“Democrats for Romney:” The Kos factor in the Michigan primary
Last week, I noted Markos Moulitsas’s call for Democrats to engage in election mischief and throw their votes to Mitt Romney. Now, a Kossack has produced a video advocating the shenanigans.
The producer of the video is one Andy Cobbon. Here’s his message accompanying the video:
Democrats of Michigan, on January 15th you have a unique and wonderful opportunity to screw over the Republican Party.
For more on why voting for Romney in your primary–however counterintuitive it may be to vote for that flip-flopping, say-anything-to-get-elected, neocon-of-convenience hack–isn’t such a crazy idea, check out:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/200…Lest there be any confusion, showing Romney’s old stances as a less-than-diehard conservative in Massachusetts is intended to emphasize his ubercynical ability to shape-shift into desirable forms, not to suggest he’s a somehow tolerable closet moderate who is simply pretending to be a detestable right wing nut. I don’t mean to suggest he should be given the benefit of any doubt in that direction–that’s by no means the reason Michigan Dems should cast their vote for him January 15th.
In the rough and real world of politics, Progressives can’t afford for voting to be an emotional act of personal expression. It has to be pragmatic, strategic, and effective. So, just this weird once…go Romney. Though it burns my fingers when I type it.
What effect will the Kos factor have on the election? On the one hand, Kos has a lousy record when it comes to electoral influence. On the other hand, word about this call to mischief is spreading fast. Another Kossack gloats:
Michigan, do you want this primary season to be over?
Or do you want this primary season to be… hilarious?
Reader Katharine e-mails me: “My mom lives in Detroit, she’s been getting linked to this video on various pages all morning…Is this legal? Are there penalties for screwing with an election, particularly to make it more ‘hilarious?’”
***
Romney says he’s staying in through Feb. 5 no matter what happens in Michigan:
Mitt Romney yesterday dismissed any suggestion he would leave the race if he did not win Michigan.
“We’re going all the way through Feb. 5 – no ifs, ands, or buts about it,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “This is a race that is not going to be decided by a few states. It’s a race that I’m taking to the nation.”
Romney is eager for a Michigan win after second-place finishes in the Iowa Republican caucus and the New Hampshire primary.
Campaigning in Michigan yesterday, he focused on his roots in the state and promised to do more to lift up the economically hard-hit state than John McCain.
Romney and McCain, the New Hampshire winner, are statistically tied in Michigan, according to a Detroit News poll released yesterday, but Romney led McCain by 5 percentage points in a similar survey by the Detroit Free Press.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Resisting the temptation… resist… resist! « Cowardly political musings…
- We Shall See « Tai-Chi Policy
- Michelle Malkin » All eyes on Michigan
- 2008 Presidential Election » “Democrats for Romney:” The Kos factor in the Michigan primary
- yarbroughs dot org » Modern US politics, a 100-word rant
- galileo gps
- Friedman Libertarian - Unamerican
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Kos, Mitt Romney
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Is this legal?
What crap.
Aim at foot and pull trigger. (Figure of speach) Gotta love when kooks do it to themselves! Go ahead foilheads, make my day, please! If it helps knock McCain out of the picture I am behind you 100%.
i know a liberal who has said many times in the past, as she is undeclared as a voter in California primary, that she loves to vote in the Republican Primaries as a way to attempt to skew the vote. Although one vote does not make a big difference, she advised me that many on the Democrat side do this, too. In other words they get a kick at thinking they can dictate to the Republicans what candidate they have to use in the General Election.
I say, this is useless cause these votes will not count at the Convention. As delegates will choose and the only time delegates are hard pressed is in a winner take all state. In these states only Republicans are allowed to vote, at least this is my understanding of the process. Those voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan that are independent are not going to sway a Republican Delegate. That delegate will most likely vote for the conservative unless they are themsleves a moderate.
This all depends on if the state is a state where the delegate has to vote according to the outcome of the primary. Not all states are designated as these ‘mandatory’ delegate votes.
I note that one Kos commenter who advocated voting for McCain said, “..if we do end up with a GOP president, he might be the only one who is semi-sane.”
