To The Bama-Bashers: Thanks For Overplaying Your Hand
As it turns out, anti-Muslim smears against Barack Obama energized Muslim voters. Muslim-Americans were angered by whispers about anti-American extremism and false charges that he is a Muslim; and they were encouraged by Colin Powell’s “not that there’s anything wrong with that” message.
“Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?” Powell asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The answer’s no, that’s not America … Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion ‘he’s a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists.’”
More than twenty million copies of the film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” were part of an advertising supplement in various newspapers during the campaign showing suicide bombers, children being trained with guns, and a Christian church defiled by Muslims. The insert, which came off as a subtle attempt to link Obama to Islamic extremism, targeted swing states where many Muslims were offended and may have caused them to turn out to work for Obama and vote for him in greater numbers. Roughly sixty-five newspapers refused to distribute the supplement once they got wind of its content.
Sociologist Jen’nan Read of Duke University says Muslim voters, who turned out more heavily for Republicans in 2000, have been gradually moving toward Democrats, and the anti-Muslim sentiment in America helped push them in that direction.
Mukit Hossain, executive director of the Muslim American Political Action Committee, said at the briefing that support for Obama among Muslims “changed dramatically” in the last three to four weeks of the campaign “when people started calling Obama a terrorist” in the crowds at Republican rallies.
One has to wonder if other sectors of the population were similarly driven to support Obama more passionately because of the constant drumbeat of negativity served up by his detractors. As campaign 2008 is deconstructed, perhaps its low points will be a civic lesson that will enable us to conduct future races on higher ground.
I heard a news report, but I don’t recall the numbers, that Obama got more of the Cuban American vote than did Kerry in the last Pres. election. Well, I think he got 34%.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Obama= 34 (possibly)%. Incase I wasn’t clear.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Well Sean Hannity lost the election for the GOP and Mccain. He encouraged Sarah to use those issues personally important to him.He wanted to be the #1 talk show host( you know-Rush is…).He wanted to prove that journalism is dead, yet water-carrier, hate monger pundits are fair and balance. Should he be held accountable and for how long?
November 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Mr. Obama won 35% of the Cuban-American vote in Florida, surpassing the previous high-water mark for Democratic candidates of 30% set by Bill Clinton in 1992, according to an exit poll conducted in Miami-Dade County by Bendixen & Associates, an opinion research firm. Among voters ages 18 to 29 years old, he won 55%, while Sen. John McCain carried 75% of those 60 and older.
“The firm previously conducted polls for the Obama campaign.
Mr. Moreno says his institute conducted exit polls showing that Cuban-Americans younger than 44 supported Mr. Obama by 49% to 46%. That figure “is the first sign of a shift in the Cuban-American electorate that I’ve seen,” he said.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602004920007191.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
November 7th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
There should a quoations at the start of that last post.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
quotation
November 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Alan, you should stop posting under the name ‘Pierre’!
(kidding, kidding)
November 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Now he is worried about the “fairness doctrine”.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Now he should do a complete investigation of all existing terrorists and all anti-americans in USA. Sean, if you are a great american, do not wait for the next election; start your investigation- now! Save us from all those radicals.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hey! cara, you want to amend the fairness doctrine? hen!
November 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Huh? There is no fairness doctrine to amend. And I don’t want a new one, no.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I could never understand the right’s accusation that Obama “is a Muslim”. The last I checked, there is no crime in being a Muslim. Now starting a war for profit and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives – now there’s a crime!
November 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
We’ve been ‘programed’ to be suspicious of Moslems.
It’s also a being ‘non-christian’ that those wacky right wings nuts are using to turn people away from Obama.
The same with trying to link Obama to terrorists, oragized crime, and corrupt officials, etc.
All while ignoring their own cadidates ties to criminals and corruption.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I think that the message of Hope won out over the old tired message of Hate.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
The false accusation of being a Muslim was spread by the second place, Sean Hannity.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Fear and anger are the politics of the past. We are on the threshold of a new era in politics.
