48 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

http://www.crooksand...e-in-evolution/
Video of when the question was asked in the Republican debate.
(Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee with their hands up.)

[Live Forever]

It doesn't play on my laptop, I still doubt there are more ways just than evolution, there's gotta be.

You say you doubt there are more ways than evolution, then you say there's gotta be. Those 2 statements don't make sense together in the same sentence.

In any event, I am surprised that anyone running for a high public office would admit their ignorance on the subject by raising their hand, but I supposed it is to be expected since the majority of people in the US believe in creationism. (luckily not scientists, who agree over 99% that evolution is true and creationism is bunk)

[AaronCW]

That was a great question, no political sidestepping possible, although I'm sure some of those that did not raise their hands will have their alibis and excuses to offer the base.

As appalling as it is to see US Senators admit a complete denial of reality, but I’m kind of relieved that it was only three! I think that this so called debate, as creationists like to pretend that it is, can last only so long. I know it’s been well over a century now, but hopefully this resurgence of religious righteousness will come to a head in the US and then die off. At least maybe the Democrats will pick up the religion stick (which they should properly have) and the Republican party can wash its hands of it.

[Live Forever]

At least maybe the Democrats will pick up the religion stick (which they should properly have) and the Republican party can wash its hands of it.

Unless the Dems adopt pro-life, anti-homosexual stances, then the fundies will stick with the Repubs, imo. (although, interestingly enough, the front runner in the Republican race, Giulianni, is pro same sex marriage and pro choice, even though he has been trying to tone that down to keep the base in his corner; McCain is fairly good on those 2 issues as well.)

If we could ever get someone as socially as liberal as the Dems on most issues, but as fiscally as conservative as the Republicans on most issues, with a healthy dose of personal freedoms mixed in, then we would really have something. (that something being a Libertarian, I suppose)

[eternaltraveler]

If we could ever get someone as socially as liberal as the Dems on most issues, but as fiscally as conservative as the Republicans on most issues, with a healthy dose of personal freedoms mixed in, then we would really have something. (that something being a Libertarian, I suppose)

alas the govenator cannot run...

[da vinci]

It doesn't play on my laptop, I still doubt there are more ways just than evolution, there's gotta be.

You say you doubt there are more ways than evolution, then you say there's gotta be. Those 2 statements don't make sense together in the same sentence.

In any event, I am surprised that anyone running for a high public office would admit their ignorance on the subject by raising their hand, but I supposed it is to be expected since the majority of people in the US believe in creationism. (luckily not scientists, who agree over 99% that evolution is true and creationism is bunk)

1. I'm not saying creationism.

2. I am saying the fact might be beyond my doubt.

3. I'm not expecting you to understand it if you don't want to.

[knite]

QUOTE (Live Forever)
QUOTE (da vinci)
It doesn't play on my laptop, I still doubt there are more ways just than evolution, there's gotta be.

You say you doubt there are more ways than evolution, then you say there's gotta be. Those 2 statements don't make sense together in the same sentence.

In any event, I am surprised that anyone running for a high public office would admit their ignorance on the subject by raising their hand, but I supposed it is to be expected since the majority of people in the US believe in creationism. (luckily not scientists, who agree over 99% that evolution is true and creationism is bunk)


1. I'm not saying creationism.

2. I am saying the fact might be beyond my doubt.

3. I'm not expecting you to understand it if you don't want to.

Im pretty sure he means he just doesnt understand what you are trying to say, I dont either, because you say "I still doubt.." which implies you think there are no other plausible explanations than evolution, and then "...theres gotta be." sounds like you dont believe evolution explains things well enough, so there has to be another one. So, its your sentence that doesnt make sense, as we dont know what your idea is.

[Live Forever]

It doesn't play on my laptop, I still doubt there are more ways just than evolution, there's gotta be.

You say you doubt there are more ways than evolution, then you say there's gotta be. Those 2 statements don't make sense together in the same sentence.

In any event, I am surprised that anyone running for a high public office would admit their ignorance on the subject by raising their hand, but I supposed it is to be expected since the majority of people in the US believe in creationism. (luckily not scientists, who agree over 99% that evolution is true and creationism is bunk)

1. I'm not saying creationism.

2. I am saying the fact might be beyond my doubt.

3. I'm not expecting you to understand it if you don't want to.

1. I didn't say you said creationism. I just said your two statements were in conflict. The second part of my statement had nothing to do with you. (Why I separated it with the wording like I did)

2. "I am saying the fact might be beyond my doubt" is a sentence that does not make grammatical sense, much in the same way that your original statement of "I still doubt there are more ways just than evolution, there's gotta be." did not make grammatical sense. (the one that you have removed it appears) I just don't logically follow what you are trying to say.

3. The point is I do want to understand, but it is hard to follow what you are saying sometimes. (I am assuming English is a second language for you?) It is ok; I am not chastising you or making fun of you in any way, I was just trying to clarify what you were saying, because it did not make logical sense. (In the statement that you removed, the first part of the sentence and the second part were in conflict.)