You are known by the company you keep.
They just made up my mind. I mailed out my ballot today and I voted for Mitt. Now I just hope he makes it until the California vote as to not waste my vote (some may think I did by voting for Mitt in the first place, LOL)
I’m in Michigan, and will not vote in the primary because I object to the state turning over the names & addresses of voters to the respective parties. I have, though, urged the dems I know to vote for Kucinich as a way of expressing distaste for what the dems have done to the primary.
#3, I’m with you. The Republican Party better not give me McSlain as a choice. I was laughing the other day when He was saying he knows how to secure the boarder. ROFLMAO, who come AZ is so out of whack?
Hey…by all means, please vote for Romney. Anybody but McCan’t.
Thank you Kos!
Next time, be really careful what you wish for.
I have to agree anyone, but open borders McCain. Go for it Kos Kids!
Quite a sign of desperation, when you have to resort to such tactics to try to help your party win. How does it feel to be that pathetic, Markos?
Yeah, those kids really are clueless, ain’t they?
It’s likely that Mitt will win the primary anyway, but it’s nice they want to gift him with a mandate!
Not the sharpest pencils in the box, that lot, lol.
If you keep McCain from getting the nomination, you are putting a Democrat in the White House. Let’s face it, Romney, Huck, Giuliani, none of them holds a candle to Barack or Hillary. They’re either complete nuts (Huck doesn’t believe in evolution, Giuliani wants another huge unfunded tax cut (you fund a tax cut by cutting spending, but he wants to raise spending)).
You have to laugh at just how stupid these people are. Suggest voting for a candidate you don’t want in the White House so he stays in the race.
Suggesting they vote for a candidate they could tolerate but can’t win..like Paul I could understand but this is too much.
Again, please foilheads, make my day and vote for Mitt.
I agree, go ahead vote for Romney.
Anybody but McCain.
Under the McCain – Kennedy amnesty bill, the illegal alien serial rapist would have been given a Z visa (aka Amnesty). McCain is hiding behind the phrase “I’ll secure the borders” and no one in the media will ask him the tough questions on what exactly that means. McCain Kennedy called for granting a Z Visa the earlier of 24 hrs or “completion of a background check”. Its virtually impossible to do a background on an alien within 24 hrs, so the loophole would grant them the Amnesty/Z Visa.
1. Of course this is legal.
2. 2006 did a pretty good job of refuting all the “Kos candidates can’t win” angle. Webb and Tester are proof that his whole netroots thing is working.
3. I’m sure we all can agree that voting in the other party’s primary is a crazy loophole that needs to be closed (I don’t mind independents voting but cross-partisan voting is ridiculous). If this helps put a stop to it, so be it.
4. Although I’m not against this in principle, why Romney? Why someone who can raise cash and polls well and, if he makes it that far, will be a formidable opponent. Why not vote Huckabee or Paul or Hunter. That would make way more sense.
Why make a relatively strong candidate (at least compared to the Republican field) that much stronger. This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Katherine –
If you’re concerned – or your Mom – contact the Michigan Atty General, Mike Cox. (he’s Republican, by the way)
Mich Atty General, Contact info
I understand the Romney monkey wrench strategy.
Possible GOP nominees: Thompson, Romney, Huck.
Disaster GOP nominees: McCain, Romney, Rudy.
Only Romney fits both categories.
Luckily, Kos is irrelevant and dems have enough to worry about in their own primaries.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the American Communist Party of the 30’s call themselves “Progressives” to avoid being confused with the Soviet commies?
By all means kos kidz, vote Mitt.
And now the Democratic Party of the 2000’s call themselves “progressives” to avoid being confused with those who love individual liberty, freedom and the United States of America.
