0bama lies so much- how am I supposed to believe him on this issue?

It would seem to me to be only fair to either use both candidates past public statements or to use only answers that they have specifically given for this article. This seems disingenuous and contrived to me.

I have to say that I agree with Obama on this on. ID is religious bunk and that's that.

So neither believe in ID ... Good.

Now we need to check to see if they believe our rights are endowed by our Creator and are unalienable.

"I believe in evolution" is not a good response.

I glanced at the article, don't think "Obama" answered any of the questions directly.

Neither campaign cares about technology.

Or the economy.

Or, in general, issues.

Wot an election.

re: #3 EIDE_Interface

I have to say that I agree with Obama on this on. ID is religious bunk and that's that.

I don't think it is a matter at all of which individual you agree with. To my mind, the article presents a distorted and prejudicial point of view of both candidates by using only John McCain's past statements and only Obama's (known for flip flopping) statements tailored specifically to this article.

re: #5 itellu3times

"I believe in evolution" is not a good response.

I glanced at the article, don't think "Obama" answered any of the questions directly.

Neither campaign cares about technology.

Or the economy.

Or, in general, issues.

Wot an election.

I don't think that is necessarily the truth. It is my understanding that McCain is pretty prominent in the Senate committee that oversees technology development.

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth?

Yes, and that's why when I'm president, I'm going to reduce funding for scientific research in this area! :-)

Somebody just published a study that dinosaurs won out over competitors related to crocodiles *not* by natural selection, but luck! So it's going to be survival of the luckiest instead.

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

Maybe Darwinist should pass some legislation to stop this line of inquiry (and panspermia while they're at it)!

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

- sk

Obama: I believe in evolution

My positions on most topics are constantly evolving to fit the polls

re: #8 Spar Kling

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth?

Yes, and that's why when I'm president, I'm going to reduce funding for scientific research in this area! :-)

Somebody just published a study that dinosaurs won out over competitors related to crocodiles *not* by natural selection, but luck! So it's going to be survival of the luckiest instead.

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

Maybe Darwinist should pass some legislation to stop this line of inquiry (and panspermia while they're at it)!

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

- sk

Everyone knows....
Dinosaurs had more lobbyists!
/

re: #9 Shug

My positions on most topics are constantly evolving to fit the polls

And are most certainly are not designed intelligently?

Related: US election: Questioning the candidates, part two - Alexandra Witze

Charles Darwin is here

Stand Up Chuck , Let em see ya

re: #8 Spar Kling

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth?

Evolution by natural selection is the scientific explanation for a huge body of evidence that has been challenged, tested, and debated for 150 years.

Whether that's "sufficient" for you is a different question.

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

re: #4 Celtic Templar

So neither believe in ID ... Good.

Now we need to check to see if they believe our rights are endowed by our Creator and are unalienable.

Good point. Without a Creator, there are no inalienable rights. In that case, all rights are either asserted by force, or granted by or revoked by a political body (implied force).

-sk

I challenge anyone to justify how ID is not religious belief. It has no supporting theory.

re: #12 abolitionist

Related: US election: Questioning the candidates, part two - Alexandra Witze

Just note that in is answers B0 speaks again as if he's already POTUS: 'I will direct my Secretary for Energy ...', just to quote an example.

Why doesn't the McCain campaign take him up on this insufferable arrogance? B0 isn't elected yet - and, God willing, won't ever be!

re: #7 galloping granny

I don't think that is necessarily the truth. It is my understanding that McCain is pretty prominent in the Senate committee that oversees technology development.

So then tell me, what technology issue does McCain even mention?

I know Obambi mentions high bandwidth Internet for the masses now and then, which is George Gilder's old holy grail - and a fat lot of nonsense IMHO.

They both give a quick nod to wind and solar and maybe nuke power, which is sort of technology. Neither spends more than a sentence or two on the topic.

Both talk about high-efficiency cars, built by American workers. Only, wtf are they really talking about, hybrid Escalades?

Obama talked about spending $150b on medical technology or epidemiology or something vaguely like that. I have no idea if there is anything behind that but hot air.

Obambi quietly talks about shutting down NASA. Both say something or other about stem cells.

None of these are front-line issues.

McCain has some history of involvement with telecom and technology and trade, but the campaigns are just not focusing on anything like that.

Just note that in is answers B0 speaks again as if he's already POTUS: 'I will direct my Secretary for Energy ...', just to quote an example.

This bothered me too, at first. But I've heard both candidates do it, and I think it's pretty common. I do agree it's arrogant, though.

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

So if Obama says the sky is blue, you will disagree for the sake of disagreeing?

I like McCain's answers. In other classes creation does come up and it's perfectly ok to have differing views of creation presented in philosophy and religion classes in public schools. (e.g. Comparative World Religions, etc.) There's not a disjunct in not wanting it in science class however since that is the realm of the empirical.

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

What the fuck do you mean by that? Nither LGF nor the posters here have anything against a belief in creation. What a lot of us do have a probelm with is theaching ANY FORM of creation in the classroom as some sort of science.

Do you read the post around here, or just jump in with assinine statements?

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

Where did you get that from?

Looks like both don't want ID in schools. McCain thinks students should learn about it, I assume as all other philosophies, junk science, etc. I don't think he endorsed the belief, correct me if I'm seeing it wrong.

Good for BHO that he was willing to bluntly disparage Intelligent Design™.

