Is science a religion?
- Thread starter Poor Player
- Start date
But at our very roots, we don't do all that much. Our concerns in general seem to lie with two simple things: Survival / Love.
Science does what it does to aid and assist these two things, (I use the term love' loosely, and more to imply reproduction).
From methods to detect quakes, volcanic activity and the like, to medicines that help survival of our species. You later mention our possible extinction - and while that most certainly is a possibility, and given the fragile state of human relations we could even claim it a probability, science tries to prevent such things. We have space programmes designed to look out for rogue asteroids, and the better the weapons become, the less people want to use them.
On the love aspect we could look at many things from contraception to designer babies. People want something, science makes it possible.
While humans are the driving force for the future, science is the car. Without the car, could we really get anywhere?
I agree to a certain amount, but I would state that science is providing those answers in many ways. You could think up a scenario, and will most likely find science is already exploring it. What alternative might there be, with specific reference to your "faith" comment? Faith thus far tells us we're all going to die shortly, end of case.
While one strives for our survival, the other seems adamant to tell us we're nothing but people waiting to be pancakes. Personally I find that lack of optimism seriously disgusting in this day and age. Sure, several thousand years ago I could understand it. Things that we consider minor would have been catastrophic for these people - and to them, the serious 'hurt' in life could only give an opinion of impending death. But we have come beyond this, where people should be more willing to try than sit down and hand the towel in. I can only wonder how many eons that guy on the corner with the "the end is nigh" board has been standing there.
From an environmental aspect, yes.. it has to come to a head eventually. The way we consume resources, the way we extinctify so many species from this planet, the way we pollute every water droplet in sight.. It's a scary thing to see, and yet at every turn science is trying to combat the issues, as opposed to frowning, giving up and hoping that the 'next' planet will be better.
Can we say anything? It would never be an absolute, and there is it's problem. While "love one another" sounds nice, it cannot and will not apply to everyone. The same would go for anything, I feel, that humanity would have to learn as a whole.
Worldly tragedy could help, (say if a bunch of aliens came down to destroy humans [Independence Day])
Both of which are surely completely meaningless considering they're entirely different as soon as you cross the border? One country electrocutes it's criminals, another jails them and another stones them to death. And if morality is somewhat goverened by these things, then morality cannot be absolute, and thus there will always be conflict.
I would think this would requirea unanimous verdict on what is moral and what isn't, what is right and what is wrong. That will never happen.
I would agree with these definitions, yet I don't see "Luck" in the definition anywere. When reason tells us something can't happen yet so-called Science has to resort to "Blind Luck" even when our reason tells us this is impossible, does this mean Science becomes non-Science when the scientist can only call upon "Blind Luck"? Science should never rely on Blind Luck, especially when the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Science should look to a new explaination - don't you agree? At what point does Blind Luck become Faith and - "anyone who holds to science with audor and faith is a fool"?§outh§tar said:
My thinking about these issues has been stimulated by several excellent posts on this thread already and I would like to try to summarize them as best I can from my own perspective. Thanks in particular to ThePreacher, SouthStar, SnakeLord, MarcAc, Guthrie, Gaucon, and David F. for your relevant contributions. Here goes in three parts:
1. Defining Science and Religion: There are physical facts and metaphysical facts. Universal truth can only be supported with physical facts. Science only concerns itself with the physical variety because they can be observed, experimented upon, and objectively proved or disproved. Science is a system of factfinding that has a rigorous tradition of ridding itself of error. It does err. Religion concerns itself primarily with the metaphysical. It relies primarily on faith since the metaphysical cannot be easily observed or experimented upon, or proved or disproved. Religion also has no similar sytem of ridding itself of error because it is more authoritarion in nature.
Faith (defined here as an attitude) is an obvious component of every human experience because each of us has extremely limited knowledge of physical facts or the future. We all have a system of beliefs (or attitudes). Science rigorously attempts to remove faith and beliefs from its own practices but is not always successful. Religion is a comfort to many who are not capable of understanding science or desire more meaning and purpose than survival and reproduction. It also encourages moral behavior beyond what what is required by our systems of laws. Faith is not the enemy of human survival. Faith is a tool as is science. They are both tools for good and bad.