I don’t have to declare a party affiliation here in Texas, nor did I have to when I lived in Arkansas. Here, I vote in the Republican primaries because I have choices in those primaries. When I lived in AR, I sometimes voted in Democratic primaries because the Republicans in the primary were often unopposed, but not so on the Dem side. Assuming I would end up with a Dem, I voted for the one I liked most/disliked least. Only thing was, in the case of a run off, you could only vote if you voted in the primary that resulted in the need for a run-off. There are legitimate reasons for “crossing the party line” in primaries, but this is ridiculous. I hope they do get what they wish for. Might help get that eventual Thompson/Romney or Romney/Thompson ticket I could get behind…
HAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
News flash: you do not have to believe in evolution to be President.
Evolution is only a recent “theory” perpetrated on people with no will to believe there is something larger than them that should govern them.
Guess who said: If man were present on earth 3 million years, we should be able to walk outside our back door and step on fossil bones.
Charles Darwin
Who is the nut?
As you know, “Progressive”, “Liberal” “Democrat” and “Socialist” are all interchangeable terms. The Democrats are terrified of being (correctly) designated as “liberals”, hence the term “Progressive”.
This was tried before when the first President Bush forced Dukakis to confess that he (Dukakis) was a “liberal” in 1988. They can run away from the word, but it finds them out!
(Yes, I believe your history is correct there.)
Should be wading hip deep in those billions of dang ever-elusive “transitional” fossils, Soap!
Actually, if we thought like Democrats, we’d urge all of the Republicans and conservatives in Michigan to go in and vote for Kucinich.
This, from the party that still screams that Bush rigged the 2000 Florida vote. Jeesh.
OK, but the left nut wings could easily change their party preference to Independent if they wanted to.
Pointless…
LOL – purplepeep. I didn’t want to go there and get the evolutionists going and make this a thread jack.
You and I are trying to use facts against a Moby and we should be ashamed of ourselves!
You’re right. But having only the party faithful voting pushes candidates too far to the left and right. Independents – true independents – help moderate the candidates. Which isn’t always good, but it’s not always bad either.
The reason Dems have to resort to such nonsense,of course,is because they couldn’t possibly come up with a candidate who could win a straight-up election based on the issues that really matter to Americans.
Not to make this a threadjack, I’ll point out something that is somewhat salient in response to Soap and pueplepeep:
Evolution is a religion.
Just like Socialists Progessivism. (If you don’t agree with us something is worng with you)
McCain isn’t the only candidate capable of beating Hill or Barry. I’d actually wager that in the general election most of the Republican field could beat those two.
Just like Global Warming. (If you don’t agree with us something is worng with you and you want to destroy the planet)
Soap is sooooooo right that belief in Evolution is NOT a pre-requisite for being President.
Can you really blame those dimwitted Koz Kidz; would you want to vote for any of their candidates?
All the Dem candidates are pathetic.
Look at the choices they have:
1. Chavez in a Pantsuit
2. Mr. Empty Suit
3. Mr. Lawsuit
Rusty, I think you might be giving Kos too much credit. Both were very close decisions and I don’t believe that Kos did much to truly influence either one. Joe Lieberman, for example, would prove the opposite by following that same way of thinking.
Agree with you here; however, I am not yet convinced that these types of games have ever really worked. Seems like a waste of time on their part.
To those giving atta boys to Kos Kids because you support Romney: I get that it’s a joke, but it’s still hard to believe that this group would support an ends through a Kos-enable means. Just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Webb was elected by the Washington Post.
This is an exerpt of a response I made back in March on DailyKos. IIRC I pulled the quote at the bottom from the MRC.
+++
The vote was by about 9,000 out of at least 1 million and you don’t think the constant recycling (not just the initial story) of a negative hit piece article in which the main facts turned out to be false didn’t have an impact. I couldn’t find the numbers on the AP story but I found this on macaca, “By Election Day, 112 [Washington] Post news stories and editorials had used the word ‘macaca.’”
I’m sure Allen did respond to the story but it was buried in the constant stream of negative articles of the liberal press. Gloves off? I agree it was gloves-off. The press kept the gloves off of Jim Webb throughout the whole election.
And if we give McCain the nomination, we’re guaranteeing a Liberal in the White House, regardless of who wins. Not that I’d ever vote for Hilary(I’d shoot myself first), but I’d almost rather have the Socialist who admits it, than the one who lies about it.