[da vinci]

[quote][quote]It doesn't play on my laptop, I still doubt there are more ways just than evolution, there's gotta be.[/quote]
You say you doubt there are more ways than evolution, then you say there's gotta be. Those 2 statements don't make sense together in the same sentence.

Let's put it this way.

I doubted Alan is a man's name, it gotta be a man's name. The second part is to empathize that my feelings towards the first one. Th fact and what I doubt has nothing to do with each other, and I can not see they conflict. I do not think it is a grammer mistake or illogical. If you think they conflict, it will lead to one of these statements not true which means either my doubt was wrong, or the fact that Alan is actually a girl's name. Which I don't think that's what I meant somehow.



I do not like people accusing me being illogical or mentally disturbed -- if it's what I haven't said that you do not know, whether I tell you or not is another matter.

I can provide any documents you need about my mental state from NHS. Also you can check my IQ performance from British Mensa.

And do not pull out the racial minority thing saying I can't speak English. I can provide both my British and American language test result, Elts and Tofel.

You do know the earth is round, don't you? How come there's not a Eastern section in your Regional Discussion? If we are all dead it's another thing, but knowing the earth is round and wiped out half of it as a global org. I think it's being Racist. I bet some of you do know there's a place called the East and there's China and Japan, ect...

I do not wish to be recognaised as a member of any org. Please delect my account, I will not further this conversation anymore. If you are not happy with what I said, you can contact me through Chinese Embassy London Office. Find yourself a lawyer.

[Shepard]

I have to remove my previous awarding of "Best. Post. Ever", because we have a new king in town.

Best. Post. Ever.

[JohnDoe1234]

[8)]

EDIT: Oh yeah... about evolution, I am glad he stuck to the rules and answered exactly the way he was told to, and that only 3 other hands were raised, I think that even though most of the candidates there are creationists, the evolution camp won that 18 seconds... I'm going to go download the entire debate later today

[RighteousReason]

I like how McCain kind of froze up a little bit at that question

^_^

[Live Forever]

It doesn't play on my laptop, I still doubt there are more ways just than evolution, there's gotta be.

You say you doubt there are more ways than evolution, then you say there's gotta be. Those 2 statements don't make sense together in the same sentence.

Let's put it this way.

I doubted Alan is a man's name, it gotta be a man's name. The second part is to empathize that my feelings towards the first one. Th fact and what I doubt has nothing to do with each other, and I can not see they conflict. I do not think it is a grammer mistake or illogical. If you think they conflict, it will lead to one of these statements not true which means either my doubt was wrong, or the fact that Alan is actually a girl's name. Which I don't think that's what I meant somehow.



I do not like people accusing me being illogical or mentally disturbed -- if it's what I haven't said that you do not know, whether I tell you or not is another matter.

I can provide any documents you need about my mental state from NHS. Also you can check my IQ performance from British Mensa.

And do not pull out the racial minority thing saying I can't speak English. I can provide both my British and American language test result, Elts and Tofel.

You do know the earth is round, don't you? How come there's not a Eastern section in your Regional Discussion? If we are all dead it's another thing, but knowing the earth is round and wiped out half of it as a global org. I think it's being Racist. I bet some of you do know there's a place called the East and there's China and Japan, ect...

I do not wish to be recognaised as a member of any org. Please delect my account, I will not further this conversation anymore. If you are not happy with what I said, you can contact me through Chinese Embassy London Office. Find yourself a lawyer.

All I can say after reading that is, who tha' what tha'? [8)]

[Live Forever]

Here it is on the Washington Post blog:
http://blog.washingt...and_of_god.html

...and here is the video on YouTube for anyone that couldn't get the above to play:

[JohnDoe1234]

Shame on you McCain!

[Matthias]

How come there's not a Eastern section in your Regional Discussion?

hi da_vinci,

perhaps it's because last time we set up a new regional forum (the Scandinavian one) it didn't become very frequented afterwards.

But it's a good idea to create one, so I bumped the corresponding thread in the suggestions forum to the surface again:

http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=177&t=9226

[Aegist]

Ahhh, tis good to be back amongst my own. I've been participating in an online webmaster based forum recently, and I swear 90% of the members there are young earth creationists who actually believe in a literal flood covering the entire earth.

They are impossible to discuss with because every scientific fact you present, they deny it as 'An assumption', yet the basis for what they say....well, those are facts stated by God himself. And no matter how obviously wrong that is, you simply can't 'Debate' it.

It is so frustrating.

[struct]

[Live Forever]

Ahhh, tis good to be back amongst my own. I've been participating in an online webmaster based forum recently, and I swear 90% of the members there are young earth creationists who actually believe in a literal flood covering the entire earth.

They are impossible to discuss with because every scientific fact you present, they deny it as 'An assumption', yet the basis for what they say....well, those are facts stated by God himself. And no matter how obviously wrong that is, you simply can't 'Debate' it.

