|
|
Post by plungerhand on Sept 30, 2008 11:12:21 GMT -5
+1 for some great reading. You 2 are awesome!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 11:22:54 GMT -5
LOL Man, I've got you snowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Sept 30, 2008 11:22:57 GMT -5
If Palin had nothing to hide, than she would be cooperating with the speedy investigation, instead she is trying to make sure that we don't know whether she is guilty until after we've decided whether or not she is going to be our next VP. Again, the last part of your statement kind of sounds like the "end justifies the means".
Please don't blame Katie Couric, for Palin's pathetic, talking-point riddled, answer.
I did imply that McCain didn't need the grades, but I don't know if he had them or not. I stand by my statement that his father and grandfather had plenty of authority to get John in whether or not he deserved to be there. Regardless of that, he was still the 5th from the bottom of his class.
I don't "blindly follow the theory of evolution". I simply recognize that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution exists, and the evidence supporting young earth creationism does not exist. I went to the Creation Museum and watched hundreds of children being brainwashed with this nonsense. Until Creationist can present some sort of verifiable evidence to support their belief, it absolutely should not be taught along side Evolution.
I thought Palin was a bad pick from the beginning, now it appears that her star is falling and the majority of people are starting to agree with that.
PS- I enjoy debating informed opposition as well. Good work.
|
|
|
|
Post by residentialevil on Sept 30, 2008 11:26:00 GMT -5
Ignoring the evidence? Look I don't blindly believe the earth is 6000 years old either, but if you know as much about about the theory of evolution as you seem to claim you do, you would know how much assumption has over time become "fact". Even hardcore evolutionists admit that.
But I really don't want to get into the creationism/evolution debate. Neither side can prove anything substantial, and we're here so might as well just enjoy it no matter how it happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Sept 30, 2008 11:26:20 GMT -5
LOL Man, I've got you snowed. That's more like it! Sportsmanship is overrated in internet fights. ;D Seriously though, my devil maker would destroy you... |
|
|
|
Post by residentialevil on Sept 30, 2008 11:29:11 GMT -5
I don't "blindly follow the theory of evolution". I simply recognize that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution exists, and the evidence supporting young earth creationism does not exist. I went to the Creation Museum and watched hundreds of children being brainwashed with this nonsense. Until Creationist can present some sort of verifiable evidence to support their belief, it absolutely should not be taught along side Evolution. This is where you lose me. I can't speak for the Creation Museum, but there are plenty of reputable scientists with evidence that does support creationism, or at least intelligent design. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you. |
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Sept 30, 2008 11:31:48 GMT -5
Ignoring the evidence? Look I don't blindly believe the earth is 6000 years old either, but if you know as much about about the theory of evolution as you seem to claim you do, you would know how much assumption has over time become "fact". Even hardcore evolutionists admit that. But I really don't want to get into the creationism/evolution debate. Neither side can prove anything substantial, and we're here so might as well just enjoy it no matter how it happened. I love the title "hardcore evolutionists". What does that even mean? As I said, there is verifiable evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is no verifiable evidence that supports the theory of young earth creationism. |
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Sept 30, 2008 11:36:59 GMT -5
I don't "blindly follow the theory of evolution". I simply recognize that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution exists, and the evidence supporting young earth creationism does not exist. I went to the Creation Museum and watched hundreds of children being brainwashed with this nonsense. Until Creationist can present some sort of verifiable evidence to support their belief, it absolutely should not be taught along side Evolution. This is where you lose me. I can't speak for the Creation Museum, but there are plenty of reputable scientists with evidence that does support creationism, or at least intelligent design. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you. Evidence that can not be verified through independent experiments, does not qualify as scientific evidence. I recommend taking a trip to the Creation Museum, and you will see the quality of "evidence" that is used to bolster this ridiculous belief. No joke, it's worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 11:41:58 GMT -5
Whereas I had no idea EITHER museum even existed.
Damn, they make museums for everything. (Said the dude who lives in the same town as the Bottle Museum.)
|
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Sept 30, 2008 11:43:39 GMT -5
If you want to "believe" in creation because your God told you to, that's fine. But to ignore the different species of man at various periods and stages of evolution in the last 30,000 years is just ludicrous. You can look at the mongoloid features of people living today in remote corners of the earth and STILL see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 12:17:51 GMT -5
But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA?