Ok. George Allen called someone with a dark complexion a monkey. That’s a no-no. If Hillary Clinton called Bobby Jindal or Clarence Thomas a monkey, I’m sure it would be all over the news for the forseeable future.
And Kos was pushing Webb long before that moment. obviously they got incredibly lucky to run against someone who effed up so badly. And they got incredibly lucky to have Tester run against a crazy person in Montana. But those candidates would not have been on the radar if it weren’t for Kos.
I don’t like most of what Kos writes. He’s to the left of me and his holier-than-thou attitude strikes me as condescending and unreadable. But, let’s give the man some credit.
Anyone who criticizes Kos for not getting candidates elected is missing the point. The fact that his writing and following has grown so large that this is even a criticism shows how powerful his movement has become.
…not to mention that this is simply wishful thinking on the side of the left. Just because their media darlings hold the twinkle in their eye doesn’t mean that they’d win.
Two junior senators without any executive experience is what the left has to offer and they believe this means no one can hold a candle to them? Why? Because the mainstream media likes them? If Hillary is crying now, what will happen when the debates cross parties?
I highly doubt that whether or not a candidate believes in evolution would be a major campaign issue for voters. I don’t doubt that the left would like to capitalize on this as a smear, but it might backfire on them. Besides which, isn’t it a bit intolerant of the keepers of P.C. to say such things?
I’m not a supporter of Giuliani, but he has more proven experience in leadership from an executive office than either of the two leading democrats. I’d vote for him if he were the only choice opposite Clinton or Obama. I believe a lot of Conservatives would rather have a RINO than a
DemocratSocialist.Obviously this sub-debate is kind of threadjacky, but, oh man, not believing in evolution is crazy. It’s one of the craziest things a crazy can think. That would be a sublime gift to the Dems.
In no way is it intolerant to point out that someone doesn’t believe in accepted science.
Rusty, I don’t know where you fall on the political spectrum, but don’t you find it a bit telling that you mention that Kos is to the left of you? I’m willing to bet there aren’t many that would say that Kos is to the right of them.
Shrieking to the fanatical fringes (on either side of the spectrum), doesn’t get much credit from me. It’s easy to preach to the already converted. What’s telling is that Kos alienates even those that identify themselves as liberal.
No, I think Kos has become more of an interesting amusement for all but his devout.
We’re not criticizing him for losing elections. We’re criticizing him for thinking he’s so relevant that he can game the system in Michigan. I’m willing to wait and see if he’s successful, but I would doubt it.
Salt~
I agree – I’d vote for any of the Republicans for President over any of the Democrats that are running, save maybe Ron Paul. At least the Republicans would be the adults when it comes to fighting Islamic extremism – I might not like certain things that each of the Republican candidates say, but I agree with them a whole lot more than I agree with ANY of the Dems. Sitting this one out just because your preferred Republican doesn’t get the nomination is stupid. I think the Congress we have now is because a lot of Republicans just decided to stay home. The stakes are way too high for that short-sighted tactic…
I’m still undecided about the GOP candidates, but I would suggest that the references to Romney being anti-evolution are incorrect.
The above source is from the NYTimes… if anyone would have capitalized on it, I would think they would have. I didn’t do any deep digging on this, so if there is evidence to the contrary, I’d be willing to read it.
I don’t believe that God and evolution are mutually exclusive (nor do I think we’re debating that, really, just didn’t want to come off as defending the anti-evolution stance).
However, maybe I misinterpreted the intent, but it seemed to me that the intent of focusing on his beliefs in evolution was an indirect attack on the fact that he is a Mormon.
You might say that it’s in-bounds, but I say that the argument really is rather trivial to the larger populace. However, from where else would this line of questioning have sprung if not from his religious background?
I would suggest that there is a significant number of devout Christian democrats that might also take offense to this line of thinking.
Ok, I’ll admit. The Che line had me in tears.
Oh boy what fun. I can’t wait for these IDIOTS to show up in Denver for the dumacrats convention.
Stop McCain now…Vote Romney!
Accepted science?