2. Defining the two critical physical problems: The problems are that the world and its people are in great physical peril across a broad spectrum of possible catastrophic outcomes that jeapordize our survival as a species, and that the human physical experience falls far short of what it could be across all cultures. Both science and religion attempt in many ways to address these problems. Although we know what many of the great perils and social ills are, we do not necessarily know how to solve them in practical ways. The key problem seems to be that the world's inhabitants for many reasons are working at cross purposes. Many are at war. Many are starving.
The interplay of all of these challenges to human experience and survival is of the highest complexity and cannot be modeled with the current technology. The element of risk and luck ways a great deal on these outcomes. Nobody really knows how long we can survive or what the quality of life will be for the generations that will come long after us. Many of us question these outcomes across science and religion. Many of us care.
3. Defining the possible physical solutions: There are six options that have been discussed briefly so far:
a. there is nothing that can be done,
b. nothing needs to be done because we are already well equiped to deal with the problems,
c. only science can solve these problems,
d. only religion can solve them
e. science must be integrated with the religion to solve them,
f. science can serve as a foundation for a new morality that can solve them.
Because all of these solutions deal with future problems, it is interesting to note that they are all articles of faith. None can be known with much certainty. You can believe in one or more of these possible solutions but you cannot know the outcomes. Because we are all only human we are limited by our knowledge of the facts, uncertainty is the only constant. The way we deal with this uncertainty is to have faith, to believe, to suspect, to ignore, or to give up. By the very nature of the value of the various posts on this board it is evident that people from many diverse backgrounds will be needed to find the solutions to these challenges. We must learn to work together.
Although I would like discuss how to implement "c", "e", and "f" above as my personal picks I sense that, given the divergent opinions on this thread, the great discussion would be stifled so I'm content for now to continue to debate all of them. At some point we should move into discussing how to implement some of the solutions. I personally want to know what actions should be taken if I aim to contribute in my lifetime. It may be later than we think. Time is not on our side. So what do you all think about this summary?
1. Defining Science and Religion: There are physical facts and metaphysical facts. Universal truth can only be supported with physical facts. Science only concerns itself with the physical variety because they can be observed, experimented upon, and objectively proved or disproved. Science is a system of factfinding that has a rigorous tradition of ridding itself of error. It does err. Religion concerns itself primarily with the metaphysical. It relies primarily on faith since the metaphysical cannot be easily observed or experimented upon, or proved or disproved. Religion also has no similar sytem of ridding itself of error because it is more authoritarion in nature.
Faith (defined here as an attitude) is an obvious component of every human experience because each of us has extremely limited knowledge of physical facts or the future. We all have a system of beliefs (or attitudes). Science rigorously attempts to remove faith and beliefs from its own practices but is not always successful. Religion is a comfort to many who are not capable of understanding science or desire more meaning and purpose than survival and reproduction. It also encourages moral behavior beyond what what is required by our systems of laws. Faith is not the enemy of human survival. Faith is a tool as is science. They are both tools for good and bad.
2. Defining the two critical physical problems: The problems are that the world and its people are in great physical peril across a broad spectrum of possible catastrophic outcomes that jeapordize our survival as a species, and that the human physical experience falls far short of what it could be across all cultures. Both science and religion attempt in many ways to address these problems. Although we know what many of the great perils and social ills are, we do not necessarily know how to solve them in practical ways. The key problem seems to be that the world's inhabitants for many reasons are working at cross purposes. Many are at war. Many are starving.
The interplay of all of these challenges to human experience and survival is of the highest complexity and cannot be modeled with the current technology. The element of risk and luck ways a great deal on these outcomes. Nobody really knows how long we can survive or what the quality of life will be for the generations that will come long after us. Many of us question these outcomes across science and religion. Many of us care.