I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple.
What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA?
|
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Sept 30, 2008 12:36:19 GMT -5
But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA? I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple. What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA? I am not saying we didn't come from somewhere, I'm saying I been around long enough to believe nobody on this earth, past or present, has gotten it right. |
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 12:55:28 GMT -5
So then....you're....wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Sept 30, 2008 13:02:44 GMT -5
So then....you're....wrong? not wrong, still deep in thought. Also not pushing false ideals or opinions on others.. Your skills are good, if not great. I know when I am out matched....* bows |
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 13:21:21 GMT -5
HAHA...it's all good.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Sept 30, 2008 13:29:49 GMT -5
But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA? I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple. What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA? Here is one of the pictures from the Creation Museum that I took, just to show how ridiculous, idiotic, and baseless their theories are. They actually do believe in "evolution" they just won't admit that it happened over millions of years because that would disprove their central belief of the young earth. Therefore they teach that organisms did in fact evolve, but only because God gave them "special tools to do so". I've studied both sides of the argument, and I stand by all the previous statements that I've made. One is based on verifiable evidence, and one is based on nothing but a stubborn belief system.  |
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Sept 30, 2008 13:34:27 GMT -5
I truly wish that I was making this stuff up. Basically the young earth creationists believe that evolution definitely happened, they just won't admit that it took longer than 6000 years, because that would contradict something in the bible. So if you're going to try and argue against Evolution, please realize that both sides believe in it to some extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 13:47:51 GMT -5
The problem is that neither side is completely "prove-able". Evolutionists have a scientific trend that they believe proves them right, and Creationists can't be argued with because the entire belief is rooted in "faith", which can't be proven or disproven.
Personally, I think God put some beings here, and we "matured" (I stop short of saying evolved, because the word has such strict meaning in this particular discussion) from there. Man has gotten taller, for example. In a form, this could be a sort of evolution, but I can't believe we evolved from paramecia in a bog somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Sept 30, 2008 14:06:14 GMT -5
The problem is that neither side is completely "prove-able". Evolutionists have a scientific trend that they believe proves them right, and Creationists can't be argued with because the entire belief is rooted in "faith", which can't be proven or disproven. Personally, I think God put some beings here, and we "matured" (I stop short of saying evolved, because the word has such strict meaning in this particular discussion) from there. Man has gotten taller, for example. In a form, this could be a sort of evolution, but I can't believe we evolved from paramecia in a bog somewhere. I think you're misunderstanding the point of the theory of evolution. Scientists aren't trying to prove it, they're actively trying to disprove it. They're conducting experiments and observations that attempt to disprove basic arguments of the theory, and their inability to do this only further supports the theory. If there was verifiable evidence that something didn't fit in the theory, then the theory would be modified to not include that element. Creationists on the other hand, have a "theory" and they simply ignore any evidence that contradicts their theory and then make speculations that conform to the theory. It is very hard to try and briefly explain this, but if you can get over the title, Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" is an excellent source that will answer many of the questions you seem to have. |
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 14:44:16 GMT -5
Honestly? I don't care either way - how I got here doesn't change that I am.
|
|
oldsquid
Eric Zane's huge nose
Posts: 48
|
Post by oldsquid on Sept 30, 2008 17:15:01 GMT -5
For the short term she was a good political choice. She solidified the GOP base, she fresh and took the spotlight away from Obama giving the Democratic ticket no post convention bounce. Now almost a month later the kinks in the armor is starting to show and the freshness is wearing off.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Sept 30, 2008 17:52:03 GMT -5
I think you're misinterpreting the data. Obama is up right now, there's no doubting that. Gallup and Rasmussen have him by 6, and Marist College has him by 5. Taking into consideration the margin of error, that's near a dead heat, with a slight edge toward Obama.