But looking at it purely from a political standpoint, I though it was dumb of him not to endorse the basic reasonableness of "theistic evolution," as McCain did, rather than couching his response in entirely secular terms. (Since far more voters would support "Evolution with some vague acknowledgment of God" than "Evolution without God.")

re: #15 WitchDoctor

I found one of those Mindless Followers mentioned by Bostom

Intelligent design via annunaki. That's what I'm thinking might be the case. And evolution exists too along with intelligent design by God. They are not mutually exclusive. I see the hand of God in nature, same as John McCain says he sees it in the Grand Canyon at sunset. It's pretty cold and unfeeling not to

Sometimes I look at the sunset and see the face of god. But I wouldn't want to impose that belief on others.

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

Please state the meme you mention in concise terms.

Sorry- I think 0bama would be willing to toss evolution under the bus if he thought it would get him elected, so his answers mean nothing to me. He stands for nothing- all he cares about is his acquisition of power. Anything that gets in the way of that is at risk of the bus treatment.

re: #28 EIDE_Interface

Sometimes I look at the sunset and see the face of god. But I wouldn't want to impose that belief on others.

Serious question, what president has IMPOSED a religious belief? Even with Supreme Court noms? Are there examples of an imposition or even some duplicitous attempt to get religion in?

Most of what I've seen in the past few decades is the opposite - removal of this or that, after the fact (e.g. symbols on flags, 10 commandments, etc.)

re: #29 Thanos

Please state the meme you mention in concise terms.

He/she/it/undead appears to have already run away after making his/her/it's/undeadable's statement.

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Good day, mes damns et mes sewers.

Does anyone have a good link for how many whoppers Obama told us last night?

I wonder how Obama's answer changes if he's asked the same thing while sitting in a pew of a Baptist church in Alabama?

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

re: #29 Thanos

Please state the meme you mention in concise terms.

That's the problem with this generation; its all "meme meme meme".

re: #27 dennisw

Sorry, but you are off base with the last statement. As an atheist I still have an enduring sense of wonder at the universe and all of it's beautiful contents.

Last night we turned on the whole house fan, which creates a small vortex at the bottom of the steps. I stared at the vortex for over an hour watching intently as all the shedded dog fur from Kasey swirled about until it formed a near perfect sphere that whirled around in the vortex. It was entrancing and wonderful to watch the disparate bits of dog fluff coalesce into a miniature planetoid.

Realwest are you on this thread?

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?

re: #39 Typicalwhitey

RW said he got a virus (?) in an email and had to leave.....

re: #33 gunjam

Yes, and science leads to killing people Ben Stein Jr.

/// aren't you tired of that ridiculous circular argument/straw man yet?

If I post my letter would you guys critique it for me?

re: #33 gunjam

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

That's. Just. Stupid.

re: #42 Thanos

Yes, and science leads to killing people Ben Stein Jr.

/// aren't you tired of that ridiculous circular argument/straw man yet?

No he's/she's not. Because they are not capable of critical thinking, just being stinking critical.

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?

Hitler liked dogs. I like dogs. Oh noes!

re: #46 Occasional Reader

Hitler liked dogs. I like dogs. Oh noes!

You Jew-hating, goose-stepping, gas-pushing, blond, zombie Nazi.

/

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?

Well both Hitler and myself believed that the Tiger tank was a great weapon. Am I a Nazi?

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Give me a bit to figure out who the absolute worst person in the entire world is, so I base all my beliefs on the opposite of what they believe.

re: #48 EIDE_Interface

Well both Hitler and myself believed that the Tiger tank was a great weapon. Am I a Nazi?

Um. Yes.

And you notice that gunjam and witchdoctor just drop in and shit these posts and then leave. Not even capable of discussing thier point.

But next time they drive by post, they'll claim that no one ever wants to address thier issues.

Assholes.

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Drinking a beer is better than nothing.
Therefore, drinking a beer is better than eternal happiness

re: #48 EIDE_Interface

Well both Hitler and myself believed that the Tiger tank was a great weapon. Am I a Nazi?

I hope you understand I was being scarcastic? Yes, no?

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Not at all. It's clearly God's plan!

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

This is the same fallacy Kilgore Trout often makes when he is trying to disparage Christianity by noting similar traditions and themes in pagan and gnostic religions. Similarity does not necessitate equivalence or common roots.

re: #55 David IV of Georgia

in pagan and gnostic religions

I'm about to cook up some lunch in my gno-stic frying pan.

Later.

re: #51 Walter L. Newton

And you notice that gunjam and witchdoctor just drop in and shit these posts and then leave.

Those types tend to come back and try to sneak in comments long after the thread is dead.

re: #56 Occasional Reader

I'm about to cook up some lunch in my gno-stic frying pan.

What are you having?

Charles if it's okay with you I'm going to take off for a while and spend the day with my friend and his dogs.

re: #55 David IV of Georgia

This is the same fallacy Kilgore Trout often makes when he is trying to disparage Christianity by noting similar traditions and themes in pagan and gnostic religions. Similarity does not necessitate equivalence or common roots.

What we need is less logical fallacies and more deep examination of the issues. Too much "gotcha" stuff going on here.

re: #60 Noam Sayin'

Charles if it's okay with you I'm going to take off for a while and spend the day with my friend and his dogs.

Can you wait until noon when the second shift comes on?

re: #56 Occasional Reader

I'm about to cook up some lunch in my gno-stic frying pan.

What about your γνω - στι κος frying pan?

Hate to say it, but Nature is a left wing publication.

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf evolutionist devotees are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, at least) with the famous despots of the 20th Century.

Don't try to weasel out of that objective facts with phony appeals to logic.

I did not say you were fans or admirers of these despots, let alone guilty of their crimes against humanity.