3. Defining the possible physical solutions: There are six options that have been discussed briefly so far:
a. there is nothing that can be done,
b. nothing needs to be done because we are already well equiped to deal with the problems,
c. only science can solve these problems,
d. only religion can solve them
e. science must be integrated with the religion to solve them,
f. science can serve as a foundation for a new morality that can solve them.
Because all of these solutions deal with future problems, it is interesting to note that they are all articles of faith. None can be known with much certainty. You can believe in one or more of these possible solutions but you cannot know the outcomes. Because we are all only human we are limited by our knowledge of the facts, uncertainty is the only constant. The way we deal with this uncertainty is to have faith, to believe, to suspect, to ignore, or to give up. By the very nature of the value of the various posts on this board it is evident that people from many diverse backgrounds will be needed to find the solutions to these challenges. We must learn to work together.
Although I would like discuss how to implement "c", "e", and "f" above as my personal picks I sense that, given the divergent opinions on this thread, the great discussion would be stifled so I'm content for now to continue to debate all of them. At some point we should move into discussing how to implement some of the solutions. I personally want to know what actions should be taken if I aim to contribute in my lifetime. It may be later than we think. Time is not on our side. So what do you all think about this summary?
SnakeLord, I received this very informative response to the "Evolution is Dead Logic" logic posted by your debate opponent. It came from the National Center For Science Education in the U.S. at www.ncseweb.org. If you want a personal contact there I will give it.
Your general approach looks good, a few details you could add:
1. "Origin of millions of base pairs of DNA in an amoba by chance." It
didn't happen all at once. The process was something like:
RNA replicators
RNA+lipid bubble replicators
RNA+lipid+protein replicators
DNA takes over information storage function, RNA mediates between DNA and
proteins
[many more steps]
primitive prokaryotes (bacteria)
[many more steps plus endosymbiotic merging of bacteria to form a larger cell]
early eukaryote
[many branching events]
amoeba and similar "higher" life forms like animals
See these articles by Cavalier-Smith if you are dying for details:
Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and
the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11675615
The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the negibacterial root of the
universal tree and bacterial megaclassification.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11837318
The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of
Protozoa.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11931142
Origins of the machinery of recombination and sex.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11932771
2. Transitional forms
* You should include some examples. At the level of the Linnaean class,
there are transitional forms between fish and amphibians, between
amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds, and between reptiles
and mammals. See:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Common descent FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
Even at the level of phyla, some transitional fossils have been found even
though many of the ancestral animals were probably soft-bodied and only a
few millimeters long.
See:
Phylum level evolution
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm or
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/morton/cambevol.html
The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
There are various complexities, e.g. the definitions of "phylum" and
"class" are rather arbitrary, and many scientists think that we should
scrap Linnean taxonomy altogether and go with a pure cladistic system. But
that is a whole different topic...
Your general approach looks good, a few details you could add:
1. "Origin of millions of base pairs of DNA in an amoba by chance." It
didn't happen all at once. The process was something like:
RNA replicators
RNA+lipid bubble replicators
RNA+lipid+protein replicators
DNA takes over information storage function, RNA mediates between DNA and
proteins
[many more steps]
primitive prokaryotes (bacteria)
[many more steps plus endosymbiotic merging of bacteria to form a larger cell]
early eukaryote
[many branching events]
amoeba and similar "higher" life forms like animals
See these articles by Cavalier-Smith if you are dying for details:
Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and
the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11675615
The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the negibacterial root of the
universal tree and bacterial megaclassification.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11837318
The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of
Protozoa.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11931142
Origins of the machinery of recombination and sex.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11932771
2. Transitional forms
* You should include some examples. At the level of the Linnaean class,
there are transitional forms between fish and amphibians, between
amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds, and between reptiles
and mammals. See:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Common descent FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
Even at the level of phyla, some transitional fossils have been found even
though many of the ancestral animals were probably soft-bodied and only a
few millimeters long.
See:
Phylum level evolution
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm or
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/morton/cambevol.html
The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
There are various complexities, e.g. the definitions of "phylum" and
"class" are rather arbitrary, and many scientists think that we should
scrap Linnean taxonomy altogether and go with a pure cladistic system. But
that is a whole different topic...
