Why Do Republicans Refuse to Believe Science and Evolution?

It just doesn't make any sense that republicans hate math and science.

We just hate idiot trolls. Like you.

Strange. I'm a 'Republican' with a masters in biochem/genetics and close to finishing post-grad computer science coursework. I never knew that I didn't believe in science.

.
Attachments:

Why can't trolls make their threads less obvious?

The basis of conservatism is maintaing old belief systems and ideas regardless of their merit.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why can't trolls make their threads less obvious?


Because they are stupid. Particularly the liberal God hating ones.

Simple minds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strange. I'm a 'Republican' with a masters in
> biochem/genetics and close to finishing post-grad
> computer science coursework. I never knew that I
> didn't believe in science.


Well aren't you special. Here's a virtual pat on the back. I heard computer science is an industry on the heavy decline job availability wise.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple minds Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Strange. I'm a 'Republican' with a masters in
> > biochem/genetics and close to finishing
> post-grad
> > computer science coursework. I never knew that
> I
> > didn't believe in science.
>
>
> Well aren't you special. Here's a virtual pat on
> the back. I heard computer science is an industry
> on the heavy decline job availability wise.


Yes Gerry,he is! Anyone employed is special. Try it some time!

Candy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The basis of conservatism is maintaing old belief
> systems and ideas regardless of their merit.


+1

Bachmann, then a state senator, explains why she doesn't agree with the theory of evolution: "Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being? There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That's where it's difficult to prove." Don't even get her started on how a bill becomes a law.

+2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple minds Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Strange. I'm a 'Republican' with a masters in
> > biochem/genetics and close to finishing
> post-grad
> > computer science coursework. I never knew that
> I
> > didn't believe in science.
>
>
> Well aren't you special. Here's a virtual pat on
> the back. I heard computer science is an industry
> on the heavy decline job availability wise.


Fortunately I'm self-employed. I'm doing the computer science part for myself not for a job.

How's that associate's degree in women's studies working out for ya?

Rick Santorum has long been known as one of the GOP’s most overt and unabashed creationists, and here he is speaking to the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph, urging that Christian creationism be taught in public school science classes as an “alternative” to the scientific facts of evolution.

Don't forget Dinesh D'Souza's argument that people are intelligent beings and therefore someone must have put the intelligence there. Said in a debate with the late, great Christopher Hitchens.

Liberals are so smug. It is funny to watch the fearless leader play between these fools that think that science has ever proven the source of life and having or pretending to have faith.

Perhaps the most outspoken candidate on the topic of teaching evolution in schools, Mr. Perry has declared several times he does not believe in the theory of evolution and has even said that they teach intelligent design and creationism in Texas public schools (which is an untrue statement). After declaring that evolution is just a "theory that's out there", he could not seem to escape questions at most campaign stops about science related topics.

The ultimate downfall of stupid liberals. Demanding tolerance from others but exhibiting no tolerance for others.

Smart trolls,what does science prove sparked first life?

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals are so smug. It is funny to watch the
> fearless leader play between these fools that
> think that science has ever proven the source of
> life and having or pretending to have faith.


Their version of science is just as much about being anti-religious as anything else. Its why they constantly try and put it at odds with each other and act like educated guesses are known fact. They would be the same people saying science had proved the world to be flat and you better not have an alternative theory

ColumnNo.4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget Dinesh D'Souza's argument that people
> are intelligent beings and therefore someone must
> have put the intelligence there. Said in a debate
> with the late, great Christopher Hitchens.

D'Souza forgot about Republicans. And I miss Hitch.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ultimate downfall of stupid liberals.
> Demanding tolerance from others but exhibiting no
> tolerance for others.
>
> Smart trolls,what does science prove sparked first
> life?

You are avoiding the topic. The topic is did humans evolve from organisms or a period of time. That theory of science is called evolution.