– Slime ads don’t work anymore.
– Negative talk radio is on it’s way to be marginalized….not by legislation, but by being irrelevant.
– Hostile partisanship is out of fashion.
– Religious bigotry is not to be tolerated….in any form.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
We’ve been ‘programed’ to be suspicious of Moslems.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Boogieman, tell me about Sep 11, who in your opinion was responsible?
November 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hiya Trees,
Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of men.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Define, religious bigotry
So, anyone who disagrees with you is, irrelevant? A little arrogant hmm.
We had an election, I don’t know that a whole lot really, “changed”. Sounds more like wishful thinking, the “regime change of America syndrome”. Is Barack going to round up political opposition and dispose of it? Would that be a welcome “change” in your opinion? Do you wish to silence opposing thought?
November 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Hi um! How are you? Getting over that cold? I hope so, I hope your feeling better.
I’m jus in here takin a peek under the hood. I thought we changed the oil every four years, but by the sounds of it a lot of other people think we did a little more than that.
Sounds like some want to replace the engine, tranny, and rear end. Hah! (all three branches of government). I got phone calls, I’ll be back
November 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I was jus wonderin if Boogieman was one of those 9/11 was an inside job done by the government types. You know the “controlled demolition” crowd/ government conspirators’ gang?
November 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
It doesn’t seem to want to go away, and I have a 16 hour flight Sunday :(
You would be shocked at the number of Brazilians who believe that! I certainly don’t, but I know a lot of seemingly sane people who do.
Anyway, hope all is well with you – and you didn’t take the election too hard 8^)
November 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Heres a stat. If its true what limbaugh says,’20% of conservatives voted for Obama’. Then he’s gonna be a ONE termer !
Over played ?????
November 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Romney/Palin in 2012. UNSTOPABLE !!!!!!!!!!!
November 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’m fine with the election, I like democracy. It’s that faint rustling in the shrubs I’m hearin’ from some. I think they’re known as the “lunatic fringe”, wanting sweeping drastic changes. The term power grab comes to mind. Oh well, I got stuff to do.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Change begins inside each of us. If you are not interested in change…don’t. Of course, there are always consequences for all choices we make.
The irrelevancy that you refer to is simply a reference to people no longer listening to them since their access to information will be significantly reduced, and that their credibility relies upon the ignorance of their listeners.
I hope that opposition continues, but the discourse may dramatically change when the climate for dealing with opposition alters. When various points of view are valued and encouraged, conflict is reduced.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I hope your not rolling and texting jerry! That could be dangerous!! I’m waving four fingers and a thumb, I’ll see ya, bye
November 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Trees:
I hope not, I’m glad the Democrats did not get a super majority, there will be checks against anything happening to quickly, too drastic.
Take it easy.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
” hope your not rolling and texting jerry! That could be dangerous!! I’m waving four fingers and a thumb, I’ll see ya, bye
Posted by trees are people too!
November 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm ”
I’ll try and contain my excitement
November 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Yeeaaaahhh, that’s what’s got me concerned. THAT IF I DON”T CHANGE THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES.
Why would you want to “reduce” access to information. Is it your opinion we need someone “shaping our views” through a managed information system? Indoctrination?
Do you? Cause I’m not feeling it
November 7th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Yeeaaaahhh, that’s what’s got me concerned. THAT IF I DON”T CHANGE THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES.
Why would you want to “reduce” access to information. Is it your opinion we need someone “shaping our views” through a managed information system? Indoctrination?
Do you? Cause I’m not feeling it
What kind of climate change are you referring to?
A restriction on religious speech perhaps? Can you clarify this, please?
November 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Methinks Mr. Blair is a bit of an “elitist”, hmmmm?
November 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I think the days of attack ads in America might be over. Americans are no longer gullible. They are more likely to question the motives of the attacker than the one being smeared.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Well,
I aint too certain I knows whats you means by “elitist”…..