I simply said -- and will continue to say -- that on this VERY important issue of origins, Thanos, you and Stalin and Castro share an important tenant of your world view in common.

That, of course, does not make you a commie or a Nazi, and I didn't say it did, so, perhaps YOU should review your logic book?

By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

re: #65 gunjam

Oh you are so asking to be banned.

re: #66 Charles

By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

Hitler was influenced most strongly by the philosopher Schopenhauer, who was big in Germany in his day. He carried around a copy of his book
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation).

If you think about it that's what the Nazis were about. They believed they could will things to be the way the wanted.

re: #69 Archimedes

Hitler was influenced most strongly by the philosopher Schopenhauer, who was big in Germany in his day. He carried around a copy of his book
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation).

If you think about it that's what the Nazis were about. They believed they could will things to be the way the wanted.

Well natural selection killed the Nazi regime!

re: #65 gunjam

You just want someone to start comparing religion to those despots, so you can put on your martyr cloak and leave in your late model huffmobile. I know what you are doing, you are very transparent.

I refuse to pick on religion, I think it's mostly a good thing. Now what exact worldview do I share with Stalin please since you seem to be able to read my mind?

re: #61 EIDE_Interface

What we need is less logical fallacies and more deep examination of the issues. Too much "gotcha" stuff going on here.

I personally do not need any more depth on examination of the issues. Bottom line is, I will vote for McCain over bho. I do not trust barry to protect this country from the jihadists. I believe he will take the billy jeff stance, and make it a criminal case. McCain will take it to our enemies.

I understand why you bring that up, but I don't think too many here need convincing to vote for their candidate.

Until we flush all the bastards from congress and start anew, we (those who produce) will continue to have to bail out those who make poor decisions, and that includes congress, as well as the citizens.

re: #67 EIDE_Interface

Oh you are so asking to be banned.

For what? I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to prove, but it is a statement of fact.

re: #73 geata

For what? I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to prove, but it is a statement of fact.

What is? That if you believe in evolution you are with Hitler and Pol Pot? Why should we tolerate such a person?

re: #65 gunjam

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf thiest (like gunjam) are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, belief in God at least) with the famous anti-semite, Hitler.

Don't try to weasel out of that objective facts with phony appeals to logic.

I did not say gunjam was a fan or admirer of Hitler, let alone guilty of their crimes against humanity.

I simply said -- and will continue to say -- that on this VERY important issue of God, gunjam, you and Hitler share an important tenant of your world view in common.

That, of course, does not make you a a Nazi, and I didn't say it did, so, perhaps YOU should review your logic book?

re: #65 gunjam

I could use that same type of faulty logic to claim that LGF creationist devotees (on that one issue at least) are ideologically in the same company as islamist fundamentalists, and I'd be just as wrong.

re: #65 gunjam

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf evolutionist devotees are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, at least) with the famous despots of the 20th Century.

Don't try to weasel out of that objective facts with phony appeals to logic.

I did not say you were fans or admirers of these despots, let alone guilty of their crimes against humanity.

I simply said -- and will continue to say -- that on this VERY important issue of origins, Thanos, you and Stalin and Castro share an important tenant of your world view in common.

That, of course, does not make you a commie or a Nazi, and I didn't say it did, so, perhaps YOU should review your logic book?

I guess I should be concerned, because Stalin and Castro also believe that drinking water and breathing are essential to life. I'm guessing they also believe in gravity. Oh no, I share so many things in common with the despots!

re: #44 Occasional Reader

That's. Just. Stupid.

No.

In the matter of agreement on evolution: It is an indisputable fact.

And no more stupid than the fact that -- as has often been frequently pointed out in this forum - that both Christians and Muslims believe in creationism.

I admit that i agree with Muslims on creationism. That does not make me a Jihadist -- or even a jihadist-sympathizer. (And, of course, I am not.)

Are you evolutionists even willing to ADMIT the obvious? That you and Lenin are in agreement on the matter of evolution. (And that does NOT make you a Bolshevist-sympathizer, either.)re: #64 Archimedes

Somehow, you all want to wiggle out of even FACING this "unpleasant truth."

re: #77 JamesWI

Off to the gallows.

gunjam - you've just been reported.

re: #74 EIDE_Interface

What is? That if you believe in evolution you are with Hitler and Pol Pot? Why should we tolerate such a person?

I guess by your logic the fact that I am white coupled with the fact that David Duke is whote must make me a racist and therefore should be banned from LGF

re: #75 Walter L. Newton

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf thiest (like gunjam) are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, belief in God at least) with the famous anti-semite, Hitler.

So, Hitler was a creationist?

You have jumped the shark.

re: #64 Archimedes

Hate to say it, but Nature is a left wing publication.

Yeah, it does lean left. But they seem to have been fair with their quotes from McCain.

Some of Obama's answers are duplicates of the ones he gave to Sciencedebate 2008.

re: #77 JamesWI

GMTA ,, (see my #81)

re: #74 EIDE_Interface

What is? That if you believe in evolution you are with Hitler and Pol Pot? Why should we tolerate such a person?

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

re: #77 JamesWI

I guess I should be concerned, because Stalin and Castro also believe that drinking water and breathing are essential to life. I'm guessing they also believe in gravity. Oh no, I share so many things in common with the despots!

It's a strawman position. It proves nothing. And when gunjam says "That, of course, does not make you a commie or a Nazi, and I didn't say it did... ," he proves the point that he is saying NOTHING, since his own words say that his points proves NOTHING.

re: #85 geata

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

Oh come on. He is trying to propagate the meme that Evolutionists = Hitlerites. No amount of trying to nuance it back.

re: #80 EIDE_Interface

gunjam - you've just been reported.