True Science is color blind.
Most Religion - not so much.
So many Christians here in the US worship in white churches or black churches but rarely truly together.
Attachments:

End Is near Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrongg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The ultimate downfall of stupid liberals.
> > Demanding tolerance from others but exhibiting
> no
> > tolerance for others.
> >
> > Smart trolls,what does science prove sparked
> first
> > life?
>
> You are avoiding the topic. The topic is did
> humans evolve from organisms or a period of time.
> That theory of science is called evolution.


I am not avoiding anything. What is the essence of life ,proven by science? Stop changing the subject.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> End Is near Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > wrongg Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The ultimate downfall of stupid liberals.
> > > Demanding tolerance from others but
> exhibiting
> > no
> > > tolerance for others.
> > >
> > > Smart trolls,what does science prove sparked
> > first
> > > life?
> >
> > You are avoiding the topic. The topic is did
> > humans evolve from organisms or a period of
> time.
> > That theory of science is called evolution.
>
>
> I am not avoiding anything. What is the essence of
> life ,proven by science? Stop changing the
> subject.

Answer: My man goo meeting an egg in your daughter's vagina at just the right moment in time to fertilize her egg and start another life. Same applies for just about every fucking species on the planet. Next question retard.

Never read about that in any religious text but science books tell me it's a fucking fact.

I guess the church recognizes that "essence of life" scientific fact too - because they are against fornication outside of marriage and are against contraception and abortion.

Jeezuz you people are stoopid!

Food for thought.
Attachments:

Liberals are the anti God. You cannot be a Christian and be a liberal.
Oooops, I'm banned. I'm not supposed to be able to post.
Duh.

flem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrongg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > End Is near Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > wrongg Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The ultimate downfall of stupid liberals.
> > > > Demanding tolerance from others but
> > exhibiting
> > > no
> > > > tolerance for others.
> > > >
> > > > Smart trolls,what does science prove
> sparked
> > > first
> > > > life?
> > >
> > > You are avoiding the topic. The topic is did
> > > humans evolve from organisms or a period of
> > time.
> > > That theory of science is called evolution.
> >
> >
> > I am not avoiding anything. What is the essence
> of
> > life ,proven by science? Stop changing the
> > subject.
>
> Answer: My man goo meeting an egg in your
> daughter's vagina at just the right moment in time
> to fertilize her egg and start another life. Same
> applies for just about every fucking species on
> the planet. Next question retard.
>
> Never read about that in any religious text but
> science books tell me it's a fucking fact.
>
> I guess the church recognizes that "essence of
> life" scientific fact too - because they are
> against fornication outside of marriage and are
> against contraception and abortion.
>
> Jeezuz you people are stoopid!


Typical ignorant douche leftist. Got a real answer? we are talking about the beginning of all life on our planet. You do appear to be dumb enough not to have followed the topic however. ps. i was the one who knocked up your mammy.

2 rocks and a snickers bar. proud of how far you have come sonny. glad they let you post from the lamb.

This is funny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals are the anti God. You cannot be a
> Christian and be a liberal.
> Oooops, I'm banned. I'm not supposed to be able to
> post.
> Duh.

Are you kidding. Liberals are the strongest supporters of Christian theology. Liberals believe other and the poor should be taken care off. Conservatives say let the poor rot.

Typical silly libbs. There's no proof that the theory of evolution is true!


Conservatives and the GOP can teach what they want in science classes.

Sgt Fury Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical silly libbs. There's no proof that the
> theory of evolution is true!
>
>
> Conservatives and the GOP can teach what they want
> in science classes.


And run like cowards from the very science they use like a sword. They are hateful intolerant people who don't care about hurting others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2014 10:45AM by wrongg.

A few guys that shaped science as we know it Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomas Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein all believed in God. Maybe you libs have heard one or two of their names before. I doubt it though, with the liberal atheist breeding ground of public school forcing anything that mentions God out.

You might want to do a little research before you start throwing names around Repubtard....
Attachments:

Phact Czecher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You might want to do a little research before you
> start throwing names around Repubtard....


Okay, so you throw up a picture that proves nothing. I just posted the names because facts hurt the liberal pea sized brain, but here ya go libtard.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

How dare you post facts that make libtards look libtarded! You're a racist bigot!

