Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

You can't reason with people who will refuse to accept either under any circumstances what so ever. They will always find some problem with it to justify their belief.

lol

what is a circumstance where the acceptance of evolution is unreasonable?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

what is a circumstance where the acceptance of evolution is unreasonable?

Cosigned.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

what is a circumstance where the acceptance of evolution is unreasonable?

Stupidity, mostly.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

what is a circumstance where the acceptance of evolution is unreasonable?

She vehemently rejects all dark forces.

omg i hate that woman

I was really hoping for a Sarah Palin video.

Palin is actually suprisingly sane with regard to evoution (meaning she doesn't believe, but wants it taught in school... I remember something about "teach the controversy", so I'll keep looking).

JDrhVR8d2Gk

Originally posted by Dataflux
You can't reason with people who will refuse to accept either under any circumstances what so ever. They will always find some problem with it to justify their belief.

what do they have in common?...they both have threads in the religion forum

Notice how she didn't actually answer the question.

From the LA Times:



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story
(scroll down, the site formatting doesn't wrk on my browser, just in case anyone has the same problem as me)

not surprising in the least

Originally posted by lord xyz
Notice how she didn't actually answer the question.

Notice how she never actually does?

She will advocate creationism to be taught in public schools, or keep quiet in fear of looking like a religious freak.

Her intentions are clear to me, she wants creationism taught in schools. She's one of those people who'd change the line in 'Imagine' to "and one religion too".

Although I don't need to hope, I really do hope she loses.

Originally posted by Devil King
Notice how she never actually does? Yeah. It's pathetic.

Originally posted by Devil King
Notice how she never actually does?

that is true of most politicians though...

Originally posted by lord xyz
She will advocate creationism to be taught in public schools, or keep quiet in fear of looking like a religious freak.

Her intentions are clear to me, she wants creationism taught in schools. She's one of those people who'd change the line in 'Imagine' to "and one religion too".

Although I don't need to hope, I really do hope she loses.

after Dover it is essentially guaranteed that ID will be shut down in the courts. Palin is essentially no threat in this regard, unless she gets to name Supreme Cout Justices, although even then its iffy.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is true of most politicians though...



after Dover it is essentially guaranteed that ID will be shut down in the courts. Palin is essentially no threat in this regard, unless she gets to name Supreme Cout Justices, although even then its iffy. John Kerry answered questions.

She will still advocate it, I'm sure.

And with the dirty things previous VPs have done, I'm willing to bet, as VP, she'll do dirty things as well to promote her fundie beliefs.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is true of most politicians though...

I think that's kind of not true. At least most of then can bullshit their way through so you feel like you've gotten an answer. She can't even do that.

Originally posted by lord xyz
John Kerry answered questions.

I saw the debates...

Originally posted by lord xyz
She will still advocate it, I'm sure.

And with the dirty things previous VPs have done, I'm willing to bet, as VP, she'll do dirty things as well to promote her fundie beliefs.

1) she didn't advocate it while govenor

2) McCain isn't as much of a wet noodle as Bush, and has supported evolution in science class, I can't imagine her over-powering mcain

3) she wont win in the courts. any law she tries to make about ID will lose, unless she gets to stack the supreme court, which means she is president, in which case there are LOTS more problems than ID in science class.

She's hardly Cheney to McCain's Bush. She's barely Dan Quayle to McCain's Bush.
Originally posted by lord xyz
John Kerry answered questions. The only things anyone remembers about "John Kerry" are swiftboats, windsurfing and looking "kinda French."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The only things anyone remembers about "John Kerry" are swiftboats, windsurfing and looking "kinda French."

Don't forget that his fer'ner wife is rich. It's a talking point that seems to have no substance now that Cindy "Evil-Lyn" McCain is in the picture. McCain is prolife while his wife is peddling a product that is responsible for more abortions than all the bottles of ketchup in history.

So people have a real hard time staying on the topic of the original post I see.

Originally posted by jaden101
http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/thread.gif

Also your topic sucks major ass.