Roman said:
Maybe so, but I didn't need to use the scientific method to discredit his faulty logic. I just used better logic. His argument made some assumptions that are not accurate.
hey poor player to help with the whole subject of science and religion I think you should check out some books by Gerald Shroeder ( I think I spelt his name wrong) anyway, he has written three books : Genesis and the Big Bang, The Science of God, and Hidden in the Face of God. He is a distinguished MIT scientist and theologian and his point are very strong in that the Bible and science coincide together as a duality. It is very interesting and I think you would enjoy reading them.
RelativeUniverse, that's the same guy David F. quotes from on another thread to justify his "evolution is dead" theory. I won't judge the author by these comments by the uninformed and biased but if that's what the author believes then I already have discredited him on this very thread on the first post. Part of the problem with all of these discussions is the lack of common defintions of terms. When you say "duality" I don't know what that means. I even had to define the term "fact" in the first post because another contributor questioned it. Cheers.
David F. said:
It is when "the odds are overwhelmingly against it" that something becomes lucky by definition.
Anyway, peoples reasons told them that there was a sun God and peoples reason told them Jim Jones was a prophet. I think we should be careful how vain we become and let the explanations come to us. Aside from the "blind luck" scenario, do you see any other viable scientific option? Probably not, which is why I say we should be humbled by our ignorance.
P.S. Belief in a personal creator instead of personal creators is also "blind" faith. I don't see you crusading against this..
your statement can easerly be about religion(creation), which is more likely.
take another look.
take another look.
David F. said:
Here is my recent post in the politics section of this site. It includes a major issue about the huge influence of the religious vote in Ohio which is why I include it here.
U.S. Election Thrown Into Chaos - Again
You will hear many declaring victory for the Bush campaign at this point. Do not believe them just yet. It is one o'clock in the morning Pacific Standard Time here in the U.S.A. and yet we will probably not know who the next President is, for sure, for another eleven days. In a potential repeat of the 2000 election dramatics we may well find ourselves again recounting hanging chads, absentee votes, and provisional votes in one critical state. Not Florida this time but Ohio.
At this late hour, with all of the states that can safely be called in, it's Mr. Bush 249 versus Mr. Kerry 242. It will take 270 electoral votes to win it all. So far only one state was won over by either candidate as compared to the 2000 election and it was New Hampshire with 4 electoral votes for Mr. Kerry. Ohio, with 20 votes could be the swing state if the remaining states yet to be called; Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, stay with their 2000 voting pattern, which looks highly likely so far. In this still speculative scenario, only Ohio has enough individual votes still in question, and total state electoral votes it contributes, to swing the whole election. And they will remain in question for exactly eleven days because their absentee votes from overseas didn't have to be postmarked until November 2 and won't even be received for a week or more.
The Secretary of State in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell (Republican), has said that Ohio law requires him to wait ten days to receive and count the absentee votes before he can count the provisional votes. Those provisional votes, which are cast mostly by first time voters or those who have had a recent change in their voter registration status, could amount to between 150,000 to 250,000 votes. By Ohio law, if the total number of provisional votes exceeds the winning margin, then and only then will they be counted. About 100,000 provisional votes were cast in the 2000 election, and Mr. Blackwell, an African American, has sounded very confident that their system will be judged fair and equitable to everyone who voted.
To add to the confusion, if the final margin of victory is less than .25 per cent or just 15,000 or so of Ohio's approximately 6 million votes, then all of their votes must be recounted, hanging chads and all. Since 70% of Ohio's ballots use the old punch cards, this could be a sequel to the Florida embarrassment of 2000 with federal inspectors, and this time even international inpectors, examing each chad with a magnifying glass. Mr. Blackwell also noted that since his state has a uniform methodology in all counties of requiring that only two of the four corners of each chad (or vote) be displaced to count, he was confident that every intended vote would be counted properly. As a final twist, even if the winning margin is more than that required by Ohio law for a full recount, a Federal judge could order that there be a recount anyway due to the critical national significance of getting it all right.
