine.
But it is not science.
md
August 29th, 2011
2:49 pm
“Evolution explains the process as it was, is, and will continue to be for all species on this planet.”
I’m not getting the science part??
Explain to me your definition of “was”……….and how do you know it to be true??
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:49 pm
Bosch: If you want a religion that treats nature well, you’ll have to go Native American or Pagan. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all seem to be earth-rape apologists.
stands for decibels
August 29th, 2011
2:49 pm
all you can do is parse words over whether NPR is a show or a program. Good grief. If it makes you feel better it is a program.
NPR is a *program*?
lordy, TD–I’m not trying to tell you how to live your life, but you might want to cut back on this stuff a bit.
stands for decibels
August 29th, 2011
2:50 pm
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all seem to be earth-rape apologists.
all?
Paul
August 29th, 2011
2:50 pm
Bruno
“I’m aware of the reasoning that the Judge in Delaware used to make his ruling. Which doesn’t change the fact that I think it was an incorrect ruling. Why?? Because our “established Science” is inadequate to explain the cosmology and the origin of life. Even the proposed driving force behind Darwin’s limited micro-Evolution has never been proved. As such, I think it’s most honest to simply acknowledge that there is an intelligence which pervades the Universe which we are unable to explain.”
I too hold to the concept of “The Force.” I don’t think it incompatible with evolution.
In this particular court case, it appears the judge held because of how the Discovery Institute and others designed Intelligent Design (like the play on words?) to get their points across without saying “God.” A bit of fog the judge saw thru.
But the real issue, as I see it, is placing it in the realm of science teaching in schools. Want to put it in a comparative religion, philosophy or other class? That’s an option. But in a science class, where the scientific method cannot be used to examine it? I think that’s where the problem is.
Religion has a place in public discourse. Just not, I think, presented as quasi-religion in a science class.
Adam
August 29th, 2011
2:50 pm
md: Explain to me your definition of “was”……….and how do you know it to be true??
This is what I mean by you not getting the science part. Science tests for this by using PAST evidence and PRESENT evidence and testing for results based on all that.
Really? I mean, REALLY? This cannot POSSIBLY be that hard to understand!
Good little liberal
August 29th, 2011
2:51 pm
Tommy Maddox
Yes they did. The money was very good, but the Karma was horrible.
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:51 pm
Granny Godzilla
No problem, cupcake.
Just Another Anonymous One
August 29th, 2011
2:51 pm
Atom Ant was an intelligent subatomic designer. He was most noted for his ant clothing designs, especially those teency weency capes.
AmVet
August 29th, 2011
2:51 pm
Excuse me, I meant Big Bang, not Darwin, in that last.
Unevolved, Freudian slip?!
Bosch
August 29th, 2011
2:52 pm
md,
Because I do.
Seriously, it just seems logical to me that if humans needed “the filler” as I mentioned and that “filler” is “God” — the next step would be to make that like themselves so the things they can’t explain make some semblance of sense.
Zap Rowsdower
August 29th, 2011
2:52 pm
“But it is not science.”
AmVet is and never has been a scientists but he did stay at Holiday Inn last night.