Originally posted by Dataflux
So people have a real hard time staying on the topic of the original post I see.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

what is a circumstance where the acceptance of evolution is unreasonable?

that was the first post in your thread

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Also your topic sucks major ass.

epic win..i forgot i posted that

Originally posted by lord xyz
Notice how she didn't actually answer the question.

Even tonight she didn't. (in the debate)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Even tonight she didn't. (in the debate)

No, she didn't. All she did was fall back on her own scripted answers.

They're both beliefs about how today came to be.

One difference is that evolution has no explanation for how life started, just that it changes gradually over time.

Another difference.

One is science. The other is baseless.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They're both beliefs about how today came to be.

One difference is that evolution has no explanation for how life started, just that it changes gradually over time.
Boy good thing there are dozens of other areas in science to explain how life started then.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Boy good thing there are dozens of other areas in science to explain how life started then.

The primordial soup theory is chemistry. And requires just as much faith as a belief in god.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They're both beliefs about how today came to be.

One difference is that evolution has no explanation for how life started, just that it changes gradually over time.

Evolution Theory doesn't deal with how life started, levying a negative towards it on those grounds is akin to saying pediatry is faulty because it doesn't encompass lepidoptery.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They're both beliefs about how today came to be.

One difference is that evolution has no explanation for how life started, just that it changes gradually over time.

Don't profess you understand it, when your quotes illustate you DO NOT.

You really don't understand Evolution, do you?

Originally posted by Devil King
Don't profess you understand it, when your quotes illustate you DO NOT.

You really don't understand Evolution, do you?

Yes I do. I'm not positively against it, I'm open to the possibilty. If evolution is proven I don't think it completely shatters the possibiliy of a god; I don't understand why the two beliefs have to be mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The primordial soup theory is chemistry. And requires just as much faith as a belief in god.
What? Faith that chemical reactions occur consistently? That's not faith, that's a fact.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What? Faith that chemical reactions occur consistently? That's not faith, that's a fact.

You poopy face. That's not what he meant. Faith that those chemical reactions would turn into a very very basic form of life and slowly develop DNA and RNA.

DUH!

Originally posted by dadudemon
You poopy face.
Wow real mature.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wow real mature.



I flop my genitals at you. I fart in your general direction.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes I do. I'm not positively against it, I'm open to the possibilty. If evolution is proven I don't think it completely shatters the possibiliy of a god; I don't understand why the two beliefs have to be mutually exclusive.

Against what? How open are you to the possibility that you don't suport it? Do you actually believe that the planet is 6000 years old, like your candidate? Does Governor Palin? You're much smarter than this dribble. God removed himself a long time ago. Understanding the difference between that exclusivity and then swallowing is a fact are two different things. But, you vote McCain, as though he were an actual option if you want. I'm sad you fail to recognize the difference in the options.

Originally posted by jaden101
what do they have in common?...they both have threads in the religion forum They even have a thread together there...in a perfect civil union.

Originally posted by Devil King
Against what? How open are you to the possibility that you don't suport it?

No, I'm open to the possibility that evolution is a fact. I'm not JIA.

Originally posted by Devil King
Do you actually believe that the planet is 6000 years old, like your candidate?

No.

Originally posted by Devil King
Does Governor Palin?

Yes she does.

Originally posted by Devil King
You're much smarter than this dribble. God removed himself a long time ago. Understanding the difference between that exclusivity and then swallowing is a fact are two different things. But, you vote McCain, as though he were an actual option if you want. I'm sad you fail to recognize the difference in the options.

What do you mean by "as though"?

1. They're ways of understanding the phenomenon of life.

2. The letter "o"

Science doesn't have to contradict religion. But I really don't understand how people actually take Genesis literally. At Catholic School I was taught that Genesis was a myth.

But the primordial soup theory is based in as much fact as Genesis. Scientists came up with it because they have no effing idea how life began but are expected to come up with a theory.

In the words of my Chemistry teacher, the idea that some goo got jolted by some electricity and thus by chance produced something as impossibly, ridiculously, unimaginably complex as a cell is like taking a bowl of alphabet soup, chucking it at the wall, and getting a novel.

