Evolution does not cause animals to become extinct.....lowing wrote:
Already gave one example, the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is a relatively new concept that has grown in acceptance after being strenuously disputed. New species being discovered, animals that were thought to have been long extinct do to evolution have been found to still exist. How can you say nothing that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today?
Not really sure how you can say Obama is articulate when he can not think for himself and must rehearse every answer he gives, then must read it instead of say it.Shocking wrote:
By weighing Palin's 'stupid' to Obama's 'stupid'. That's what's been done in the past 10 pages (7 of which were the creationism argument repeated almost ad infinitum). If you can't see why Palin's antics weigh more heavily on the scales than Obama's, I can't help that.lowing wrote:
Fine, based on what exactly?
Obama presents himself as an articulate, smart man. In many ways he is, in debates he did (very) good. He is charismatic and yes probably cunning. Those are all actually useful traits if we look at what politics is. He thinks before he speaks, he's popular internationally.
Granted he has continued the Bush years and does have his negative sides, but the problem is that Palin only has negative sides to her.
That is a good thing I guess, because if you were, you would have to include Obama as one of "retards" in Washington as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
We're not talking about Obama, we're talking about Palin.lowing wrote:
You are right, except for him
1. not being able to think for himself and answer any questions unrehearsed,
2. didn't know we have a Marine Corps and not a Marine Corpse,
3.has not done a thing to improve the economy, but has managed to drop us deeper in debt,
4. would rather blame ATMS for the unemployment rate over his govt. decision making,
5. his entire inner circle is made up of felons, racists, terrorists and cheats,
6. graduating from Columbia but not with honors, yet was accepted into Harvard Law School, suggesting he was offered up, far more than he earned the position there
7. his election to president of HLR was not based on academic achievement( something he admitted)
8. the deliberate refusal to release, or allow the release, of any of his college records or papers, so we can all see just how smart he really is seems quite suspicious as well given the means by which he was accepted into Harvard and elected as president of the HLR.
Do you really think I can't go on?
But yeah other than any of that shit, Mr. "Transparency" is a hellova guy. He has been groomed more than he has earned anything that resembles an achievement.
Not sure why it is so hard to accept the fact that Obama ain't no genius either. Point is, no one in or around Washington is, yet you want to single out Palin as the greatest threat? This is what we really disagree on, who has done more damage or will do more damage. and in my opinion it is hard to top Obama in that category. Especially when absolutely everything you accuse Bush for being stupid over, is continued or enhanced by Obama, but according to you, HE is the smart one. Whatever.
Also LOL
It's a relatively new concept because it's been backed up by evidence and a fossil record.lowing wrote:
Already gave one example, the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is a relatively new concept that has grown in acceptance after being strenuously disputed. New species being discovered, animals that were thought to have been long extinct do to evolution have been found to still exist. How can you say nothing that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today?AussieReaper wrote:
What? Please elaborate. What constant state of change is the evolutionary force taking?lowing wrote:
Evolution is in a constant state of change as to what we THINK we know to be fact. That is all I am saying.
Not any more or less than Obama is. If you do not think Obama is in way over his head, well then we will just have to agree to disagreeDilbert_X wrote:
Why don't you just stick to the question:
Is Palin fit to be President?
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-20 05:48:11)
Ahhhh but perhaps God created by means of evolution? I'll take another hit, pass it over.AussieReaper wrote:
It's a relatively new concept because it's been backed up by evidence and a fossil record.lowing wrote:
Already gave one example, the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is a relatively new concept that has grown in acceptance after being strenuously disputed. New species being discovered, animals that were thought to have been long extinct do to evolution have been found to still exist. How can you say nothing that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today?AussieReaper wrote:
What? Please elaborate. What constant state of change is the evolutionary force taking?
You know, the things a creationist would dismiss as a test of faith put there by God. Can you see how this works? The science doesn't change. The scientific method is a constant. Hyothesis. Evidence. Conclusion. Theory.