If indeed it all comes down to Ohio, then a state law ballot proposal banning gay marriage and all other civil unions other than marriage there could have made the critical difference. Church groups across the state turned out to approve the harsh measure by a wide margin even though it may cause many heterosexual couples to flee the state since they will have no future legal rights as a couple, preventing them from getting family health benefits and other advantages enjoyed by those who are legally married. In yet another ironic twist, this state balllot measure was much more conservative than even that endorsed by Mr. Bush.
There is one even more bizarre scenario however. Even if Mr. Kerry wins Ohio, he could still lose the election if he loses the state of Iowa. He is currently in the lead by a very slim margin, less than one per cent, but a third party candidate there has been robbing him of just a slightly wider margin of votes, the same situation as in Florida in 2000. Who is this overly optimistic third party candidate who could ruin the Democrats and steal the
entire American Presidential election for the Republicans ................................................Mr. Ralph Nader. Again.
U.S. Election Thrown Into Chaos - Again
You will hear many declaring victory for the Bush campaign at this point. Do not believe them just yet. It is one o'clock in the morning Pacific Standard Time here in the U.S.A. and yet we will probably not know who the next President is, for sure, for another eleven days. In a potential repeat of the 2000 election dramatics we may well find ourselves again recounting hanging chads, absentee votes, and provisional votes in one critical state. Not Florida this time but Ohio.
At this late hour, with all of the states that can safely be called in, it's Mr. Bush 249 versus Mr. Kerry 242. It will take 270 electoral votes to win it all. So far only one state was won over by either candidate as compared to the 2000 election and it was New Hampshire with 4 electoral votes for Mr. Kerry. Ohio, with 20 votes could be the swing state if the remaining states yet to be called; Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, stay with their 2000 voting pattern, which looks highly likely so far. In this still speculative scenario, only Ohio has enough individual votes still in question, and total state electoral votes it contributes, to swing the whole election. And they will remain in question for exactly eleven days because their absentee votes from overseas didn't have to be postmarked until November 2 and won't even be received for a week or more.
The Secretary of State in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell (Republican), has said that Ohio law requires him to wait ten days to receive and count the absentee votes before he can count the provisional votes. Those provisional votes, which are cast mostly by first time voters or those who have had a recent change in their voter registration status, could amount to between 150,000 to 250,000 votes. By Ohio law, if the total number of provisional votes exceeds the winning margin, then and only then will they be counted. About 100,000 provisional votes were cast in the 2000 election, and Mr. Blackwell, an African American, has sounded very confident that their system will be judged fair and equitable to everyone who voted.
To add to the confusion, if the final margin of victory is less than .25 per cent or just 15,000 or so of Ohio's approximately 6 million votes, then all of their votes must be recounted, hanging chads and all. Since 70% of Ohio's ballots use the old punch cards, this could be a sequel to the Florida embarrassment of 2000 with federal inspectors, and this time even international inpectors, examing each chad with a magnifying glass. Mr. Blackwell also noted that since his state has a uniform methodology in all counties of requiring that only two of the four corners of each chad (or vote) be displaced to count, he was confident that every intended vote would be counted properly. As a final twist, even if the winning margin is more than that required by Ohio law for a full recount, a Federal judge could order that there be a recount anyway due to the critical national significance of getting it all right.
If indeed it all comes down to Ohio, then a state law ballot proposal banning gay marriage and all other civil unions other than marriage there could have made the critical difference. Church groups across the state turned out to approve the harsh measure by a wide margin even though it may cause many heterosexual couples to flee the state since they will have no future legal rights as a couple, preventing them from getting family health benefits and other advantages enjoyed by those who are legally married. In yet another ironic twist, this state balllot measure was much more conservative than even that endorsed by Mr. Bush.
There is one even more bizarre scenario however. Even if Mr. Kerry wins Ohio, he could still lose the election if he loses the state of Iowa. He is currently in the lead by a very slim margin, less than one per cent, but a third party candidate there has been robbing him of just a slightly wider margin of votes, the same situation as in Florida in 2000. Who is this overly optimistic third party candidate who could ruin the Democrats and steal the
entire American Presidential election for the Republicans ................................................Mr. Ralph Nader. Again.