There is undeniable proof against Genesis as fact, but we still have no idea how it happened.

Originally posted by cococryspies
Science doesn't have to contradict religion. But I really don't understand how people actually take Genesis literally. At Catholic School I was taught that Genesis was a myth.

But the primordial soup theory is based in as much fact as Genesis. Scientists came up with it because they have no effing idea how life began but are expected to come up with a theory.

In the words of my Chemistry teacher, the idea that some goo got jolted by some electricity and thus by chance produced something as impossibly, ridiculously, unimaginably complex as a cell is like taking a bowl of alphabet soup, chucking it at the wall, and getting a novel.

There is undeniable proof against Genesis as fact, but we still have no idea how it happened.

However, that is not evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, that is not evolution.

I'm not challenging evolution, only the theory scientists came up with for the origin of life.

Originally posted by cococryspies
I'm not challenging evolution, only the theory scientists came up with for the origin of life.

Ya, there is no way to know right now. It's just as possible that life came from outer-space.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, there is no way to know right now. It's just as possible that life came from outer-space.

That just displaces the problem of origin. If it didn't arise here, it still had to arise for the first time somewhere. Abiogenesis is the best, most valid theory that we have right now. Is it a fledgling science? Yes. At one time so was physics.

Originally posted by cococryspies
I'm not challenging evolution, only the theory scientists came up with for the origin of life.

As long as you recognize that the two are not interchangeable then we'll get along fine.

Originally posted by Devil King
Don't forget that his fer'ner wife is rich. It's a talking point that seems to have no substance now that Cindy "Evil-Lyn" McCain is in the picture. McCain is prolife while his wife is peddling a product that is responsible for more abortions than all the bottles of ketchup in history.

http://powet.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/staction_2006exclusive_evil-lyn3.jpg

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
http://powet.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/staction_2006exclusive_evil-lyn3.jpg

Evil-Lyn created that universe???? Soooo, I guess that makes Skeletor the super God, then?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What do you mean by "as though"?

I mean as though he were at all a viable candidate. His ticket represents a step sideays for the country. No forward movement and there's really not much further backwards for it to go. Another trillion dollars for the war, a denial of feasable healthcare solutions and that dumb **** he has winking and twitching and playing the flute on the white house lawn. Even you, a supporter of his, has to admit that he has made a window-dressing, piss poor choice for his VP. If what the media was saying before the running mates were announced, and that descision represents the candidates first presidential act, then he failed miserably. That wasn't putting "country first". That was him trying his hardest and most desperate to put himself first. What about that crap that he was "suspending" his campaign? The man is sadly desperate and it's so obvious that it actually makes my head hurt when he speaks.

While I would agree that McCain is at best a sidestep, but more than likely a page from the past, I think you'll likely be sorely disappointed if you think Obama will be as great a leap forward as the campaign and the candidate have been trying to convey. Better, but not fantastic nonetheless.

And while even more slim resumed than Obama and apparently completely lacking in worldview before her selection as VP nominee; "Frau Palin" for all her horrible flaws can at least be credited with emerging in politics on her own tenacity and terms; something I'd like to say about Obama, but can't. Neither is a traditional political name, but one is heavily attached to them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
While I would agree that McCain is at best a sidestep, but more than likely a page from the past, I think you'll likely be sorely disappointed if you think Obama will be as great a leap forward as the campaign and the candidate have been trying to convey. Better, but not fantastic nonetheless.

And while even more slim resumed than Obama and apparently completely lacking in worldview before her selection as VP nominee; "Frau Palin" for all her horrible flaws can at least be credited with emerging in politics on her own tenacity and terms; something I'd like to say about Obama, but can't. Neither is a traditional political name, but one is heavily attached to them.

There is nothing of "her own" that can be granted to Frau Palin. What is more or less a politicalname than "Sarah Palin"? Certainly not Barack Obama".