However,
….I believe in intelligence rather than stupidity….
I believe in the light rather than sitting in the dark…I believe in learning rather than remaining ignorant.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Those who do not adapt are bound to the fate of extinction….I can’t take credit for that. A rather well known gentleman named Darwin espoused that particular thought.
The access to information I was referring to was the ability they have had over the last eight years to gain access to the power structure…..the Republican administration. They no longer will have that avenue to gather and produce their bile. Of course, they will always have talking points from one political party, but that is of little consequence in gathering credibility to influence others. It is their credibility that will reduce their relevancy. People tend not to believe what is not substantiated by facts.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Yeah, I dunno Bob. Both sides in this election ran attack ads. That the perception only one side did………
I’ll grant that in the final week McCain attempted to really focus on the policy vs. the rhetoric coming out of Obama, and this was seen as “going negative”
Obama made a lot of promises, I will give him the opportunity to uphold them. (yeah, like I have a choice) but what I’m saying is, I will not be a vocal detractor on this blog site UNLESS he turns out to be something other than advertised. Ok? And actually there will be certain policies I will absolutely oppose. No one has cut my tongue out, yet. Although I think the scalpels maybe are being readied.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
section 8 welfare foodstamps and get free health care. people i know have section 8 pay 1300 for rent get 400 in foodstamps 600 for autistic kid. and all you have to do is work 2 hours a day that must be nice.27000 a year and her paycheck that she doen’t pay taxes on. and she went to collage and tax dollars paid for it.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I hope we can both allow discourse in a civil manner….I think that would be a great lesson from the election.
Yes, both sides did some nasty stuff..perceptions are often reality…but…I saw some 521 stuff here in Oregon that would light your hair on fire…it was directed towards a decent guy….Smith. They hit him low and ugly…it was not ever mentioned in the national race…and should have been. It was not honorable.
I don’t think either of us wants to be a “detracter” to this site. I strongly believe your motives are well founded on a belief structure that may, indeed, be different from mine…but, are no less right. I look forward to lively discussions on whatever happens.
As for cutting tongues….my alter ego is Robert Cockroach Blair…..google.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Yeaahhhh, I’m pretty sure he was talking about physical adaptation, not mental. I’m going to take a wild guess, but would you happen to be an atheist?
What a pleasant way to describe a different view, one that maybe opposes yours.
What are you talking about here exactly? That talking points are bad? Both sides have talking points, and these, (look up), would seem to be yours. Tell me about “the substantiation of facts”, cause I haven’t seen any here yet
November 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Why would you want to “reduce” access to information. Is it your opinion we need someone “shaping our views” through a managed information system? Indoctrination? Hmmmmm should I? I mean its pretty obvious hes talking about religion right. lol Tree i couldnt resist.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Hiya Craiger, “how you doin”, I was jus wunderin about you. Alls well I hope.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Yep Craig, I think Robert wants to get in the sandbox and “play”
November 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Doing great brother.. getting ready to go to work, and hope your doing well.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Oh im quite sure Mr. Blair can handle that sand box. If you guys find a tonka front loader its mine.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Yes sir, I’m doing swell. Yeah I some things to do myself, I’ll be back afterwhile.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
yeah, I thought I saw a tonka over in the corner, I’m gonna run and go grab my army men. I’ll see ya later
November 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Well now….I can remember when those Tonka toys were great. We used to play with them on quite an area where I grew up. Great stuff for young boys to have some real fun.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
global warming been happening ever since the ice age. and trees need co2 so drill baby drill and stop drinkin kool aid.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
bye, um cara, that is if i don’t see you later
November 7th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Chip…
What do you think would happen if you increase the amount of CO2 and reduce the number of trees?
The references to slogans and partisan Limbaugh style terms are less than flattering.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Pierre,
I completely agree with you about Sean Hannity helping McCain/Palin lose the election. He did so by his never ending hate-smearing of Obama.