You're purposely being misleading to yourself. Where do you get the notion that "reason tells us this is impossible", or "that it can't happen"? None of us were there and as such any definite answer would be overly presumptuous and naive. However, you have done the disservice of trying to equate the very start of life 4.5 billion years ago as having to be identical to life 4.5 billion years later. You mention fully formed human DNA and reel off a tonne of numbers without realising it's somewhat meaningless. We're not talking a fully formed human, and only a fool would think otherwise. Is there any evidence to suggest humans existed 4.5 billion years ago, or that any "complex" organism existed?
Why you start at the complex end is beyond reason because there is no valid call for it. It stands to reason that simplicity becomes more complex as it progresses, not that something starts as complex and remains that way.
Further to that, you somehow tried to equate all of this to the belief that it renders "evolution dead", which is quite clearly ignorant codswallop.
What I did attempt to show, is that at the end of the day your numbers are meaningless. Not only is your math based upon a modern day understanding, which in no way leads us to assume that things were identical 4.5 billion years ago, but at the end of the day the "thing" can still occur anywhere within that jumble of numbers, and as such you're not in a position to rule it out and render it "impossible".
Science doesn't. It works on the evidence. Trying to gather evidence for the very first instance of 'life' is not an easy thing to do by any means. However, the evidence can show what has happened from then on, and that would be evolution etc.
Poor Player: U.S. Election Thrown Into Chaos - Again
You will hear many declaring victory for the Bush campaign at this point. Do not believe them just yet. It is one o'clock in the morning Pacific Standard Time here in the U.S.A. and yet we will probably not know who the next President is, for sure, for another eleven days. In a potential repeat of the 2000 election dramatics we may well find ourselves again recounting hanging chads, absentee votes, and provisional votes in one critical state. Not Florida this time but Ohio.
*************
M*W: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ohio the only state to still be using the mechanical (not electronic) chad voting cards?
*************
Poor Player: At this late hour, with all of the states that can safely be called in, it's Mr. Bush 249 versus Mr. Kerry 242. It will take 270 electoral votes to win it all. So far only one state was won over by either candidate as compared to the 2000 election and it was New Hampshire with 4 electoral votes for Mr. Kerry.
*************
M*W: I grew up in the highly Democratic Southern US. Now it seems that my beloved South has become Republican. (I'm not complaining about this), but there has been a switcheroo. The liberal Northeastern US is now Democratic.
Growing up in a Democratic home with professional parents (attorneys), I saw the Democratic Party to be in the best interest of this nation. Now, I disagree, and I can see why the North and South has changed sides. Forty years of Democratic policies nearly brought this country to its end -- Bay of Pigs, a permanent welfare state, civil rights demonstrations, Viet Nam, etc., etc., etc.. Thank god we have a choice in this country.
*************
Poor Player: Ohio, with 20 votes could be the swing state if the remaining states yet to be called; Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, stay with their 2000 voting pattern, which looks highly likely so far. In this still speculative scenario, only Ohio has enough individual votes still in question, and total state electoral votes it contributes, to swing the whole election. And they will remain in question for exactly eleven days because their absentee votes from overseas didn't have to be postmarked until November 2 and won't even be received for a week or more.
*************
M*W: I haven't seen the news this morning, but didn't Ohio go to Bush last night?
*************
Poor Player: The Secretary of State in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell (Republican), has said that Ohio law requires him to wait ten days to receive and count the absentee votes before he can count the provisional votes. Those provisional votes, which are cast mostly by first time voters or those who have had a recent change in their voter registration status, could amount to between 150,000 to 250,000 votes. By Ohio law, if the total number of provisional votes exceeds the winning margin, then and only then will they be counted. About 100,000 provisional votes were cast in the 2000 election, and Mr. Blackwell, an African American, has sounded very confident that their system will be judged fair and equitable to everyone who voted.