Last I looked it was still Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Please don’t confuse theory with fact.
Disgusting as this is, I don’t think it will have much effect, given the way the Obama vs. Shrillary fight is heating up.
I.Will.Not.Jack.This.Thread…..GAAA….
Evolution has even less hard evidence supporting it than Global Warming, and that one is coming apart at the seams.
The only reason it has not been dispoven is that we can’t observe things long enough. Curiosly, that is exactly why they say it cannot be proven.
Sorry everyone. This one really gets to me.
BTW: Not as many voters as one might think believe in evolution, either. Ergo, it is still not a requirement that a candidate believe in it, either.
*Image of a mean looking KOS*
.
“I will make it legal!”
.
.
#1 too bad we can’t post images.
.
#2 i’m not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but it seems that what they want is – if Romney does do well, they can claim that they tipped the scales, and Romney’s win in ‘his own state’ wasn’t legitimate.
People should know what “theory” means when discussing evolution. Evolution, no matter how much evidence supports it (and there’s a ton), will always be a theory. Why? Because it can’t be recreated by the scientific method.
Evolution will always be a theory. Always. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. What is a fact is that life can be created without the help of a Higher Power. That is fact. People have created single cell organisms with a lightning bolt.
Personally, evolution reiterates my belief in God. So many thing went right for us to be here typing on our computers and enjoying our free will. The science points to evolution, but it really is amazing that we are where we are.
Rusty, since I opened my fat mouth, I guess I have to defend my position.
I know the difference between theory and proven fact, and of course evolution cannot be easily proved because of the immense time scale involved. On that note: given the immense number of mutations involved in going from simple proteins to complex life, there hasn’e been enough time from the formation of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago until now for the mutations to have occurred. That is a mathematical fact. If the mutations had occurred fast enough, we would be able to see it today, happenning right in front of us.
There also is only scant evidence of transitional species, those changing from one life form into another. In fact, there is quite a derth of such evidence.
All Darwin discovered on the Galapogos islands was species differentiation, the same thing that explains why a Doberman and a Chiuhuahua are both dogs. (Although in the case of the latter, only barely.)
My main beef with evolution isn’t actually faith based (although that is certainly strong in me), but rather scientific. Modern medical and psychological researchers ask questions based on an evolutionary view of our origins. If they are wrong about that, they may be asking the wrong questions. If they ask the wrong questions, they will get the wrong answers.
We may be paying a high price because of where we assume we came from.
Again, sorry about the threadjack.
YUp…so much for all the years we have had to listen to their endless lies, their endless whines and the incredibly expensive waste of time and money from their claims of voter fraud.
Nothing says Liberal Democrat like a healthy dose of Uber-Hypocrisy.
Indeed, that’s one of the shell games that is part and parcel of Darwinism.
Another is it’s bizarre and frequent plunges into circular logic. For instance, if a Darwinist claims his latest “missing link” (usually something like a current day pig’s tooth) is 8 million years old, you might ask “How did you get that figure?”
The reply is “we date it by our ‘geological column’.” Then you may inquire “How do date your ‘geological column?”. The Darwinists answer: “We date the age of the ‘column’ by the age of the fossils we find in it!”
Alrighty, then.
Correct, SHoward, Darwinism falls apart under evem minimal scientific scrutiny. That’s why it’s adherents demand it not be subjected to questioning and become enraged if it is. This is one obvious reason why the competing “theories of evolution” are to be dismissed out of hand as nothing more than pseudo-science, at best. But since it violates so many laws of science (and common sense) it’s hard to blame Darwinists for trying to rescue their competing theories from rigorous non-PC scientific questioning.
Rusty gives us an example of the Darwinists only defense; “if you don’t have faith in our theories (gotta find out which theory is the right one, by the way!) then you’re crazy.” Gotta admire the haute science involved in that!
But most people are bright enough not to buy the Darwin Hoax, certainly all polling data show that the majority of American’s see through the scam and reject it. Most people just don’t have the blind unquestioning faith that “evolution” theories demand.