I find Hannity so dare annoying; he just repeats the same things over and over and over – I get a headache just listening to his voice repeatedly say the same thing. You could listen to the man every night and if it wasn’t for different guests being on, Alan mixing it up a bit or him wearing a new tie – you’d think you were watching the same show every night. SNL made fun of the “Joe Biden doll” that talks non-stop; someone needs to make a “Sean Hannity doll”. You pull the string and you’d repeatedly hear, “Now ________(fill in the blank:Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Joe the Plumber,etc) don’t you think the American people have a right to question Obama’s radical associations with people like Jerimiah Wright, people like unrepentent terrorist William Ayers”? “Now_______(fill in the blank again) don’t you think Obama’s taxiation plan is nothing less than redistrubition of wealth, socialism?” And the doll will just continually repeat these two statements until you’re at the breaking point and you’d just prefer to commit suidice rather than hear it one more time! I know – it could be used as a method of torture.
In fact Hannity’s so annoying that I know many Republicans that actually like and respect Alan Colmes much more then Hannity (based on personality, not views of course).
November 7th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
[...] Did anti-Obama smears actually help the Democratic candidate win the presidency? Alan sifts through the mud to reveal the [...]
November 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Danielle.
Hannity is right of most republicans just as Alan is left of Most Democrats. I do agree Hannity is annoying sometimes. He thinks if he yells loud enough it will make what he says matter. I’ve tried watching CNBC and can’t stand 5 minutes of their programming. Atleast Alan can give the other side of things. CNBC is just a joke.
I don’t Hannity cost them the election though. I don’t think any Republican ticket could have won this election with the way things are. Bush has been a disater for most Republicans. The only shot that Rebublicans would have had is if John Edwards won the nomination.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Thank you Sean Hannity the gift who keeps on giveing
Stephen C. RosePosted November 4, 2008 | 08:57 AM (EST) BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers’
How Sean Hannity Lost The Election for the GOP
Sean Hannity and his cohorts at FOX saturated the world with Wright and drove the Wright Issue into the ground. And now the desperate Rev. Wright swiftboating that saturated the media yesterday sinks like a stone. We tune it out like ads we know backwards and forwards. They have no traction. It is old stuff.
Better yet, if Hannity had not played Wright so pervasively, Barack might not have been forced to deliver the most important message on race since I Have A Dream.
Yes, in the world of what might have been, it is likely that Sean Hannity set the precise stage that brought down the entire GOP this time around, including some pretty good Republican candidates. You can blame it all on Sean.
Analysis:
The first thing Sean did was an atrocious job of reporting. A good reporter does not edit tape with the malicious obviousness that Sean displayed. It became clear that Wright had been viciously reduced to a stupid soundbite or two, entirely out of context. Decent Republicans joined everyone else in holding their noses.
The second thing Hannity did, which he repeated in his equally ineffective Ayers vendetta, was to try to convert the electorate by dismal and incessant repetition. He literally took over FOX, followed by a culpable MSM which simply went along. Hannity sullied any residual claim to integrity that Rupert Murdoch might wish to salvage.
His repetition became absurd, guaranteeing that the current resurrection of the Wright soundbites would fall on deaf and jaded ears.
Criminally deficient reporting and intolerable repetition led to the third and most serious result — tearing an already vulnerable GOP in two,
I am writing this before the votes come in, save for heavy Obama wins in two small New Hampshire towns.
I am right, the landslide I have seen coming for months (see the map at the base of the page here ) will carry Barack beyond 400 EVs.
Why? In substantial part, all the Republicans who were totally turned off by the antics of Hannity regarding Wright and then Ayers, will not have voted for McCain-Palin.
The very idea that people who once were happy to respect Ike and Goldwater and even the McCain of 2000 wanted to be in lockstep behind the warped thinking of Hannity, should have raised a red flag.