The company we keep speaks volumes.
Attachments:

I guess they only use picture books in public schools these days as pictures are clearly the only form of communication liberals comprehend. Those facts written with words just blow their minds.

Phact Czecher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You might want to do a little research before you
> start throwing names around Repubtard....


Lincoln prayed to God daily. Jefferson believed in God, as did Franklin. Your picture is a fail.

>There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That's where it's difficult to prove.

I will admit that she is right. There is no complete chain of evidence from one species to another. Unfortunately, the theory of evolution also predicts that it takes a long amount of time, so collecting all the transitory forms would be practically impossible (given that fossilization is rather random and time travel is not currently possible). We do have some evidence for evolution within a species though.

So, yeah, it is a theory and if you have a better one I would be willing to listen.

Adaptation is not evolution.
Recent skeletal remains prove there was only one species of human, not 4.

T6GkT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >There’s a real lack of evidence from change
> from actual species to a different type of
> species. That's where it's difficult to prove.
>
> I will admit that she is right. There is no
> complete chain of evidence from one species to
> another. Unfortunately, the theory of evolution
> also predicts that it takes a long amount of time,
> so collecting all the transitory forms would be
> practically impossible (given that fossilization
> is rather random and time travel is not currently
> possible). We do have some evidence for evolution
> within a species though.
>
> So, yeah, it is a theory and if you have a better
> one I would be willing to listen.


Look up the Cambrian Explosion. According the evidence interpreted in the fossil record, almost all forms of life developed in less than 100 million years, going from single celled organisms at the beginning of that period to complex species, including plants and animals. Some scientists reject this long accepted theory because the amount of time needed to develop Earth's diverse flora and fauna based on the principles of evolution would require more time than 80 million years. Science knows about 1/10th of 1% of what is knowable. Blindly believing theories that need more than one or two deviations from provable truths is folly.

Sorry, adaptation is an evolutionary process.

>Cambrian Explosion.

Currently an issue with the theory of evolution but work is under way to resolve the "problems". Again, what is your competing theory that doesn't involve hocus pocus?

Well creationism for one. Can you disprove this? Do you have evidence that species evolved from one to another?

>creationism

The universe isn't 5,000 years old. Recorded human history is longer than 5,000 years.

kyutD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >creationism
>
> The universe isn't 5,000 years old. Recorded
> human history is longer than 5,000 years.


Why are you stating that anyone believes the universe is 5000 years old? Where in the theory of creationism does is state that? I've seen some creationists who believe the Earth is only about 10,000 years old, but most creationists don't know how old the Earth is, only that it was created by God.

1. Man created god, not the other way around.
2. Science is true whether or not you believe in it.

truthy words Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Man created god, not the other way around.
> 2. Science is true whether or not you believe in
> it.


Science was created by man to explain things we don't understand. Sound familiar?

Yes but Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truthy words Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1. Man created god, not the other way around.
> > 2. Science is true whether or not you believe
> in
> > it.
>
>
> Science was created by man to explain things we
> don't understand. Sound familiar?


you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of "science"

oxford definition: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

merriam-webster: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

But no Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes but Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > truthy words Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 1. Man created god, not the other way around.
> > > 2. Science is true whether or not you believe
> > in
> > > it.
> >
> >
> > Science was created by man to explain things we
> > don't understand. Sound familiar?
>
>
> you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> meaning of "science"
>
> oxford definition: the intellectual and practical
> activity encompassing the systematic study of the
> structure and behavior of the physical and natural
> world through observation and experiment
>
> merriam-webster: knowledge about or study of the
> natural world based on facts learned through
> experiments and observation


I am not arguing the meaning of "science." I am saying that man created science. I am talking about how science was created. You are giving me dictionary definitions of what science is today. Or maybe you are saying that God created science, not man. Interesting.