So by all means, I agree with you that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today. So why do you believe that creationism should be taught in schools when it goes against that exact principal? Creationism states "God did it" and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed instantly. Surely you can see that creationism goes directly against your argument that "facts" change? Creationism teaches you to dismiss facts and believe in fiction.
It doesn't. I merely pointed out there is no reason to trash Palin as a retard when there are plenty of retards in Washington right now far more deserving of the attention than she does.Dilbert_X wrote:
How does whatever Obama is doing affect how Palin is rated against other Republican contenders exactly?
You've already agreed you'd vote for a chimp before you'd vote for a democrat so I don't see what point you're making with all the Tea Party anti-Obama copy-paste ranting.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-06-20 05:53:06)
See? Dismiss all facts and come back to the "God did it" line.lowing wrote:
Ahhhh but perhaps God created by means of evolution? I'll take another hit, pass it over.AussieReaper wrote:
It's a relatively new concept because it's been backed up by evidence and a fossil record.lowing wrote:
Already gave one example, the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is a relatively new concept that has grown in acceptance after being strenuously disputed. New species being discovered, animals that were thought to have been long extinct do to evolution have been found to still exist. How can you say nothing that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today?
You know, the things a creationist would dismiss as a test of faith put there by God. Can you see how this works? The science doesn't change. The scientific method is a constant. Hyothesis. Evidence. Conclusion. Theory.
So by all means, I agree with you that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today. So why do you believe that creationism should be taught in schools when it goes against that exact principal? Creationism states "God did it" and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed instantly. Surely you can see that creationism goes directly against your argument that "facts" change? Creationism teaches you to dismiss facts and believe in fiction.
Fine, elect an ignorant imbecile as President then.lowing wrote:
It doesn't. I merely pointed out there is no reason to trash Palin as a retard when there are plenty of retards in Washington right now far more deserving of the attention than she does.Dilbert_X wrote:
How does whatever Obama is doing affect how Palin is rated against other Republican contenders exactly?
You've already agreed you'd vote for a chimp before you'd vote for a democrat so I don't see what point you're making with all the Tea Party anti-Obama copy-paste ranting.
no Aussie, I was kidding. I am not a creationist. I believe in science. FAct is, you are hanging your hat that Palin is a retard because of her belief in creationism while I could care less. She only has an opinion that it should be taught in schools and even then along with evolution not replacing evolution. Also it is not something she has pushed for implementation in our schools. It is as harmless as believing in reincarnation. Point is, with all of the negativity that surrounds other politicians in our country, including the savior Obama, the reasons for calling Palin a retard seems somewhat tame.AussieReaper wrote:
See? Dismiss all facts and come back to the "God did it" line.lowing wrote:
Ahhhh but perhaps God created by means of evolution? I'll take another hit, pass it over.AussieReaper wrote:
It's a relatively new concept because it's been backed up by evidence and a fossil record.
You know, the things a creationist would dismiss as a test of faith put there by God. Can you see how this works? The science doesn't change. The scientific method is a constant. Hyothesis. Evidence. Conclusion. Theory.
So by all means, I agree with you that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today. So why do you believe that creationism should be taught in schools when it goes against that exact principal? Creationism states "God did it" and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed instantly. Surely you can see that creationism goes directly against your argument that "facts" change? Creationism teaches you to dismiss facts and believe in fiction.
"Creationism is real. Evolution is false"
Presented with evidence of evolution is a fact.
"Well then God did evolution!"
How is that appropriate to be taught in schools? It's like a magic answer to everything. Why is the sky blue? "God did it."
Is that truly how far you want the critical thinking skills of students to reach?
lol you say that as if we have much of a choice as we already did.Dilbert_X wrote:
Fine, elect an ignorant imbecile as President then.lowing wrote:
It doesn't. I merely pointed out there is no reason to trash Palin as a retard when there are plenty of retards in Washington right now far more deserving of the attention than she does.Dilbert_X wrote:
How does whatever Obama is doing affect how Palin is rated against other Republican contenders exactly?