Please, please don’t vote for Mitt, and “for the Lord’s sake, don’t fling me in that briar patch”!
Well, Soap, threads have been jacked over lesser things, like football!
(OK, bad example, football is that important, lol)
Darwinists rue the day I engage and pose common sense and scientific questions, so there’s not much chance of combat here. I am merciless, apply pure logic and am not PC when it comes to scientific interrogation. No brag, just fact. (hattip to “Will Sonnet”)
I used to have faith in Darwinism, but then I questioned it. It just didn’t hold up and requires unbelievable suspension of disbelief. It’s not intellectually sustainable and , in fact, fails right outta the starting gate.
As SHoward noted, it shouldn’t be dissected because of one’s religion, but because of it’s very bad “science”. (Though, to be sure, no one who claims to be a genuine, small “o” orthodox Christian can also claim to believe in Darwinism, unless that person is confused about the faith.)
To coin a new phrase” “Facts are stubborn things”. (ain’t they?)
Please don’t use the word “fact” when you are speculating. That is most certainly not fact. Considering most scientists refute your position, “fact” is really the last word that should be typed. Of course, it isn’t fact that there has been enough time either. But that’s still what most people believe. 4.6 billion years is a long time.
And species do change. People are so much taller than we were 500 years ago. And our pinkies are slowly disappearing.
And there are transitional species. Look at the skeletons of Lucy and other Homo Erectus. That is where man came from.
And for people who say theories don’t hold up, you’re ignoring the piles of evidence to the contrary. This is like refuting the Theories of Relativity because you can never be sure that E=mc^2. After all, c^2, the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light, can only be hypothetical.
Yet yokels on school boards never want to alter physics books to remind people that Einstein’s and Hawking’s work are all based on theory. They only save that madness for evolution.
And on that note, Go Pats!
First I’ll have to rise in unanimus support and consent that football is important enough to jack a thread over. Since the bucs knocked themselves out (again), I’m almost compelled to go with the Chargers. Not because I really, really believe they may win, but I live an hour north of San Diego now.
As for the other threadjack, I’ll concede only one thing: the exact number of mutations required to go from simple proteins to complex life is unkown, only speculated, so we cannot assign an actual number to the length of time required to get Michal Jackson and other lower life forms.
However, at least one estimate has it in the billions, which means there would have to be an unbroken chain of perfect mutations on a regular basis to get to higher life forms. There wouldn’t be time for any screwups. No dead ends. If all of this is happenning by accident, how could we have gotten here in so little time? There are people here in southern cal that can’t get accross the street on purpose without a gps, so how is nature going to get to us?
As for the creation of a “cell” in the lab, the only experiment I am aware of only created simple proteins, not cells. Also, there has been recent speculation that the environment in the test vessel may not have even been repersentative of the early earth environment. Simple proteins have a long way to go before they even approach actual life.
But thanks for the spirited conversation, Rusty. I fear we have strayed far off this topic, but I will reiterate one thing related to the topic: There are still many voters that either do not believe in evolution themselves or that don’t care enough if Mitt or Huck don’t. It may be just something we’re talking about.
Errr, Rusty, actually that proves good nutrition, not any theory of “evolution”. You could add in folks are getting fatter, for that matter. Proves people are eating too much, but not much else. Now, if you an example of someone turning into a literal “whole ‘nother animal” then you’d show “evolution”. But nothing has ever turned into something, so it just ain’t gonna happen.
There are big dogs and little dogs, but they are are all still dogs, Rusty.
Well, yours might be, Rusty. I’d see a doctor bout that if I were you.
Better tell the Darwinists about ‘em, they have had a world of trouble finding ‘em. Considering all the species that have ever been and are now, that fact presents a fatal problem to Darwinists. As I said, we should be wading hip deep in a mass of “transitional” fossils, if “evolution” were true.
Actually, “Lucy” could just as easily have been an tree swinging ape – she was a literal knuckle-dragger. Certainly her classification is a topic of disagreement even among Darwinists.