A lesson from the late General Douglas MacArthur: "Never tattle."

It isn't manly.

re: #78 gunjam

It's still a logical fallacy, Stalin and party were directly opposed to science.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Just as the Discovery Institute is.

re: #37 Occasional Reader

That's the problem with this generation; its all "meme meme meme".

After all, a meme is a terrible thing to waste.

re: #82 gunjam

hitler was opposed to state atheism.

re: #91 Sharmuta

hitler was opposed to state atheism.

Now I don't know who I'm with! Thanks Sharmuta for messing with my mind.

re: #85 geata

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

Then the bottom line is his point PROVES NOR MEANS NOTHING. Except to stir the pot (and make himself sound stupid).

re: #94 Walter L. Newton

Then the bottom line is his point PROVES NOR MEANS NOTHING. Except to stir the pot (and make himself sound stupid).

He's stirring the Pol Pot, no pun intended...

re: #87 EIDE_Interface

Oh come on. He is trying to propagate the meme that Evolutionists = Hitlerites. No amount of trying to nuance it back.

I think you're reading a little too much into what he said, though I might be wrong. It's amazing how this debate touches people's nerves. I'm undecided so I get to irk both sides (and, at the same time, find both sides annoying). Why can't we all just get along?

re: #19 itellu3times

Is there some reason why they should?

BOR-RING

I really don't give a good dump what either candidate thinks about evolution or some contrived evolution v religion argument.

The only thing that matters to me on this debate is which candidate is going to put the smack-down on the type of creeps whose opinion on the evolution matter is "Allah created the world and al-Q'u'r'a'n, and you had better believe it or else."

re: #96 geata

I think you're reading a little too much into what he said, though I might be wrong. It's amazing how this debate touches people's nerves. I'm undecided so I get to irk both sides (and, at the same time, find both sides annoying). Why can't we all just get along?

Sorry but you are trying to defend the evil troll. Down ding.

I think we are all allowed here to state our opinions without getting hammered. Gunjam is pointing out a fact. So...no biggee in my book, and certainly no reason to *report* him.

re: #85 geata

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

Hitler never mentions Darwin or evolution in Mein Kapmf. In fact- Darwin was banned in Germany, so unless you have a link to back up your claim that those of us who accept the validity of evolution are agreeing with nazi ideology, STFU.

re: #98 Abdullah al-Libi

Speaking truth to power!

"Are you evolutionists even willing to ADMIT the obvious? That you and Lenin are in agreement on the matter of evolution. (And that does NOT make you a Bolshevist-sympathizer, either.)"

Okay, I'll agree with you gunjam... Lenin and myself are in agreement on the matter of evolution.

Now, what does that mean? Explain what your point is. Where are you going with this stream of "logic."

(I refuse to use the word logic without the quotes in this case, since it is evident gunjam know nothing about the study of logic and he does not have a facility for critical thinking)

re: #34 Occasional Reader

Good day, mes damns et mes sewers.

Does anyone have a good link for how many whoppers Obama told us last night?

The best comment was that the clothes had no emperor!

GAZE

re: #96 geata

I think you're reading a little too much into what he said, though I might be wrong. It's amazing how this debate touches people's nerves. I'm undecided so I get to irk both sides (and, at the same time, find both sides annoying). Why can't we all just get along?

Then you explain it to us, oh great one.

re: #78 gunjam

I call you on your crap. Creationism is very specific. I am a Christian, therefore I believe in Creationism? I dinged you down cuz your logic sucks.

Again, Stalin was anti-science and supported pseudo-science over science. This led to mass starvation. Ignoring science and empircal fact leads to genocide.
LYSENKOISM

Fascinating! While trying to search for a connection between Lenin and evolution, most of the sites coming up are those belonging to the YEC crowd.

re: #108 Thanos

Again, Stalin was anti-science and supported pseudo-science over science. This led to mass starvation. Ignoring science and empircal fact leads to genocide.
LYSENKOISM

Also I'm waiting for the report that Pol Pot was a real science backer.

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

Then you explain it to us, oh great one.

Ooooh. Sarcasm.

re: #78 gunjam

MOF, I think your gun is permanently jammed.

Anybody have a video of Obama's bracelet moment?

gunjam and geata, two trolls in a pod. FOAD.

re: #75 Walter L. Newton

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf thiest (like gunjam) are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, belief in God at least) with the famous anti-semite, Hitler.

Did Hitler believe in god?

Nazism, it has to be pointed out, was a secular movement. It didn't require belief in god. The Fuhrer was the figure head of the state. Duechland Uber Alles was the rallying cry. It was a form of collectivism which placed race as the most important element (similar to multiculturalism).

I'm an atheist as I think you are.

I don't consider the Darwin point to be important, because what Darwin did was science. He figured out how nature works in a certain area. It was brilliant and we have gained a great deal from it. I mean, I'm sure that the Nazis also applied Newtonian physics in the building of their weaponry to kill people. Does this make Newton bad?

re: #114 geata

Anybody have a video of Obama's bracelet moment?

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

Obama clearly didn't write those answers, so they don't count.

/ but actually I'd bet he didn't.

re: #111 geata

Ooooh. Sarcasm.

No, not sarcasm, a valid question. Since you seem to have an understanding as to what gunjam is trying to say, and I evidently do not, then could you clarifiy his position for me?

re: #116 Archimedes

Did Hitler believe in god?