Yes but Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But no Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes but Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > truthy words Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > 1. Man created god, not the other way
> around.
> > > > 2. Science is true whether or not you
> believe
> > > in
> > > > it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Science was created by man to explain things
> we
> > > don't understand. Sound familiar?
> >
> >
> > you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> > meaning of "science"
> >
> > oxford definition: the intellectual and
> practical
> > activity encompassing the systematic study of
> the
> > structure and behavior of the physical and
> natural
> > world through observation and experiment
> >
> > merriam-webster: knowledge about or study of
> the
> > natural world based on facts learned through
> > experiments and observation
>
>
> I am not arguing the meaning of "science." I am
> saying that man created science. I am talking
> about how science was created. You are giving me
> dictionary definitions of what science is today.
> Or maybe you are saying that God created science,
> not man. Interesting.


No, he just thought he was being clever and glib. Turns out he was just being retarded. Nothing new.

truthy words Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Man created god, not the other way around.
> 2. Science is true whether or not you believe in
> it.


So dipshit use science to prove evolution or disprove creationism, instead of the leftist approach to look down your nose at people who believe differently than you do.

Science has neither proven that species evolved from one to another, nor disproved that life was created. Yes the very same science you looked up in the dictionary.

Go back to posting the pictures of cool people you want to fit in with. That is truly the leftist comfort zone.

liberalism=complete intoerance.

All animals are created equal,except liberal animals are more equal.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> liberalism=complete intoerance.
>
> All animals are created equal,except liberal
> animals are more equal.


ah, classic. the conservatarded has no logical retort and, once again, accuses the other side of that which the conservatarded is guilty. that guilt and shame runs so deep and is covered by so many layers of denial that, once again, the conservatarded makes a loud irrational statement. what do you you do for an encore?

How about responding to the science question above leftist? Ah classic leftist tactic. Ignore facts and straw man whenever possible.

Good ole Newt and his fight to force his religion on every American.

In a speech given during his campaign, Newt Gingrich defended his idea that the United States was founded on Christian principles and prayer and Creationism should be put back in schools. This includes teaching creationism and intelligent design along with or instead of evolution.

And the problem with teaching creationism. eside evolution is what leftist?

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the problem with teaching creationism. eside
> evolution is what leftist?

So you believe creationism is correct and should be taught in our schools as correct science?

A simple yes or no please.

Who the fuck are you to tell me how to answer a question. There is just as much science to support creationism as evolution. Troll.

Unless you really don't know this is true. Sad.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who the fuck are you to tell me how to answer a
> question. There is just as much science to support
> creationism as evolution. Troll.
>
> Unless you really don't know this is true. Sad.

Oh here we go... This is the point where a conservative completely avoids an answer and his head blows up.

I answered your question. In fact if you had half a brain you wouldn't have needed to ask it. My head won't blow up from your silliness.

I would be for teaching Creationism if you could provide some sort of coherent theory. Creationism doesn't believe in evolution to the best of my knowledge so that makes the Earth essentially static. It was created at some point with all the existing species. The fossil record doesn't support this. Species come and specis go. Man didn't interact with dinosaurs since they predated him by several million years. How old is the Earth according to Creationism and what evidence do they use to back up this calculation?

I'm waiting to here any plausible "creationism" theory that would need to be taught in public schools.


21"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman.

It's because republicans and the GOP are bunch of snide old men.

A while back, I rented a room from a guy I found on Frontline while waiting for renovations to be finished on my home. He was totally normal when we agreed to the lease terms, but then he started to turn super Jesus freak on everyone I invited over always praising creationism and Christian-only fellowship (hated anyone who was not white, Christian or God fearing). He was a hardcore conservative who angrily debated anyone who didn't fit his Christian lifestyle (no sex before marriage, booze or fun for that matter). You would think he was old, but the freak was only 26, loved to hang out with his weird parents and did Bible study every single week. That was the longest 4 months of my life.