At any rate, I don’t know that it’s wise to peg all of one’s hopes on a few bits of a one single ape-like creature. Unless “Lucy” suddenly changed into a whole ‘nother critter all on her own the complete lack of another “Lucy” or – more importantly to “Lucy” – a “Lucien” presents Darwinists with a major problem.
Lucy isn’t classified as “homo erectus”, she is – according to the faithful Darwinists – a one-off of another classification. (But if you wait awhile that classification will likely change to re-fit into their whole narrative!)
On “homo erectus” the Darwinists have run into all sorts of problems and contradictions. One of the more recent of their failings on this is:
Evolution revolution creates stir – Denver Post
The “money quote”, if you understand the significance:
“It’s the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter”.
To help focus that more:
AP – Human ancestor may have coexisted with modern humans
Money quote there:
“a team of anthropologists concluded that a primitive species known as Homo erectus lived in Java between 27,000 to 53,000 years ago.”
You’re probably not aware, Rusty, that this is no such thing as a “theory of evolution”, there are competing “theories” that are at odds with one another. One of the first things a Darwinist must do is choose which “theory of evoltion” s/he wants to believe in – and why that one & not the others?
This is as effective a defense as the “you’re crazy if you don’t have faith in Darwinism” line. It has no scientific basis, it’s just an unfounded assertion.
OTOH, there are, in fact, “piles of evidence” that refute and disprove Darwinism. The circular logic shell-game of fossil/geo column dating I mentioned before is just the tip of one such heap.
Actually, Einstein’s relativity – a valid scientific principle – has been proven. Ask residents of Nagasaki or Hiroshima for confirmation.
Interestingly enough, while “evolution” has never been shown to have occured – much less proven – it is quite easily disproven. (Well, “debunked” would be a better term than “disproven”, since “evolution” has never been proven.)
.
Yeah, those claims don’t hold up well. But even if you let it pass as a given, the interesting thing is the person who did it would not have proven “evolution” could’ve happened.
Ironically enough, what they would prove in so doing would be “Intelligent Design”, if not Creationism more specifically. Unless the whole process just happened by itself without human input to create, execute and guide it, of course!
Somebody sure has had their caffeine this morning.
Rock on, purplepeep, rock on….
Yeah, caffiene helps!
But on that last one, I always have some fun when someone intimates that a lab experiment illustrates “evolution”.
I have them go over the complex process involved. Then I ask in one form or another “So it didn’t happen by itself?”.
The answer, obviously, is “No”.
Then I tell the person what it did prove – it’s a great “gotcha moment” when they realize they have, in fact, made a very concrete argument for “Intelligent Design”. They’re left absolutely speechless – what can they say?
I like that, purplepeep: what didi it prove?
Evolution has become as much religion as global warming. The proponents call it accepted science and move on. The trouble is with things like Lucy: how does one really know that she’s not just an ape?
My favorite example is the Ceolocanth (? spelling). It was an ‘index fossil’ at one time, meaning all found were at least 60 to 70 million years old. Then someone caught one in the Indian Ocean. Scientists went there and found quite a few.
What is most interesting is the analysis: before we could observe them in nature, evolutionists mis-interpreted their behavior and biology. They were supposed to live in very shallow water, and their fleshy fins were “about to evolve into legs.”
Turns out they live in 1200 to 1500 feet of water, spend much of thier time vertical looking for food, and in 60 million years have yet to step out of the blue.
Creationists look at the exact same evidence that evolutionists do, they just don’t presume that evolution must have occurred.
Well, if they hadn’t been interrupted they w0ould have sprouted legs any day, doncha know.
I think the problem evolutionists have is a fairly common one: they find what they look for. They only look for things that will fit their particular paradigm. This almost always has disastrous and unscientific results. To wit, one of their “missing links”,
Piltdown Man.
For 50 years Piltdown was offered up as proof of evolution. A whole generation of people lived and died believing in that lastest of the evolutionist’s ill- fated line of “missing links”.
Evolution is readily debunked, but I think we need to remember that fact does not validate ID or Creationism. My criticism of evolution theory is from the common sense, logic and scientific viewpoints.