Nazism, it has to be pointed out, was a secular movement. It didn't require belief in god. The Fuhrer was the figure head of the state. Duechland Uber Alles was the rallying cry. It was a form of collectivism which placed race as the most important element (similar to multiculturalism).

I'm an atheist as I think you are.

I don't consider the Darwin point to be important, because what Darwin did was science. He figured out how nature works in a certain area. It was brilliant and we have gained a great deal from it. I mean, I'm sure that the Nazis also applied Newtonian physics in the building of their weaponry to kill people. Does this make Newton bad?

Hitler apparently was into paganism. I don't know how much of it was belief or just surface presentations. He definitely believed it would stir up his followers.

Hey! it's an ID thread. Better than pinching yourself to see if you're still alive!

re: #66 Charles

By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

Well noted. I believe the major influences in Hitler's life were his experiences in the trenches on the western front in WWI and his syphilis.

reading obama's answer i felt it was so scripted that he probably didn't even write it. someone else consulted a focus group and wrote that.
mccain's words seem honest and heartfelt. only extremists would find fault w/ what he said.

re: #122 experiencedtraveller

Well noted. I believe the major influences in Hitler's life were his experiences in the trenches on the western front in WWI and his syphilis.

And the Jewish guy who said that Hitler was a mediocre artist.

re: #123 nyc redneck

reading obama's answer i felt it was so scripted that he probably didn't even write it. someone else consulted a focus group and wrote that.
mccain's words seem honest and heartfelt. only extremists would find fault w/ what he said.

McCain - honest and real
Obama - pre scripted, phony empty suit

Not ready to lead, now or ever.

re: #115 EIDE_Interface

gunjam and geata, two trolls in a pod. FOAD.

I'm a troll? Disagreeing with you (and, maybe, possibly, bothering you--just a little) makes me a troll?

OT. The Obama people are knocking on doors here in NH AGAIN today. How many times and in how many ways do I have to tell these people that there is no way in Hell that I would ever vote for him? I just told them that if they knocked on my door again and wake my wife up (she is very ill ) I'm going to give the something they will not expect. They come by 2 a day every weekend I'm fed up, I have no problem with someone calling me once looking for a donation or knocking on my door once but this is ridiculous.

re: #116 Archimedes

Please, I was simply parrotting back the same level of failed logic to gunjam as he was spouting off to us. My response was not to elicite a discussion on this topic using his point of view. I was just trying to highlight the lack of critical thinking on his part.

re: #119 Walter L. Newton

I'm just curious and have not followed geata's comments (but for that one), but would it have been better if it had been Ahhhh instead of Ooooo?

/I'm with ya so far...

re: #127 BBEV

OT. The Obama people are knocking on doors here in NH AGAIN today. How many times and in how many ways do I have to tell these people that there is no way in Hell that I would ever vote for him? I just told them that if they knocked on my door again and wake my wife up (she is very ill ) I'm going to give the something they will not expect. They come by 2 a day every weekend I'm fed up, I have no problem with someone calling me once looking for a donation or knocking on my door once but this is ridiculous.

Maybe next time show up with a shotgun, say "I thought you were intruders".

re: #126 geata

I'm a troll? Disagreeing with you (and, maybe, possibly, bothering you--just a little) makes me a troll?

GAZE

re: #126 geata

I'm a troll? Disagreeing with you (and, maybe, possibly, bothering you--just a little) makes me a troll?

Yea, since you make statement and do not back them up with an answer. You have be questioned a number of times here and all you can do is come back with some invictive, and advoid the question.

re: #103 Walter L. Newton

Now, what does that mean? Explain what your point is. Where are you going with this stream of "logic."

(I refuse to use the word logic without the quotes in this case, since it is evident gunjam know nothing about the study of logic and he does not have a facility for critical thinking)

Thank you: Just that: that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Nature, and YOU are all in agreement on evolution.

That is all I asked, and you manned up, which I acknowledge and appreciate.

Now, just mediate on that fact.

Now, regarding your tone of dripping sarcasm born of (self-supposed) intellectual superiority....

... that is another matter altogether.

ah, gunjam just stepped into the known pile of shit... AGAIN. how stupid.

In an nutshell, I believe that God is the designer who used evolution as a tool.

The "who" part is my belief, the "how" part is science.

Belief is for church because it is a faith position, while science can be taught in science class in public school because there are experiments to back it up.

LGF has helped me identify, and qualify my beliefs about faith and science.

Thanks, Charles.

re: #130 EIDE_Interface

Maybe next time show up with a shotgun, say "I thought you were intruders".

Ya I thought of ansering the door with my 44 sticking out of my belt but I don't think that would go over well.

re: #127 BBEV

OT. The Obama people are knocking on doors here in NH AGAIN today. How many times and in how many ways do I have to tell these people that there is no way in Hell that I would ever vote for him? I just told them that if they knocked on my door again and wake my wife up (she is very ill ) I'm going to give the something they will not expect. They come by 2 a day every weekend I'm fed up, I have no problem with someone calling me once looking for a donation or knocking on my door once but this is ridiculous.

How about, "I'd rather die than vote for Obama."

Or is that too much of an invitation? What vultures these democrats are.

re: #133 gunjam

Thank you: Just that: that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Nature, and YOU are all in agreement on evolution. That is all I asked, and you manned up, which I acknowledge and appreciate.
Now, just mediate on that fact. Now, regarding your tone of dripping sarcasm born of (self-supposed) intellectual superiority....
... that is another matter altogether.

No, now I admitted the correlation. Now, YOU TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS, since you stated the premise. What you are doing is making pronouncements without defending your points.