To add to the confusion, if the final margin of victory is less than .25 per cent or just 15,000 or so of Ohio's approximately 6 million votes, then all of their votes must be recounted, hanging chads and all. Since 70% of Ohio's ballots use the old punch cards, this could be a sequel to the Florida embarrassment of 2000 with federal inspectors, and this time even international inpectors, examing each chad with a magnifying glass. Mr. Blackwell also noted that since his state has a uniform methodology in all counties of requiring that only two of the four corners of each chad (or vote) be displaced to count, he was confident that every intended vote would be counted properly. As a final twist, even if the winning margin is more than that required by Ohio law for a full recount, a Federal judge could order that there be a recount anyway due to the critical national significance of getting it all right.
If indeed it all comes down to Ohio, then a state law ballot proposal banning gay marriage and all other civil unions other than marriage there could have made the critical difference. Church groups across the state turned out to approve the harsh measure by a wide margin even though it may cause many heterosexual couples to flee the state since they will have no future legal rights as a couple, preventing them from getting family health benefits and other advantages enjoyed by those who are legally married. In yet another ironic twist, this state balllot measure was much more conservative than even that endorsed by Mr. Bush.
There is one even more bizarre scenario however. Even if Mr. Kerry wins Ohio, he could still lose the election if he loses the state of Iowa. He is currently in the lead by a very slim margin, less than one per cent, but a third party candidate there has been robbing him of just a slightly wider margin of votes, the same situation as in Florida in 2000. Who is this overly optimistic third party candidate who could ruin the Democrats and steal the
entire American Presidential election for the Republicans ..............................Mr. Ralph Nader. Again.
*************
M*W: The third party candidate on the ballot seems to be state of our voting future. In all likelihood, the third party candidates are not conservatives, they are the liberalest of the liberals. It's not surprising that Nader took Kerry's votes. It's generally widely believed that the third party candidate will not get elected anyway. Who's to say if Nader's run was FOR Nader's party or AGAINST the Democrats? But, that's what makes America great -- having the freedom of choice.
You will hear many declaring victory for the Bush campaign at this point. Do not believe them just yet. It is one o'clock in the morning Pacific Standard Time here in the U.S.A. and yet we will probably not know who the next President is, for sure, for another eleven days. In a potential repeat of the 2000 election dramatics we may well find ourselves again recounting hanging chads, absentee votes, and provisional votes in one critical state. Not Florida this time but Ohio.
*************
M*W: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ohio the only state to still be using the mechanical (not electronic) chad voting cards?
*************
Poor Player: At this late hour, with all of the states that can safely be called in, it's Mr. Bush 249 versus Mr. Kerry 242. It will take 270 electoral votes to win it all. So far only one state was won over by either candidate as compared to the 2000 election and it was New Hampshire with 4 electoral votes for Mr. Kerry.
*************
M*W: I grew up in the highly Democratic Southern US. Now it seems that my beloved South has become Republican. (I'm not complaining about this), but there has been a switcheroo. The liberal Northeastern US is now Democratic.
Growing up in a Democratic home with professional parents (attorneys), I saw the Democratic Party to be in the best interest of this nation. Now, I disagree, and I can see why the North and South has changed sides. Forty years of Democratic policies nearly brought this country to its end -- Bay of Pigs, a permanent welfare state, civil rights demonstrations, Viet Nam, etc., etc., etc.. Thank god we have a choice in this country.
*************
Poor Player: Ohio, with 20 votes could be the swing state if the remaining states yet to be called; Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, stay with their 2000 voting pattern, which looks highly likely so far. In this still speculative scenario, only Ohio has enough individual votes still in question, and total state electoral votes it contributes, to swing the whole election. And they will remain in question for exactly eleven days because their absentee votes from overseas didn't have to be postmarked until November 2 and won't even be received for a week or more.
*************
M*W: I haven't seen the news this morning, but didn't Ohio go to Bush last night?