But that doesn't necessarily indicate "the freshness is wearing off". Several weeks have passed since the last of the RNC, even MORE time has passed since the DNC, and there's only been one debate. There just hasn't been much to really push on that motivation button recently. Once a few debates go down, both POTUS and VP, a clearer picture will emerge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Sept 30, 2008 20:31:25 GMT -5
Barack graduated from Harvard Law School with Honors, Biden also graduated from law school near the top of his class. These are incredibly intelligent guys who will actually look at the information available to them before making a decision. McCain and Palin are just two more intellectually average "shoot from the hip, think with your gut" Republicans. Do you really want more of that?! Eff no... Most Americans are smart, but very few of us have graduated "cum Laud" from Harvard Law School and thats part of the problem. Neither this batch of democrats or the last batch appeal to me for that very reason i.e. they seem to come across like average Americans are just part of the great un-washed that need to be fed and taken care of. And since they are smarter than the rest of us they are just the party to do it. I'm just a ex- Regan Democrat and a poor work'in stiff trying to vote for the folks who will keep us the safest and who seem to love our country the most. |
|
|
|
Post by motorboatking on Sept 30, 2008 22:11:12 GMT -5
There has been an onslaught of attacks and critiques on Palin for weeks now. Compare Palin's coverage to Obama's just at the checkout at the grocery store. Compare Palin's interview treatment with Obama's. Just tonight I saw Obama and Biden being interviewed and the main story was if he was getting a dog for his daughters or not. This recent especially one sided treatment is bound to take a toll.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Oct 1, 2008 6:39:29 GMT -5
I don't even know what that means. They're NOT like the rest of us, but they come across as part of the "great unwashed that needs to be fed and taken care of"? Is it me? Am I reading this as contradictory?
And what the hell is a Reagan DEMOCRAT? Ronald Reagan was amazingly conservative. There wasn't a democrat bone in his body.
|
|
|
|
Post by motorboatking on Oct 1, 2008 7:09:30 GMT -5
I don't even know what that means. They're NOT like the rest of us, but they come across as part of the "great unwashed that needs to be fed and taken care of"? Is it me? Am I reading this as contradictory? And what the hell is a Reagan DEMOCRAT? Ronald Reagan was amazingly conservative. There wasn't a democrat bone in his body. I believe he's on your side of the table. Reagan used to be a democrat but he was conservative. He said that the democrat party left him not that he left them. He remained conservative while they became more and more liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by hotzester on Oct 1, 2008 7:34:07 GMT -5
No no, I also think he's agreeing with me, it just seemed to be worded....oddly....and I couldn't follow it.
|
|
oldsquid
Eric Zane's huge nose
Posts: 48
|
Post by oldsquid on Oct 1, 2008 16:04:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Oct 1, 2008 17:06:38 GMT -5
But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA? I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple.What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA? The fact that humans have DNA very comparable to chimpanzees proves nothing, if it weren't for the fact that we can also compare the traits of humans and chimps. Does it surprise you that the DNA of humans and chimps is 98% the same when you look at all their similar structure(also called homologous structures)? It shouldn't. Similarly, we share 85% of our DNA with Zebra Fish. At first glance fish and humans don't seem similar, but relative to the rest of the animal kingdom they are. Both are vertebrae, and vertebrae animals are a small percentage of species in the animal kingdom. They have also developed bilateral symmetry, which is one of the first ways to divide species in the animal kingdom. Now look at a cladogram, which has a "branch" where each species loses a common trait. So in this case, the chimpanzee has all of the branch traits, and the hagfish has none.  Can you look at this picture and see that as organisms on the cladogram have more in common with chimpanzees, the percentage of DNA they share with humans would increase? A mouse is a mammal, and shares many characteristics with humans. They have four limbs, live berth, teeth, hair, cephalization (a trait common in many animals), live on land, and many more traits. As for the origin of DNA, there are ideas for where it cam from, but none of those is relevant to the function of DNA. The fact that I don't know where DNA came from doesn't mean the entire Theory of Evolution is null and void. The argument for saying "it's just a theory" is also pretty ridiculous, look up the definition of scientific theory and you'll find that in order to become a theory a "scientific idea" must undergo rigorous testing. In science a theory is a testable model for a natural phenomena. A theory must be able to make predictions about what will happen, and must be able to withstand the rigors of scientific experiments. So far no legitimate scientific experiments have disproved evolution. Some reading material: www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml - This will help you understand just how much DNA we have and how much it codes for. www.thetech.org/genetics/common.php - how much DNA we share with some well known species. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270557/homology - homology and its application in evolution ...hopefully this doesn't make me sound "pretentious", and provides SOME explanation for my beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Oct 1, 2008 19:54:22 GMT -5
No no, I also think he's agreeing with me, it just seemed to be worded....oddly....and I couldn't follow it. I wondered if I was wording my post properly. Actually I've got too much stuff going on in it. |
|