I manned up, now you stop being so dishonest and answer my question. 9And don't come back and ask me what the question is, you know, the ball is in your court).

re: #132 Walter L. Newton

Yea, since you make statement and do not back them up with an answer. You have be questioned a number of times here and all you can do is come back with some invictive, and advoid the question.

You mean I never answered the question of what gunjam's point was? I don't know. I'm not saying it wasn't dumb, I'm just saying his statement that evolutionists agree with certain distasteful historical figures is a fact. The same way creationists agree with, say, that genius Urban II who up and started a frickin crusade or Leo X who stole from the poor to build fancy churches.

re: #128 Walter L. Newton

Please, I was simply parrotting back the same level of failed logic to gunjam as he was spouting off to us. My response was not to elicite a discussion on this topic using his point of view. I was just trying to highlight the lack of critical thinking on his part.

Sorry, I should probably have stated reading earlier in the thread. :D

re: #140 Archimedes

Sorry, I should probably have stated reading earlier in the thread. :D

stated = started

re: #137 DistantThunder

How about, "I'd rather die than vote for Obama."

Or is that too much of an invitation? What vultures these democrats are.

And they write everything done as if Obama wins they are going to come and take me away, I have campaigned for many people in my life and I never did anything like this.

re: #133 gunjam

And I've already pointed out to you that Stalin was against the biological theory of his day, and like Discovery Institute used pseudo science to attack the facts and scientific method. This led to many of the deaths you mention above, and you have zero comeback.

re: #133 gunjam

My question to you (not interfering w/ Walter since he can hold his own from my perspective), but WHY? They are all human, and I'll even throw myself on the bus with Walter & all the others aforementioned. What differentiates me (and I'm thinking possibly Walter, although I won't answer for him on that one), from the others is that I have a Moral Compass. They may have been born with one, but chose to ignore it.

re: #143 Thanos

And I've already pointed out to you that Stalin was against the biological theory of his day, and like Discovery Institute used pseudo science to attack the facts and scientific method. This led to many of the deaths you mention above, and you have zero comeback.

This is true. He had some bizarre notions of biology.

re: #78 gunjam

And no more stupid than the fact that -- as has often been frequently pointed out in this forum - that both Christians and Muslims believe in creationism.

If you think that accepting the scientific fact of evolution necessarily means embracing metaphysical naturalism (roughly, in this context, the position that we inhabit an atheistic Universe), then it logically follows that everyone who believes in God must embrace some form of creationism.

But as has been pointed out on LGF approximately three quintillion times, many religious people take the position that evolution does not imply a rejection of God's very existence -- but only a rejection of the idea that the diversity of life required God's continual oversight and intervention. (As though God were incapable of designing the Universe to be self-running, self-organizing, and self-complexifying.)

re: #143 Thanos

And I've already pointed out to you that Stalin was against the biological theory of his day, and like Discovery Institute used pseudo science to attack the facts and scientific method. This led to many of the deaths you mention above, and you have zero comeback.

He is not capable of a comeback. See his #133 to me. He is simply a creationist seminar poster who doesn't have the skills or brains to actually discuss the issue, just to drop strawman talking points and then refuse to debate the thread he started.

Seems to me Lenin just used evolution to promote atheism in the Soviet Union. I'm not finding anything that shows Lenin accepted the validity of evolution- just that it was useful for him to promote his ideology. Does anyone have a link from a non-creationist website that shows Lenin accepted evolution beyond using it to promote communism?

re: #139 geata

Now you go and step in a great big pile along with gunjammed. Are you serious, or the left foot of a pair of socks?

re: #117 Thanos

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

Goodbye Little Robin Marie

Don't try following me...

Geata, are you Irish by chance? One of those strange Catholic fundies who think the pope is the Antichrist?

re: #149 Sharmuta

Not to be found. You are correct. It was just a tool.

re: #150 Cap'n DOC

Now you go and step in a great big pile along with gunjammed. Are you serious, or the left foot of a pair of socks?

What? I said that both creationist and evolutionist beliefs have been held by distasteful historical figures. I'm trying to unmake gunjam's point, if you will.

re: #152 Thanos

Goodbye Little Robin Marie

Don't try following me...

Geata, are you Irish by chance? One of those strange Catholic fundies who think the pope is the Antichrist?

Non-denominational protestant from Oklahoma who is willing to listen to both sides of this debate, actually.

re: #66 Charles

By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

Debatable.

(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)

geata - if you persist on going down this path, it will only lead to destruction.

re: #154 geata

What? I said that both creationist and evolutionist beliefs have been held by distasteful historical figures. I'm trying to unmake gunjam's point, if you will.

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

Like totally. Pass the bong please.

re: #133 gunjam

Thank you: Just that: that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Nature, and YOU are all in agreement on evolution.

That is all I asked, and you manned up, which I acknowledge and appreciate.

Now, just mediate on that fact.

Now, regarding your tone of dripping sarcasm born of (self-supposed) intellectual superiority....

... that is another matter altogether.

I did a little googling on the subject of logical fallacies. Wikipedia has an article on Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. Gunjam's assertion appears to be a textbook example of this fallacy.

To quote from the Wikipedia article:

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern informal fallacy in logic. It is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card.

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

I must have missed that post. If he admitted he had no point, then let's leave it at that. I really don't understand why people get so worked up about this.

re: #156 gunjam

Not only is it DI, it's also their infamous method of quote mining, note the ampersands and out of context quotes? Note that the tie to Darwin is implied by stringing sections together that don't fit together. Sharmuta wins this one.

re: #159 EIDE_Interface

Like totally. Pass the bong please.