Yessiree Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A while back, I rented a room from a guy I found
> on Frontline while waiting for renovations to be
> finished on my home. He was totally normal when we
> agreed to the lease terms, but then he started to
> turn super Jesus freak on everyone I invited over
> always praising creationism and Christian-only
> fellowship (hated anyone who was not white,
> Christian or God fearing). He was a hardcore
> conservative who angrily debated anyone who didn't
> fit his Christian lifestyle (no sex before
> marriage, booze or fun for that matter). You
> would think he was old, but the freak was only 26,
> loved to hang out with his weird parents and did
> Bible study every single week. That was the
> longest 4 months of my life.


Perhaps your flaming faggotry had something to do with it.

Gee, can you widen the net a bit more with such a broad, generalized statement?

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who the fuck are you to tell me how to answer a
> question. There is just as much science to support
> creationism as evolution. Troll.
>
> Unless you really don't know this is true. Sad.


There is no science to support creationism excelt for a 2000 year old book of fables.

I love this totally logical exchange of information.
Attachments:

3uUGe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yessiree Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A while back, I rented a room from a guy I
> found
> > on Frontline while waiting for renovations to
> be
> > finished on my home. He was totally normal when
> we
> > agreed to the lease terms, but then he started
> to
> > turn super Jesus freak on everyone I invited
> over
> > always praising creationism and Christian-only
> > fellowship (hated anyone who was not white,
> > Christian or God fearing). He was a hardcore
> > conservative who angrily debated anyone who
> didn't
> > fit his Christian lifestyle (no sex before
> > marriage, booze or fun for that matter). You
> > would think he was old, but the freak was only
> 26,
> > loved to hang out with his weird parents and
> did
> > Bible study every single week. That was the
> > longest 4 months of my life.
>
>
> Perhaps your flaming faggotry had something to do
> with it.


Tell me about this faggotry you speak of. You seem to be an expert on the topic.

Mirror mirror Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3uUGe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yessiree Bob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > A while back, I rented a room from a guy I
> > found
> > > on Frontline while waiting for renovations to
> > be
> > > finished on my home. He was totally normal
> when
> > we
> > > agreed to the lease terms, but then he
> started
> > to
> > > turn super Jesus freak on everyone I invited
> > over
> > > always praising creationism and
> Christian-only
> > > fellowship (hated anyone who was not white,
> > > Christian or God fearing). He was a hardcore
> > > conservative who angrily debated anyone who
> > didn't
> > > fit his Christian lifestyle (no sex before
> > > marriage, booze or fun for that matter). You
> > > would think he was old, but the freak was
> only
> > 26,
> > > loved to hang out with his weird parents and
> > did
> > > Bible study every single week. That was the
> > > longest 4 months of my life.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps your flaming faggotry had something to
> do
> > with it.
>
>
> Tell me about this faggotry you speak of. You
> seem to be an expert on the topic.


This faggotry = you. I am an expert on recognizing posts from faggots and yours most definitely are.

>And the problem with teaching creationism. eside evolution is what leftist?

Which version of 'creationism' would you have taught? The usual american vaguely-christian version? How about any of the native american creation myths? Hindu? Norse? Native Australian? If you're gonna open the field to mythology (and assert that all are pretty much on par with ideas hammered out using scientific methodology), how do we choose?

One of the many problems with notions that can be summarized as 'God (or a giant snake, or a wizard) did it' - no room for testing hypotheses. This is important because they can't all be correct and if you can't weed out the wrong ones, none can be regarded as actual information.

Gah, and I hate to say it but Wrongg is right - a list of folks who believe this or that isn't an argument, it's an 'assertion from authority'. Saying something is more likely to be so because so-and-so believed it is weak tea, and it just begs the question of why so-and-so believed it in the first place. Einstein was a smart guy but there's no reason to think he knew more about god and whatnot than the guy who cuts your hair.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2014 02:00AM by abelard.

I just don't get why republicans want a theory taught in public schools that is complete bullshit and has no facts of proof.

No, I don't believe females were created from a bone of a male.

Females were created from the boner of a male.

.
Attachments:

>I just don't get why republicans want a theory taught in public schools that is
>complete bullshit and has no facts of proof.