A great leap? Like a step forward in evolution between homo sapien and homo superior? No. But a step forward? Yes. Not because he's a black man, but because he's here at this moment, when we have so many important issues at hand.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
While I would agree that McCain is at best a sidestep, but more than likely a page from the past, I think you'll likely be sorely disappointed if you think Obama will be as great a leap forward as the campaign and the candidate have been trying to convey. Better, but not fantastic nonetheless.

And while even more slim resumed than Obama and apparently completely lacking in worldview before her selection as VP nominee; "Frau Palin" for all her horrible flaws can at least be credited with emerging in politics on her own tenacity and terms; something I'd like to say about Obama, but can't. Neither is a traditional political name, but one is heavily attached to them.

Exactly where did Palin pull herself up by her own bootstraps? The only reason anyone cares about her is because of McCain.

I was referring more towards her rise in Alaska against members of her own party, although I'm aware that in her mayoral run she received support from anti-abortion groups and the NRA. I'm not referring to her being entirely unqualified for the vice-presidency and being tapped purely to appeal to these groups.

And Obama's rise in Chicago, which is frankly mired by associations with Daleys, Strogers and Joneses. He is of course not guilty by association with these corrupt affiliates, but I find it unlikely he would be where he is without their tacit or explicit support, and his continued endorsement of them doesn't inspire confidence.

The same issues will be at hand in 4 years time or 8 years time or 12 years time; we are not the ones we've been waiting for and there will be other political wunderkinders be they black, white or multicolored.

You mean, like members of her own party that don't include her oil-field working husband?

If Obama isn't guilty by association, please don't associate him with them.

He associates himself with them via endorsement; which is difficult to reconcile with presenting oneself as postpartisan and/or a reformer. Not being guilty by association doesn't eliminate the cognitive dissonance. It is political expediency, which is perfectly understandable really for a politician, but doesn't inspire any of the sort of confidence that many have seemingly placed in him to be a transformational new politician; the political narrative that is often portrayed.

Does her husband working for oil companies, and being privy to state cabinet meetings present conflict of interest; yes - that's also a discussion that should be had. Is that rather non-sequitur to what I stated; likewise yes.

It would be nice if either side could bring themselves to recognize the virtues and vices of either side.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It would be nice if either side could bring themselves to recognize the virtues and vices of either side.

It isn't a non-sequitur. It's a reality. No one agrees with you more than I do about the "reality" of American politics. In fact, I would wager that no one agrees with you more than the American public. But what works is what works and the big wigs keep playing the same track. Personally, I do not believe that Mr. Obama is "politics as usual". He has a lot to prove being who he is. I think that makes a difference. He isn't the "change" everyone is supporting, but he isn't the baseless rhetoric everyone suddenly supports again. Just as many would be the case with Mrs. Clinton if she were in the same place. Much of America is that bottomless abyss of stupidity and window dressing that it's made out to be, but a lot of it isn't. It's fair to point them out as a realit, but they are also the same people that will get insulted by that finger-pointing. In this election, it's the people who aren't that demographic that are making themselves known, just as it was the bible thumpers in the last two elections. We've been shat on for years and we're tired of it, even in people like KidRock want to pretend they haven't been. If people want to pretend that shared beer is more important than the relity that their homes are being taken from them because an industry was allowed to give them one they couldn't realistically underwrite because their government told them to do what ever they wished despite the the monemtary profits or long-term reality, that's their problem. Only now it's all our problem.

I'm sorry, but I can't toss my sausage down a hallway if the hallway doesn't appreciate it. I think American politics are a joke, but I don't operate on a level where that reality isn't considered.

Personally, I do frankly think Obama is little more than politics as usual. But I hope he wins because he's the better of the two possible outcomes.

That likewise shouldn't mean one can't recognize the flaws in all candidates. Or make a simple comment to one candidate's credit, or to another's deficit, regardless of where one's support lies.

I'd like for a favorable Democratic outcome to this election, but for the policies and ideologies they stand for, rather than the person who played the Primary game the best. And while I'd implore anyone whose listening to vote Democratic, I'd hope that they did so with at least a hint of cynicism. Again I just don't think people should get their hopes too high about the change that will happen should Obama win.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Personally, I do frankly think Obama is little more than politics as usual. But I hope he wins because he's the better of the two possible outcomes.