You've already agreed you'd vote for a chimp before you'd vote for a democrat so I don't see what point you're making with all the Tea Party anti-Obama copy-paste ranting.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-20 06:00:20)
no evidence exists supporting that. still, even though it doesn't look very probable from where modern science stands, it's possible. see the difference? science doesn't dismiss the idea, it simply says there's no evidence available for it to be worth researching. now, the question is: why believe in "goddidit" and build your life around that belief? because the same book that says god created everything also says you can live forever?lowing wrote:
Ahhhh but perhaps God created by means of evolution? I'll take another hit, pass it over.AussieReaper wrote:
It's a relatively new concept because it's been backed up by evidence and a fossil record.lowing wrote:
Already gave one example, the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is a relatively new concept that has grown in acceptance after being strenuously disputed. New species being discovered, animals that were thought to have been long extinct do to evolution have been found to still exist. How can you say nothing that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today?
You know, the things a creationist would dismiss as a test of faith put there by God. Can you see how this works? The science doesn't change. The scientific method is a constant. Hyothesis. Evidence. Conclusion. Theory.
So by all means, I agree with you that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today. So why do you believe that creationism should be taught in schools when it goes against that exact principal? Creationism states "God did it" and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed instantly. Surely you can see that creationism goes directly against your argument that "facts" change? Creationism teaches you to dismiss facts and believe in fiction.
I can't answer that, I am not a man of faith, I just don't see it as a greater threat to my life style than those in Washington now and their "beliefs"Shahter wrote:
no evidence exists supporting that. still, even though it doesn't look very probable from where modern science stands, it's possible. see the difference? science doesn't dismiss the idea, it simply says there's no evidence available for it to be worth researching. now, the question is: why believe in "goddidit" and build your life around that belief? because the same book that says god created everything also says you can live forever?lowing wrote:
Ahhhh but perhaps God created by means of evolution? I'll take another hit, pass it over.AussieReaper wrote:
It's a relatively new concept because it's been backed up by evidence and a fossil record.
You know, the things a creationist would dismiss as a test of faith put there by God. Can you see how this works? The science doesn't change. The scientific method is a constant. Hyothesis. Evidence. Conclusion. Theory.
So by all means, I agree with you that what was believed as fact 100 years ago is different from what is considered fact today. So why do you believe that creationism should be taught in schools when it goes against that exact principal? Creationism states "God did it" and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed instantly. Surely you can see that creationism goes directly against your argument that "facts" change? Creationism teaches you to dismiss facts and believe in fiction.
No, it is dangerous to believe in Creationism. And it is dangerous to teach Creationism in schools.lowing wrote:
no Aussie, I was kidding. I am not a creationist. I believe in science. FAct is, you are hanging your hat that Palin is a retard because of her belief in creationism while I could care less. She only has an opinion that it should be taught in schools and even then along with evolution not replacing evolution. Also it is not something she has pushed for implementation in our schools. It is as harmless as believing in reincarnation. Point is, with all of the negativity that surrounds other politicians in our country, including the savior Obama, the reasons for calling Palin a retard seems somewhat tame.AussieReaper wrote:
See? Dismiss all facts and come back to the "God did it" line.lowing wrote:
Ahhhh but perhaps God created by means of evolution? I'll take another hit, pass it over.
"Creationism is real. Evolution is false"
Presented with evidence of evolution is a fact.
"Well then God did evolution!"
How is that appropriate to be taught in schools? It's like a magic answer to everything. Why is the sky blue? "God did it."
Is that truly how far you want the critical thinking skills of students to reach?
then i suggest you read stuff on history of religion. some truly colorful stuff there.lowing wrote:
I can't answer that, I am not a man of faith, I just don't see it as a greater threat to my life style than those in Washington now and their "beliefs"Shahter wrote:
no evidence exists supporting that. still, even though it doesn't look very probable from where modern science stands, it's possible. see the difference? science doesn't dismiss the idea, it simply says there's no evidence available for it to be worth researching. now, the question is: why believe in "goddidit" and build your life around that belief? because the same book that says god created everything also says you can live forever?lowing wrote:
Ahhhh but perhaps God created by means of evolution? I'll take another hit, pass it over.