Miniscule thought would have revealed that Hannity was and is a GOP buster of the first order, a person no self-respecting Republican would want to claim or follow.
Consider this:
McCain first tried the Bush 2004 approach in the primaries, went broke and proved himself a horrendous administrator.
He fired his most faithful friends and fought on solo.
The only way he won at all was to do what he was best at — win the votes of moderate Republicans and Independents and non-Obama Democrats — the very people revolted and embarrassed by Sean Hannity.
But McCain was muddle-headed in his primary victory. He assumed he had to have the support of what has been called the Republican BASE. This was the stupidest assumption of all. The only way McCain could have won was by appreciating the similarity between himself and Barack. By kicking the Hannity BASE in the teeth.
By redefining the base just as Barack redefined the Democratic base as a 50 state constituency. The election could have come down to a civil and humorous McCain versus the Barack we know.
McCain killed himself the second time by going right back to the Hannity-Bush Tree of Knowledge and eating a big apple all on his own.
The result was his schizoid campaign, successive proofs of his own failed leadership capacities.
The end came when Schmidt prevailed on him to suspend the campaign and play Mighty Mouse in Washington. The execution of this was so inept that the American public decided that it was time to get cozy with Barack and that has been the story of the campaign ever since.
It all goes back to Hannity. He created the environment that McCain simply accepted when he could have OPPPOSED it and cut the ground out from under the Obama critique. He could have basically told the Hannity core to buzz off.
Now there are the almost comical Wright ads put out by a Republican PAC with the word Trust in its name. How delicious. How pathetic. How apposite.
Sean Hannity destroyed the proper use of Rev. Wright. He made it so redundant that it became totally ineffective.
I have always been a person who could have been more valuable to the Republicans than the Democrats because I understand how to beat Democrats. Barack has been the consummate politician for whom I cast my vote this very morning. I am deeply and emotionally tied to his candidacy.
But I cannot help observing how Sean Hannity single-handedly became the primary operative in losing of the election for the GOP in 2008.
Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose
November 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Hey Craig7120, i was lifting up a rock and found this underneath, http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php ,take a peek. Ok, brother, i gotta go to the grocery store. sincerely, Trees
November 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
um cara, on that above posted link, if you have a peek make sure to check out the menu box on the left side of the page, the one titled “academic freedom”. Ok, say hi to everyone in Brazil for me. bye, trees
November 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I’d like to see all the “fevered egos,” as the late Bill Hicks might’ve put it, get off their comfy chairs from their radio programs — and go after the 2012 Republican Party’s nomination for president of the United States.
Come on, Rush, Sean, Mark, et al.! Let’s see and hear what you each have to offer for the direction of this country.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“”" Those who do not adapt are bound to the fate of extinction….I can’t take credit for that. A rather well known gentleman named Darwin espoused that particular thought.
Yeaahhhh, I’m pretty sure he was talking about physical adaptation, not mental. I’m going to take a wild guess, but would you happen to be an atheist? “”"”
Actually Darwin’s theory describes the process where tiny seemingly insignificant “mutations” in genetic code (in his time simply referred to as hereditary traits) would give a small advantage that lifeform over its competitior. It does not describe any type of “behaviour change” by one lifeform during its lifetime, “physical” or “mental”…although I understood the analogy.
But in fact, just because a giraffe learns that the tallest leaves are sweeter, doen’t mean his offspring will have a longer neck.
Evolution takes countless thousands of generations and genetic “mutations” to show change. That’s why fruit flies are good subjects (short lifespan) and humans don’t, lol.