That likewise shouldn't mean one can't recognize the flaws in all candidates. Or make a simple comment to one candidate's credit, or to another's deficit, regardless of where one's support lies.

I'd like for a favorable Democratic outcome to this election, but for the policies and ideologies they stand for, rather than the person who played the Primary game the best. And while I'd implore anyone whose listening to vote Democratic, I'd hope that they did so with at least a hint of cynicism. Again I just don't think people should get their hopes too high about the change that will happen should Obama win.

If you think he's better than "politics as usual", then you get my point. I would be pleased if you could vote for the "leader of the free world." Sadly, as a member of the free world, you can't.

Of course I realize the flaws. You know this about most American voters. Just like you, my most fervent call to arms is for those American citizens to do what they can to change things. If this were the last three elections, I would be voting for the non-partisan candidate. I hope with everything I've got that America could vault a third party candidate...and a fourth and a fifth and a sixth. But this man is talking about what we need here and now. I'm happy he's on a tickt, much less wondering which ticket he's on that will be relegated to irrelevance. McCain, however, is trying his damnedest not to be the son-of-a-***** that's trying to propogate it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Even you, a supporter of his, has to admit that he has made a window-dressing, piss poor choice for his VP.

To be honest, I think both running mate choices suck. McCain should've picked Huckabee, and Obama should've picked Clinton. Palin's 44, a VP candidate and she's never been outside of the country; that's a little disturbing. But that's ok, because I was gonna vote for McCain regardless of who his running mate turned out to be. As a working class Zonie, I've been a fan of his since before everyone and their mom knew everything about him.

If Obama pulls off or starts half the items uttered on his campaign trail, we would already have a better choice in a candidate.

I'd be very happy if Obama repaired our foreign relations. After 8 years of George W. Bush and his administration shitting all over foreign policy, it's an uphill battle. I thought there was hope for Bush when he gave us his "looked into his soul" speech, but that was about as good as it gets. He basically bullied NATO into the coalition for Iraq.

If Obama dissolves the majority of American forces present in Iraq within his first term, I would be satisfied with that result. If he does it safely for American troops and stably for Iraq within 16-18 months, that's even better.

If Obama also delivers on his promise of Middle-Eastern oil independence, I'd also be satisfied. How about more oil trade with the souring relations experienced with Russia recently because Bush and Rice think they are Russia's parents? I'm sure that'd go a little further in repairing our relations. I highly doubt that last proposition of mine because both candidates have referred to Russia as a rogue state or in some other negative fashion.

Anyway...

Great if Obama delivers on his oil independence, gas mileage increase, renewable energy resource planning and deliverance, foreign policy repairs, and helps stabilize the market.



Also, I laugh at McCain and the GOPs hating on Obama for saying he wants to use diplomacy with the "rogue leaders". They say things like, "It legitimizes them and their rogue policies." You stupid ****S! As if talking about them in a public forum, every major news channel plastering information about them as it's feed to them, and diplomatic talks with allies DOESN'T legitimize them. Give me a break. You can't run around with your hands over your ears yelling, "I can't hear you!!!!!!" if you plan to un-equip those sharp tongues of the "rogue states" who can barely feed their own people let alone back up their sharp tongues. It's called getting off of your high horse and stop acting like you're superior to every nation. (Regardless if you are.) It's called collateral talks with your allies. It's called actually listening to the pussy countries that DIDN'T think it was right to go to war with Iraq.

I doubt either candidate will be the person to stabilize the economy; both are looking at running large budget deficits and the current credit crisis is a product of both Republican and Democratic ideology.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I doubt either candidate will be the person to stabilize the economy; both are looking at running large budget deficits and the current credit crisis is a product of both Republican and Democratic ideology.

God, you are sooooo hot sometimes

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I doubt either candidate will be the person to stabilize the economy; both are looking at running large budget deficits and the current credit crisis is a product of both Republican and Democratic ideology.