ID, Creation or other alternative may be alternative working explanations, but I’m done when the evolution theory is exposed as a highly improbable, if not impossible, explanation.
But if you want an interesting read re:Creationist thought, here’s a nice piece by a Jewish writer:
Confessions Of A Creationist
snippet:
“I always thought creationists were Bible-belt fundamentalists. Denying evolution would put me on their side, and jeopardize my self-image as an East coast Jewish intellectual”
You guys arguing about evolution may not fully appreciate how scientists work. For one thing, they work very hard, they learn a huge amount about their fields of study. You cannot hope to know enough about a field of science from reading a newspaper article to have an informed debate with an actual specialist.
For another thing, they argue, a lot. All the issues raised here — what species is Lucy, how did evolution form cell membranes, … — they have been chewed over like cud. None of the objections raised here are new to evolution doubters, and all have answers in “the literature” (the body of professional scientific publication).
Third, the fact that you can’t know everything about a subject doesn’t mean that you can’t know anything about it. There is fossil evidence for innumerable evolutionary transitions — this kind of rodent evolves from that kind which evolves from another kind, etc. There are some transitions for which we do not yet have a record. That doesn’t mean that no transitions occur.
Sorry, but I’m content just talking to those who had been conned into becoming submissive faithful to the absurdities of Darwinist demands. Given facts they can certainly reach their own conclusion(s).
I agree that scientists who have faith in Darwinism become furious that even the most basic of common sense and logical scientific critique is applied to the Sacred Cow. This is nothing new;
Galileo surely found that out when he questioned the prevailing “science” of his day. You’re offering the very same defense as did the scientific establishment against Galileo in an attempt to stop any pesky, difficult question that threatened their positions of importance. Let ‘em sweat – then and now.
If Darwinists can’t stand the heat of scientific scrutiny, they really should sell shoes or something even less demanding instead.
lgm, you do bring up some valid points, mainly in that because one does not know everything about something doesn’t mean one cannot know anything about it. I’m not certain this applies here.
I’ll address only one point, which correlates to a previous comment of mine: you state that there may be a fossil record for certain things which merely awaits discovery.
The error in this logic is that evolutionists assume the record exists. Creationists, and even non-religious anthropologists that are not smitten by evolution do not make this assumption. If this assumption is not taken, and the fossil record is examined without prejudice, there is no real reson to assume evolution occurred as described.
Let me point out one possible reason evolution survives as a theory:
The Leaky family of archeologists/anthropologists discovered a single footprint in a dig in Kenya and made a speculation as to the first origins of Homo Sapiens-Sapiens (that’s us) as being approximately 100,000 years old. This speculation was widely accepted, despite really very little evidence to support their claim.
Today, University dept. chairs and Natural History museum curators are the product of a couple of generations of devout belief in evolution based on the Leaky finds. They believe it because their own professors taught it. They did not dare question this as students, or they would not have been awarded their PhD’s. Now, if they are questioned by students or job applicants, tough luck for the student or job applicant. They will never get their degree and/or never work in anthropology. Since such a specialized discipline means they cannot go to work anywhere they wish, they toe the line and continue to perpetuate the theory of evolution.
purplepeep said:
But as humans, isn’t that what we all do? Whatever you want to believe, you will find evidence for (and ignore the evidence against). The good Lord said “Seek and ye shall find.” It wasn’t just a message of hope, it was also a dire warning!
GaijinBob (I love your handle) you have a completely valid point.
I only wish to point out that the evolutionists indict themselves: They claim that as scientists, they are above that sort of thing. But you’re right, that is exactly what they do.
“purplepeep said:
They only look for things that will fit their particular paradigm.”
Yeah, Bob, I think I mentioned it is a common human thing to do.
Piltdown Man is a prime example of where, even if they weren’t the creators of the fraudulent “missing link”, evolutionists wanted it so much to be true that any needed scientific objectivity went out the window.
I suppose you could say it was the draft version of “be careful what you wish for”!
There you have it. When democreeps realise their party is broken they decide to frack up the other party instead of fixing their worn out socialistic brand. Just more proof that they have not a thing to offer America.