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

self | May 6, 2009 | self

[BlueStateBlues]

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

[metmom]

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

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

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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[timestax]

bttt

[count-your-change]

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

[balls]

Care to provide a source for that?

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

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

[balls]

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

[editor-surveyor]

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

Absolute gobledegook!

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

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

[editor-surveyor]

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

Agree!

[editor-surveyor]

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

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

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

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

You're looking for some powerful magic!

[timestax]

bump

[Mr. Silverback]

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

[dennisw]

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

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

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

[dennisw]

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

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

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

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

[BlueStateBlues]

A nice essay, thanks.

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

[BlueStateBlues]

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

[Mr. Silverback]

Nicely put!

[dennisw]

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

[steve-b]

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

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

[ChinaThreat]

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

[Sopater]

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

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