In fact, with our current level of technology, since the start of agriculture and domesticated animals (10-12,000 years ago) and especially the least millenium or so, there is eveidence that we are now starting to evolve backwards…
For instance, genes for severe athsma, heart defects etc etc, are being introduced into the pool as we can live with these problems whereas years ago, well you get the picture…
Personally I wish there was a “god’ or gods we could blame this whole mess on them…
“-)
November 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Yeah, but here’ the “fruit fly” in your “ointment”. Where does the new genetic information or any genetic information for that matter come from? You see Darwin postulated “descent with modification” and that in context means a loss of information. Vestigial organs being the prime example. And your very tiny amounts of any “real change” that would lead to a “new” organism would be a voluminous amount of new DNA code. It’s similar to saying your computer can evolve through the process of deleting software to somehow turn itself into a better and different computer. That it has the ability for upward modification and the ability to acquire and sort, with a self governing sense, of useful new programming information. All of the fruit fly experimentation has yielded fruit flies with deformities. And these experiments had an outside intelligence altering the code, a human designer! Geneticists do see examples of genetic mutation working randomly, they call it cancer.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Second Law of Thermodynamics – Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.
“Entropy” is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, “entropy” increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
This would maybe help to explain the phenomena of cellular cancer
November 7th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Hello, Mr. bad frosty, I hope your having a good day. nice to meet you, and that’s sincere, trees
November 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Entropy also helps explain that backward evolution you were referring to, i think.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
New genetic code comes from mutation, and yes even a subtle “observable” change requires much DNA code. That is why it is not generally possible to observe evolution in higher species.
But “mutation” does not mean “loss” of information, or even an example of “Entropy”. What you are missing is that for every mutaion that gives a tiny advantage to a being (slightly stronger bones, more sensitive light receptors in early “eyes” etc etc) there are many that give no advantage, or are disadvantageous.
this is the fallacy of the Christian “intelligient design” arguement. They like to pretend that Darwin said that life came by billions of “lucky co-incidences”, ALL that improved the appearance of ‘design’ of the creature.
He did not. For every “lucky” imrovement, there were many ‘unlucky’ ones. The theory is not that there is variation within a species, that has been know for millenia – it’s that the tiny advantage means a tiny increase in re-productive succees. Tiny is the key word here. Millions of years.
Your analogy with the computer is interesting once you discard the premise of “deleting” software of being the mutation. If the computer could delete, add, or change software AND there was a selective process to decise which new computer was “fittest” (a measure of reproductive succees) AND there were millions of computers AND the “mutations” happened, and were ‘tested’ many times a second and the best performing ones singled out….well…
You would be replicating experiments being done now with nano-technology!
November 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Therefore, if there were a god and she really wanted the best for us, she would have made us beetles…
:-)
November 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Ok, explain to me how the bird developed gradually over time. How was it able to feed and procreate and protect itself as it changed slowly? How did it, thru randomness, know that flight was even possible? How did it simultaneously develop, a muscle tissue that didn’t suffer from lactic acid build, a respiratory system that was compatible, and a bone structure that was hollow. How did it develop intricately designed wings that made flight possible? Remember it took human designers who possessed intelligence and understood dynamics to produce something that could fly. Are you expecting me to believe that an unguided unintelligent process could result in a hummingbird? Now, respectfully, that’s a leap of faith.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
And there’s one more additional problem, time. If gradual eons and slow change over time are required, then how do you explain the Cambrian explosion? In a very brief amount of time by evolutionary reckoning, all current observed life forms were suddenly here. Fully formed and complete, and with an absence of ANY transitional intermediate forms. In short, how do you fill in the gaps. And there are many and they are gaping. And where are the transitional macro evolutionary forms?
November 7th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I gotta start thinking about dinner, but Frosty, can I call you that for short? I do appreciate the conversation. Thank you
November 7th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
And I’ve got to add, there really is a God and He does want what’s best for us. The natural beauty of this planet and the good thing He’s provided reveal it. I’ll give thanks to Him when I’m enjoying the meal He’s provided. Sincerely, and I do mean that, your friend trees
November 7th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Yes but that’s the point…evolution IS guided!
Your question is valid…but when you realize that the “guidance” is the natural selection….the tiny advantage given to a creature by genetic mutation.