Dangerous? How so? Our country in the past has accepted religion in our schools and we are no less for the wear. Obama is a man of faith as well, and by definition believes God has his hand in everything. Where is the outrage?AussieReaper wrote:
No, it is dangerous to believe in Creationism. And it is dangerous to teach Creationism in schools.lowing wrote:
no Aussie, I was kidding. I am not a creationist. I believe in science. FAct is, you are hanging your hat that Palin is a retard because of her belief in creationism while I could care less. She only has an opinion that it should be taught in schools and even then along with evolution not replacing evolution. Also it is not something she has pushed for implementation in our schools. It is as harmless as believing in reincarnation. Point is, with all of the negativity that surrounds other politicians in our country, including the savior Obama, the reasons for calling Palin a retard seems somewhat tame.AussieReaper wrote:
See? Dismiss all facts and come back to the "God did it" line.
"Creationism is real. Evolution is false"
Presented with evidence of evolution is a fact.
"Well then God did evolution!"
How is that appropriate to be taught in schools? It's like a magic answer to everything. Why is the sky blue? "God did it."
Is that truly how far you want the critical thinking skills of students to reach?
Her belief in such a stupid concept as "God did it" is why she is a mental midget. You don't accept Creationism cause you're a smart guy and know that the Earth isn't 6000 years old. You're a smart enough guy to know that Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. But you're not a smart enough guy to see that it is a very slippery slope once you start accepting those who do believe "God did it" as the answer to everything exactly how far that lunacy extends.
I have, and now you know why I have no faith. Also what Obama has done in 2 years has affected me to a greater extent than what Christians did 1000 years ago. How bout you?Shahter wrote:
then i suggest you read stuff on history of religion. some truly colorful stuff there.lowing wrote:
I can't answer that, I am not a man of faith, I just don't see it as a greater threat to my life style than those in Washington now and their "beliefs"Shahter wrote:
no evidence exists supporting that. still, even though it doesn't look very probable from where modern science stands, it's possible. see the difference? science doesn't dismiss the idea, it simply says there's no evidence available for it to be worth researching. now, the question is: why believe in "goddidit" and build your life around that belief? because the same book that says god created everything also says you can live forever?
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-20 06:33:31)
read on. religion haven't changed at all.lowing wrote:
I have, and now you know why I have no faith. Also what Obama has done in 2 years has affected me to a greater extent than what Christians did 1000 years ago. How bout you?Shahter wrote:
then i suggest you read stuff on history of religion. some truly colorful stuff there.lowing wrote:
I can't answer that, I am not a man of faith, I just don't see it as a greater threat to my life style than those in Washington now and their "beliefs"
no they don't. I do not think Obama's actions are faith based. You all are the ones that put so much emphasis in faith regarding a politician, not me. Obama is a man of faith, and must believe God has his hand in everything where is your outrage?AussieReaper wrote:
Your last two replies in this thread almost contradict entirely.
ya don't think? Wow, I didn't know the church was as influential in politics as it was in the past. I didn't know the church retained most of its power over govt. do tell.Shahter wrote:
read on. religion haven't changed at all.lowing wrote:
I have, and now you know why I have no faith. Also what Obama has done in 2 years has affected me to a greater extent than what Christians did 1000 years ago. How bout you?Shahter wrote:
then i suggest you read stuff on history of religion. some truly colorful stuff there.
lowing wrote:
no they don't. I do not think Obama's actions are faith based. You all are the ones that put so much emphasis in faith regarding a politician, not me. Obama is a man of faith, and must believe God has his hand in everything where is your outrage?AussieReaper wrote:
Your last two replies in this thread almost contradict entirely.
lowing wrote:
I do not think Obama's actions are faith based.