It is so frustrating.

Oh I know those types. They never can answer me why the more and more someone is educated on the subject, the more and more likely they are to believe in evolution. Scientists (those with a PhD in a science related field) are over 99% in agreement that evolution is true, which I think would not be the case if evidence pointed to something else.

Also, I like how they always say "it's only a theory", to which I respond, "yeah, that and that darned theory of gravity".

By the way, why do they always call themselves "young earth creationists" as opposed to just "creationists"? Is there such a thing as an "old earth creationist"? If so, I haven't ever heard of them.

[Aegist]

I don't think they necessarily call themselves YEC's, so much as it is just a technically accurate name. Old earth Creationists are most certainly far less common, but I even know one personally. He believe the Earth has been around for billions of years or even longer, and that God created animals in their 'Kinds' all that time ago, and since then there has simply been genetic variation of the species (no actual evolution).

YEC is simply a more accurate description so that you know for sure that someone who isa YEC believes that not only is evolution wrong, but basically, they deny all of science in order to maintain that belief.

[Live Forever]

You are a wealth of knowledge, Aegist. I was interested, so I googled and found this:
http://en.wikipedia....rth_creationism

I wouldn't especially mind someone that is a "Day Age Creationist" (as described in the entry, one that thinks that each day is representative of long periods of time, although not technically, but the general idea). I have heard people say this before, and that it is just figurative language being used in Genesis. Even though I don't necessarily believe the same as them, I do not really have a problem with someone that believes in science (evolution included), but also believes there is a god (or believes that evolution was God's tool). As long as they aren't throwing out good science just to support their beliefs, I don't really have a problem what they believe apart from that.

[Aegist]

It is true, I do waste way too much of my time debating this topic with people who have no idea what the topic even is... I mean, these people have a set in stone opinion about a matter which they have ZERO knowledge on.

Stop it aegist!

OK, no more rantings...

I personally have fallen into line with Dawkins' way of thinking (again). God, religion, superstition...the whole lot should be treated the same as we treat every other form of claim of factuality. The way the universe is would be very different between a version with a god and a version without a god. Without doubt, thus it should be easily testable to prove or disprove a god, if not absolutely (for it seems nothing is absolutely provable), then at least to a level of reasonableness, where it would be unreasonable to go against the evidence.

And thus far, there is no evidence for god. Aside from the sort of 'evidence' expressed by the Senator in the clip at the beginning of this thread. "When I go to the grand Canyon and see a Sun rise, I know God's hand is in it...."......... As if that is any sort of evidence. Yet they swallow it up and wallow in it as if it is.

[Athanasios]

"When I go to the grand Canyon and see a Sun rise, I know God's hand is in it...."......... As if that is any sort of evidence. Yet they swallow it up and wallow in it as if it is.

I am not sure how many preachers realize that they are using the exact techniques that have been shown effective for group mind control. There are a few sociopath types that I am sure understand what they are doing. Others, I think, believe it themselves. They equate the bliss they can feel to 'God' and truth. What they do not realize is that you can bliss out this way on other things; they have just been taught to associate it with the one. They use this 'feeling' as the basis of their argument, and if you confront it, they feel like they will lose it.

As Marjoe Gortner said, 'The marks never realized that they could do it for themselves. They all think they need me jacking them off!'
http://en.wikipedia..../Marjoe_Gortner

Studying how brainwashing works is a great crash course to the workings of your mind.

You Tube Vid of him:

[Live Forever]

Wow, that Marjoe guy looks interesting. I might have to try to find that movie somewhere.

The way he was talking in that one part of the Youtube clip, where he was talking about the stuff he said on stage when talking about kicking drugs and stuff; I have heard almost exactly the same type of talk (voice inflection and everything) from preachers before.

And in that part where he was on stage, he looked a lot like Benny Hinn.

Interesting...

[struct]

Idiocracy (part 1-9):
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=

[Live Forever]

That is a hilarious movie, struct. I saw it a few weeks ago and loved it.

[struct]

I didn't see the movie; I saw all these clips (which, I suppose, make up the movie) and really enjoyed it.

[Aegist]

OK, I just watched it all, and I must say, for the massive amounts of hyperbole it was obviously trying to use, it really made some incredibly scary and valid points which I think we are already seeing....

[Live Forever]

Just to say one thing; One of the very first premises of the movie, Idiocracy is that humans are getting stupider over the generations, and over the past several decades, the average IQ points (if you believe that as a good way to measure intelligence) has been increasing. This might be due to the increasing wealth of the world overall or some other factors. (I tend to think it is the wealth thing, which would allow for more education in poor countries) In any event, IQ is increasing, not decreasing. (yes, I realize that wouldn't have made as good of a movie)

(I can provide the data if anyone is interested)

Hopefully I'm not a stick in the mud, but I felt I needed to respond since the movie was brought up.

Edited by Live Forever, 09 May 2007 - 03:59 PM.

[DJS]

My favorite character was President Kamacho. [lol]