That’s the key. The “guiding force” didn’t push the bird one way or the other though. No one “thing” (including the birds themselves) told it that a wing, hollow bones, quick-twitch muscles etc was a good thing.
But if there are 1,000,000 wingless proto-birds ancestors, a prehistoric flightless creature….and some of them are born with slightly lighter bones, and forearms that can flap a bit harder, have more feathers etc….these “birds can move a little faster, gather more food…they have a tiny increase in their chance for survival, and thus reproductive success…
Over the next millions years, mutations after mutations cause faster, lighter and flappier creatures….fur becomes feathers, bones become lighter and lighter…
Millions and millions of years!!
This is the key to evolution that so many find hard to grasp. They expect it means that one day a whale is born with four legs and a trunk, and crawls out of the ocean and eats peanuts…
The hummingbird is a good example of eveolution in fact. The feeding style involves a need to hover. For thousands of years, millions, small birds (that could of course fly by then) would try to sip the sweet nectar from plants…but they couldn’t hover…they were hjeavy and clumsy with wings meant to propel them forward – but ocaasionally there would be born one with slightly smaller/faster wings that could beat out his neighbours by a tiny fraction…lice longer, have more babies, therefore passing on the succuessfgul gene, only to perhaps have it “imrpoved” for the task of hovering over thouszands of subsequent generations…
…Of course for every proto-hummingbird born with a tiny advantage, there was born a few with big clumsy wings and a shorter beak. They would not do as well, and would have, in the average, less offspring.
You know, evolution is as wonderful and “miraculous” as any “intelligent design” theory, more so really.
Unless of course by “intelligent design” one includes the possibility that the designers were an alien species, lol. But somehow that version of an intelligent designer” always makes the bishop frown…
November 7th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I should add that the early flappy proto-birds couldn’t actually fly, but that their early ‘wings’ would help propel them on their legs….like a chicken
November 7th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Yep, experiments being done by intelligent designers.
ok, I’m starvin’, bye
November 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Yeeaaaahhhh, where are all the proto bird fossils and all the other proto this or that fossills? Lots of fossils, no transitions. ok, seriously, I gotta eat, bye
November 7th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I guess I’m on the Frosty weight loss program, but I want to print one line of scripture, and it’s not intended to offend, it’s really not. Proverbs;
14:12 There is a way that seems right to a person,
but its end is the way that leads to death.
The advent of evolutionary thought has been the beginning of religious obsolescence for many.
sincerely, your friend trees
November 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
ok
nite
:-)
ps there are tons of fossils showing flightless hairy birds, fish with fingers etc!
But only a small percentage of the estimated species in prehistory are known, so yes, there so-called “gaps” in the fossil record…a term held up triumphantly (?!) but it only proves that there is more to learn, much more..
Whereas the old bible ain’t changed much in a few years has it, lol
;-)
later, have a good snack!
j
November 7th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I worry that as a society we’re losing our way…….
Ok, I’m gone, bye
November 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
yes, I agree. And i find that quality to be very comforting.
I’ll be back later, it was a good conversation. bye
November 7th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Frosty, if I might, there are some videos here, that are worth a view. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php
menu on left hand side and click videos.
November 7th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I feel smear and fear lost the race for McCAIN aswell. McCAIN did not want to bring up REV.WRIGHT. In my opinion,WRIGHT,S views would have bitten McCAIN. I also think McCAIN didn,t want the dirt to come out about himself and their is some very questionable dirt. Remember folks, YE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE 1ST STONES. That,s for you thinking OBAMA is evil. That all of us are mere rags of his image.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Chip…
What do you think would happen if you increase the amount of CO2 and reduce the number of trees?
The references to slogans and partisan Limbaugh style terms are less than flattering.
the new trees would grow faster do you think it’s better to buy wood from ussr like we do now do you think thay plant new one
November 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Well done Mr. Frosty! I’m a fan of Dawkins, Dennet and Harris. Hitchens is one hell of a debater. But since this is a liberal site and not RDF i wont labor any points you made above. Except one, On intelligent design. If i designed a light bulb that would last 10 years human time, but at the end of its life would blow up not only my house but the entire city! thats not what i would consider intelligent design. i.e. The Sun
November 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
You would consider it if you knew what would happen in 10 years.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
So what will happen in 10 years?