They're pandering to an electorate - it's part of their job. Trust me, the moment this sorta nonsense no longer makes people think well of them, they'll stop.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I just don't get why republicans want a theory
> taught in public schools that is
> >complete bullshit and has no facts of proof.
>
> They're pandering to an electorate - it's part of
> their job. Trust me, the moment this sorta
> nonsense no longer makes people think well of
> them, they'll stop.

That doesn't make sense either. Why would I associate myself with a bunch of stupid people to get a minority of votes? Christianity in the US is dropping drastically.
Attachments:

The childish, uneducated, intolerant anti American liberal mind must use cartoons when conservative, proud Americans who wave the flag instead of burning it present facts.
http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/profiles/blogs/scientifically-proving-that-darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-is-wrong

Try reading if you dare. Sorry, not many pictures.

>That doesn't make sense either. Why would I associate myself with a bunch of >stupid people to get a minority of votes? Christianity in the US is dropping >drastically.

You dance with the dude who brung ya. Flat-earth appeals have a shelf life but they exist because they do work for a while.

Never gamble on a fart. Someone always looses in the end.

Oh joy, more cartoons.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The childish, uneducated, intolerant anti American
> liberal mind must use cartoons when conservative,
> proud Americans who wave the flag instead of
> burning it present facts.
> http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/profiles/blogs/sci
> entifically-proving-that-darwin-s-theory-of-evolut
> ion-is-wrong
>
> Try reading if you dare. Sorry, not many pictures.

What does that have to with God creating Eve from Adams rib and republicans wanting that taught as science?

You have simply pointed out that there is A flaw in DNA mutations as we have setup our DNA concepts. That doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen.

It means that our DNA models are not complete or missing pieces. DNA is one of the most complex structures on Earth. I'm not surprised that haven't uncoded all DNA perfectly yet.

> http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/profiles/blogs/scientifically-proving-that-darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-is-wrong

>no. 6

Evolution does not solely rely on errors in DNA replication for adaptation. Usually there is sufficient genetic diversity for natural selection to take place.

>no. 7

locally, thermodynamics can be "violated". so you can get local "organization" from chaos. otherwise it wouldn't be possible to build a car. in a local sense, you created organization but in a global sense to create that car you created more entropy in terms of heat.

>no. 8

self-refuted in their own explanation.

>Sometimes two species are close enough to crossbreed, but the offspring are usually sterile.

"usually" meaning not always. also evolution requires intermediary forms to be close enough to crossbreed (obviously).

>no. 9

stellar evolution has no bearing on evolutionary theory. the matter imbalance in our universe has nothing to do with evolution. quantum mechanics is working on a complete solution here. but the short answer is that their appears to be preferred direction for certain state changes.

>no. 10

life on mars (or lack of) is not proven conclusively. regardless, evolution doesn't require life to always evolve is conditions are present.

>no. 11

lack of evidence for other life doesn't prove evolution is wrong. just rare.

>no. 12

there are cave paintings from 40,000 years ago. who made those cave paintings? architecture is a relatively modern invention. man just used to live in whatever natural shelter he found.

>no. 13

redundant argument with regard to Mars. they don't know anything about statistics. even if Mars had the 'right' conditions (which them seem to think is just 'water') Mars has not had a sufficient atmosphere to block UV light which is deadly to DNA causing random mutation and not adaptation (see their own point no. 6). it doesn't matter how time to give Mars, it won't evolve life. no more time wouldn't help since you have to worry about the Sun going nova before you get to life.

as for the genetic difference arguments -- at one point it was theorized that DNA contained a lot of 'junk' (non-coding) sequences that don't contribute to the function of the species in question. if you ignore the 'junk' DNA we are more similar. if you include the 'junk' DNA we are less similar. there is still debate about the importance of non-coding DNA.

LOL this is what all the political arguing amounts to on Fairfaxunderground
Attachments:

The burden of proof is upon religion.

Religion claims the existence of an omnipotent entity we can not see, hear, smell, taste, touch, quantify, qualify, or measure - that lives in a magical place that can't be seen or located.