And gunjam tipped his hand in this reply above...

"(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)"

Even if you believe in creationism, if you follow the precepts of the DI, your an apostate if you don't see creation the exact same way as they do.

re: #156 gunjam

The dishonesty of the DI has be demonstrated many times on this site. Neither Charles nor anyone else here should trust their information or arguments.

re: #139 geata

Pope Leo did not steal from the poor, but rather was extravagantly charitable, for which he was faulted. Not what I'd call a shining pillar, but to say he stole from the poor is a lie.

re: #162 Thanos

Thanks, Thanos.

re: #147 Throbert McGee

But as has been pointed out on LGF approximately three quintillion times, many religious people take the position that evolution does not imply a rejection of God's very existence -- but only a rejection of the idea that the diversity of life required God's continual oversight and intervention. (As though God were incapable of designing the Universe to be self-running, self-organizing, and self-complexifying.)

You are, of course, free to believe as you wish.

However, anyone who A) desires to be logically consistent, and (B) is committed to believing the Bible as written, is logically, morally, and theologically compelled to reject (vertical) evolution on its face.

No one is denying horizontal evolution, better termed adaptation. (This, of course, (unlike Darwinian doctrine) requires no change in species, only in varieties thereof.)

re: #156 gunjam

Debatable.

(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)

Which is like saying someone is a senior fellow at the KKK. It doesn't really speak of anything but someone who has no critical thinking skills.

re: #156 gunjam

Debatable.

(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)

No, it's not debatable. It's a fact. Mein Kampf does not mention Charles Darwin or the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Wiker's retching up the usual Discovery Institute hooey, trying to equate the theory of evolution with the discredited notion of "Social Darwinism," a spin-off idea that Darwin did not endorse and which has nothing to do with evolution.

This is a scare tactic, designed to con gullible people into seeing evolution as inevitably leading to godless atheism and mass murder. The usual bucket of complete crap.

re: #165 Cap'n DOC

Pope Leo did not steal from the poor, but rather was extravagantly charitable, for which he was faulted. Not what I'd call a shining pillar, but to say he stole from the poor is a lie.

A lie? He knew damn well that buying an indulgence wouldn't get you (or your dead relatives) to heaven. Call it extortion or fraud or whatever, but it was clearly dishonest.

re: #167 gunjam

Translation: you must believe exactly as I do or you are takfir, apostate, satan.

re: #167 gunjam

Like I said earlier - you're gun is permanently jammed. You got nothin', which is what you started with.

re: #167 gunjam

You are, of course, free to believe as you wish.

However, anyone who A) desires to be logically consistent, and (B) is committed to believing the Bible as written, is logically, morally, and theologically compelled to reject (vertical) evolution on its face.

No one is denying horizontal evolution, better termed adaptation. (This, of course, (unlike Darwinian doctrine) requires no change in species, only in varieties thereof.)

I guess you have missed the point. You know nothing about the science of logic. Why don't you go do a little study on that subject of logic and mabye you will understand that you are misusing the concept. You are not being logical, any more than the psuedo-science that spurts out of the DI.

Honestly, why do you insist on using a method of debating (in this case, logic) when you show no knowledge of using logic.

Why can't you admit to that?

re: #167 gunjam

However, anyone who A) desires to be logically consistent, and (B) is committed to believing the Bible as written, is logically, morally, and theologically compelled to reject (vertical) evolution on its face.

In other words, nothing can convince him otherwise and responding to him is a waste of time. So just ignore him everyone.

re: #170 geata

And THAT is not what I said. Selling indulgences was not stealing from the poor, although it was not proper that indulgences be sold. What I said was just what I said. Now you take or leave it, but I call you a Liar because he did not steal. MOF, I pointed out he was very charitable - to a fault.

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

I do have a point, Mr Intelluctual Superiority, for those with a developed conscience* and a perceptive mind to consider, namely.....

. . . . And just WHY do I (as in YOU) agree with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro on such an important issue as origins? Perhaps something is amiss in my own worldview?

*An attribute you may be lacking.

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

And with the Pope. And with President Bush. so who is the dodger?

Oh the Zero has pretty teeth dear
And he shows them pearly white
Just a knife-wit has our Mac dear
And he keeps it out of sight

When the shark bites with his teeth dear
Scarlet billows start to spread
Kevlar gloves though wears our Mac dear
So there's not a trace of red
On the sidewalk Sunday morning
Lies a liberal oozing life
Someone's sneaking 'round the corner
Is the someone Mac the Knife
From a poll done by the river
Zero's numbers dropping down
The cement's just for the weight dear
Bet you Mackies's back in town
George Soros disappeared dear
After drawing out his cash
And Zero spends like a sailor
Did our Zero do something rash?
Poor Gorelick, Jodie Evans
Penny Pritzker, Bernie Dohrn
Oh the line forms on the right now
Now that Mackie's back in town

re: #176 gunjam

Perhaps something is amiss in my own worldview?

I suggest that would be facts.

re: #176 gunjam

Translation: If you don't believe everything as I do you have no concscience. You are a morally corrupt darwinist. I refuse to believe anything else, including the factual.

re: #171 Thanos

Translation: you must believe exactly as I do or you are takfir, apostate, satan.

Do you have basic reading comprehension skills? I prefaced my statement of disagreement with the following comment:

You are, of course, free to believe as you wish.