November 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
his house would blow up and the entire city if that was his purpose for designing it.
There is a purpose for everything under the Sun, thus intelligent design.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Good morning Craig, I see you’re here looking around, did you have a chance to peek under that rock I left? There are some video clips with Richard Dawkins where HE ADMITS that there could have been a designer of life and that they may have seeded it here, but that these designers would have to have been terrestrial, and that they would have evolved elsewhere! His is the fundamentally flawed view that things can only be explained through natural materialism. He is absolutely confident that the physical world is all there is. That’s pretty arrogant for a finite being to declare it impossible for an Infinite Being to exist hmmm? I’m not sure what your point is about the sun, is it your opinion it will explode in ten years and in so doing eradicate life? And because you understand that some day the sun will cease to be, you blame God, (that’s of course if he exists), for putting it out? That is about the same as blaming God for giving us life in the first place. Frosty seemed to think if God was truly kind He would have created us as beetles, a rather bizarre thought. Anyway, it’s good to see you; I hope your enjoying your day, sincerely your brother tree
November 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Trees you can speak for your god and thats cool its what you and the good people do. Im not going to speak for Dawkins, he only speaks of what he knows and to jump on him for what he doesnt seems petty. Nobody knows what started life oops thats right you do. But some of us choose a different path for answers. The sun example was mine im not sure if i heard it before but i use that as an example of the concept of “INTELLIGENT” design. Just my opinion of what i consider intelligent. Im not placing blame i leave that to you and your clan (you know blaming eve and a talking snake etc…) for the ills of man. And btw whats wrong with the beetles their white album rocks. Actually i understood fully what frosty meant by that lil tid bit. It was quite clever. Any way brother great discussion as always and take this for what its worth, there are alot of us out there and if you want to win an election you might want to show some love toward science.. that lil remark by palin about fruit flies had a seismic reaction throughout the science community. Be safe and take care, Craig
November 9th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Dear Alan
I do not get it. Sean Hanity is a Conservative Republincan. Just like you are a Libaral and Prograsive Democrat. We can not disrespect Sean just becase the Republican Party lost and Obama hate him. You did put up with Republican presidency for 8 years with a smiling face. Now, Democratic party is a winer and Republican party is a looser. I do not like Democratic party but they will not change.
People did not like Bush, they still do not like him. They call him Terrorist, Hitler etc. He ran twice he won. I was heart broken when Hillary did not get super deligate vote. She was out. God have diferent plan for her. Just like He have differwnt plan for McCane.
President elect Obama have lot of work to do. He have to unite us, after his honey moon is over. We still have no faith in him.Now the Democratic party will run our cuntry. Good luck to them.
More than 50% of Americans do not even vote. Many of them do not even know who is running. That is a true statement.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Hang on to your *** you all going to find out, about the real Barack Obama just what he is going to do to the working class ppl
November 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
let’s all quit our job’s and go on welfare section 8 foodstamp’s and get free health care i’m not working to take care of lazy people no matter what color they are.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
” i’m not working” posted by Chip
Yeah, why bother when you can have so much done for you instead. Obama’s thought of trickle down prosperity doesn’t wash. Is prosperity coming from the 40% percent of the people not working(below middle class)? Do they have the ability to provide jobs? I guess trickling down just wasn’t fast enough for him.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Right on Craig, I love you brother, anyone who can engage and discuss is OK in my book. Free will is good, yes? Do you know what I like about this blog? I can get a complete idea out without being cutoff or interrupted. Hey Alan, you guys ought to make everyone submit their opinions in writing on H&C !! Alright Craig, see ya later.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:18 am