*************
Poor Player: The Secretary of State in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell (Republican), has said that Ohio law requires him to wait ten days to receive and count the absentee votes before he can count the provisional votes. Those provisional votes, which are cast mostly by first time voters or those who have had a recent change in their voter registration status, could amount to between 150,000 to 250,000 votes. By Ohio law, if the total number of provisional votes exceeds the winning margin, then and only then will they be counted. About 100,000 provisional votes were cast in the 2000 election, and Mr. Blackwell, an African American, has sounded very confident that their system will be judged fair and equitable to everyone who voted.
To add to the confusion, if the final margin of victory is less than .25 per cent or just 15,000 or so of Ohio's approximately 6 million votes, then all of their votes must be recounted, hanging chads and all. Since 70% of Ohio's ballots use the old punch cards, this could be a sequel to the Florida embarrassment of 2000 with federal inspectors, and this time even international inpectors, examing each chad with a magnifying glass. Mr. Blackwell also noted that since his state has a uniform methodology in all counties of requiring that only two of the four corners of each chad (or vote) be displaced to count, he was confident that every intended vote would be counted properly. As a final twist, even if the winning margin is more than that required by Ohio law for a full recount, a Federal judge could order that there be a recount anyway due to the critical national significance of getting it all right.
If indeed it all comes down to Ohio, then a state law ballot proposal banning gay marriage and all other civil unions other than marriage there could have made the critical difference. Church groups across the state turned out to approve the harsh measure by a wide margin even though it may cause many heterosexual couples to flee the state since they will have no future legal rights as a couple, preventing them from getting family health benefits and other advantages enjoyed by those who are legally married. In yet another ironic twist, this state balllot measure was much more conservative than even that endorsed by Mr. Bush.
There is one even more bizarre scenario however. Even if Mr. Kerry wins Ohio, he could still lose the election if he loses the state of Iowa. He is currently in the lead by a very slim margin, less than one per cent, but a third party candidate there has been robbing him of just a slightly wider margin of votes, the same situation as in Florida in 2000. Who is this overly optimistic third party candidate who could ruin the Democrats and steal the
entire American Presidential election for the Republicans ..............................Mr. Ralph Nader. Again.
*************
M*W: The third party candidate on the ballot seems to be state of our voting future. In all likelihood, the third party candidates are not conservatives, they are the liberalest of the liberals. It's not surprising that Nader took Kerry's votes. It's generally widely believed that the third party candidate will not get elected anyway. Who's to say if Nader's run was FOR Nader's party or AGAINST the Democrats? But, that's what makes America great -- having the freedom of choice.
Yes, Ohio has been called for Bush. The details are posted in my politics thread. There are still an enormous number of states/counties who use the manual punch card systems because there is distrust in the new electronic systems. I agree that a third party is a good thing but it has to be a real one with the corresponding possibility of having a runoff election if nobody gets 50%. The latter would require a constitutional amendment.
I'm surprised no one else has commmented on the religious vote in Ohio. It looks like the heavy churchgoers turned out to vote for banning gay marriage and civil unions and may have swung the entire U.S. election without realizing it. That state law ballot proposal was far more conservative than the Bush platform. CNN did a huge exit poll in Ohio and found they ranked the four most important issues as 1. Moral Values 2. The Economy 3. Terrorism 4. Iraq. The Kerry campaign tried to make Iraq the big issue and it just didn't work.
I'm surprised no one else has commmented on the religious vote in Ohio. It looks like the heavy churchgoers turned out to vote for banning gay marriage and civil unions and may have swung the entire U.S. election without realizing it. That state law ballot proposal was far more conservative than the Bush platform. CNN did a huge exit poll in Ohio and found they ranked the four most important issues as 1. Moral Values 2. The Economy 3. Terrorism 4. Iraq. The Kerry campaign tried to make Iraq the big issue and it just didn't work.
You don't know me. All you know is MarcAC. Anyway, your previous post was quite condescending in my opinion, thus I had to highlight 'worse' as a possible substitute for 'bad'.TheERK said:
Is there any justifiable reason why it can't be used? I found it quite poetic also; In your admonishment you yourself seemed to be taking on the exact role you were rebuking.