Follow scientific method to substantiate your claims or just STFU. The burden of proof is upon religion.

Sane and rational people have no reason to listen to or tolerate the dissemination of your fairy tales, and they should not be tolerated anywhere, especially in or near our school system.

You are fine with it being illegal to bring mind and mood altering drugs within 1000 feet of a school, but somehow you think it is okay to pollute the young minds of school age children with religious hocus locus that promotes bigotry, intolerance, and false hopes?!

Please - bring forth a single scientific fact to substantiate your religion.

One the biggest problems for creationism is the existence of dinosaurs and fossils.

I guess just deny that dinosaurs and fossils existed and call there bones and fossils "strange and unique formations but not bones."

that is the greatest GIF ever. I could watch it for hours.

Go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that is the greatest GIF ever. I could watch it
> for hours.

You might want to have your ADD meds changed.

Oh joy, more cartoons.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The childish, uneducated, intolerant anti American
> liberal mind must use cartoons when conservative,
> proud Americans who wave the flag instead of
> burning it present facts.
> http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/profiles/blogs/sci
> entifically-proving-that-darwin-s-theory-of-evolut
> ion-is-wrong
>
> Try reading if you dare. Sorry, not many pictures.


You're citing an ISKCON website as proof against science? LOL


Hare Krishna my brother!

ADD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > that is the greatest GIF ever. I could watch it
> > for hours.
>
> You might want to have your ADD meds changed.


that would be OCD meds. not ADD duh.

Go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ADD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Go Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > that is the greatest GIF ever. I could watch
> it
> > > for hours.
> >
> > You might want to have your ADD meds changed.
>
>
> that would be OCD meds. not ADD duh.

ADD\ADHD = Attention Deficit Disorder.

ADHD is often accompanied by:

Anxiety
Learning disabilities (in children & teens)
Speech or hearing problems (in children & teens)
Obsessive-compulsive disorder</b.
Tics
Behavioral problems such as oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) (in children & teens)

Red Dragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ADD Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Go Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > that is the greatest GIF ever. I could
> watch
> > it
> > > > for hours.
> > >
> > > You might want to have your ADD meds changed.
> >
> >
> > that would be OCD meds. not ADD duh.
>
> ADD\ADHD = Attention Deficit Disorder.
>
> ADHD is often accompanied by:
>
> Anxiety
> Learning disabilities (in children & teens)
> Speech or hearing problems (in children & teens)
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder Tics
> Behavioral problems such as oppositional defiant
> disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) (in
> children & teens)


key word "accompanied by" as in NOT the same just "along with"

key word "accompanied by" as in NOT the same just "along with"

Who cares. It's some staged video of two girls running into each other with rubber balls. Maybe they could be more creative next time.

The GOP have always had whacked out ideas when it comes to science. I still hear people today saying they don't believe in global.

As for evolution I think the evidence is VERY clear that it's true or a very sound theory. Republicans keep denying it because they think the bible is a science manual.
Attachments:

You idiots understand that evolution scientists to a person say man did not evolve from apes right? you all aren't really dumb enough to mock others,and be so ignorant of your own beliefs as to suggest that science believes man evolved from apes right?

You really aren't that stupid,right?

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You idiots understand that evolution scientists to
> a person say man did not evolve from apes right?
> you all aren't really dumb enough to mock
> others,and be so ignorant of your own beliefs as
> to suggest that science believes man evolved from
> apes right?
>
> You really aren't that stupid,right?


Actually, yes, they are.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You idiots understand that evolution scientists to
> a person say man did not evolve from apes right?
> you all aren't really dumb enough to mock
> others,and be so ignorant of your own beliefs as
> to suggest that science believes man evolved from
> apes right?
>
> You really aren't that stupid,right?

Funny stuff.
Attachments:

Apey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The GOP have always had whacked out ideas when it
> comes to science.

Last night on Fox News they were saying that there's no such thing as gravity, it's really the Devil grabbing your feet, trying to stop you from floating up to Heaven.