That you inferred what you did says more about you than about what I wrote.

re: #179 Sharmuta

LOL. Wouldn't want facts to get in the way of funky logic would we?

re: #180 Thanos

Translation: If you don't believe everything as I do you have no concscience. You are a morally corrupt darwinist. I refuse to believe anything else, including the factual.

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

re: #181 gunjam

Translation: Yes you are free to believe what you want, but I will call you names, state that you are stalinist, nazi, and have no morals. You are going to burn in hell.

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

You're a sexist too. Lovely.

re: #33 gunjam

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

Being a closed-minded idiot puts you closer to them.

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

hahahahahahahahhahaaa

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

Fuck you.

re: #183 gunjam

Translation: I can't defeat you logically, so I will continue to use ad hominem.

gunjam - keep stepping into known piles of shit.

re: #188 Sharmuta

Fuck you.

I bet he's the same kind that used sexist smears against Palin while standing up for "women's rights".

This is getting kind of fun, keep it coming GJ.

re: #184 Thanos

LOL. When do you cut this one loose to join the rest of the school?

re: #188 Sharmuta

Fuck you.

ROTFLMAO...............Sharmuta, such language from a lady..... Can I buy you a beer for that?

re: #181 gunjam

That you inferred what you did says more about you than about what I wrote.

Boy, and he talks about me being "Mr Intelluctual Superiority." Well, he may be right, because there is no way someone would mistake gunjam for an intelluctual

re: #194 doriangrey

Mandy wasn't here, so someone had to say it.

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

You're a real piece of work. And enjoying it too, I'll wager.

re: #196 Sharmuta

Mandy wasn't here, so someone had to say it.

Go ahead - give him his rope!

LOL. That's just crazy Talk, Walter!

re: #196 Sharmuta

Mandy wasn't here, so someone had to say it.

True, but I would have offered to buy her a beer for that too... :)

re: #188 Sharmuta

Fuck you.

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

The torches and pitchforks are getting warmed up....

re: #176 gunjam

on such an important issue as origins?

Why is that important?

re: #201 gunjam

You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig.

re: #203 legalpad

He's here, ain't he?

/I'm picturing slobbering on the keyboard...

re: #201 gunjam

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

Like you'd know the difference.

re: #101 Sharmuta

Hitler never mentions Darwin or evolution in Mein Kapmf. In fact- Darwin was banned in Germany, so unless you have a link to back up your claim that those of us who accept the validity of evolution are agreeing with nazi ideology, STFU.

Jonah Goldberg works Hitlers eugenics movement as deriving out of Margaret Sanger's works. Planned Parenthood and Hitler had a common eugenics beginning.

re: #189 Thanos

Translation: I can't defeat you logically, so I will continue to use ad hominem.

In over 20 posts, gunjam has NOT ONCE DEBATED ANY ONE OF HIS POINTS.

re: #201 gunjam

Translation: I don't like foul language, and don't understand why I draw so much of it. Could my logic be flawed?

Gunjam's assertion that a Christian must necessarily reject evolution is an example of another logical fallacy: the No True Scotsman fallacy.

It goes like this:

"No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!"

"But I know Angus McTavish, who lives in Glasgow, and with my own eyes I have seen him put sugar in his porridge."

"Then your friend Mr McTavish is no' a true Scotsman.

re: #207 hazzyday

But that's not evolution.

Gunjam,

You have crossed the line.

Maybe you might want to consider stepping back and away for a while.

re: #191 EIDE_Interface

I bet he's the same kind that used sexist smears against Palin while standing up for "women's rights".

Sorry, but I admire Palin -- and agree with her views on life, guns, and defending out sovereignty.

(Though I would prefer to see a man in her position, i do admit it.)

re: #201 gunjam

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

You wouldn't know a lady even after she kneed your balls up around your chin because you grabbed her ass. Yes you are that narcissistic and self-centered...

re: #207 hazzyday

Eugenics is not evolution. Eugenics is Murder any way you slice it.

re: #213 gunjam

Sorry, but I admire Palin -- and agree with her views on life, guns, and defending out sovereignty.

(Though I would prefer to see a man in her position, i do admit it.)

YOU ARE A SEXIST PIG!

re: #212 Syrah

Gunjam,

You have crossed the line.

Maybe you might want to consider stepping back and away for a while.

He has his assigned rope and is trying to figure out what to do.

re: #204 Sharmuta

You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig.

I am laughing. Does that make me a happy pig?

re: #212 Syrah

Gunjam,

You have crossed the line. Maybe you might want to consider stepping back and away for a while.

He won't. That would take a level of intellgience, which he lacks. He has dug himslef a hole, he can't get out, so it's much easier for him to make sexist remarks, and try to drag everyone else into the hole with him.

re: #216 Sharmuta

YOU ARE A SEXIST PIG!

Let's see. You already said that once.

re: #218 gunjam

Rather sad, but probably true.

re: #213 gunjam

Keep it coming man. This is really getting entertaining.

re: #220 gunjam

You musta said something that put your sidearm (geata) off. I wonder what that could have been...

This scientist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

This scientist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

This Empricist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

This scientist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

Of course I could go on like this for pages and pages and pages of comments, but you get the point right GJ?

re: #222 Jim D

Keep it coming man. This is really getting entertaining.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

re: #220 gunjam

Let's see. You already said that once.

And? I'll say it again and again, you sexist pig.

re: #214 doriangrey

You wouldn't know a lady even after she kneed your balls up around your chin because you grabbed her ass. Yes you are that narcissistic and self-centered...

Yes, gunjam is a narcissis. And all this attention, even the negative attention, makes him happy, because he is focusing all our ire toward him. Narcissis live for attention, any kind, good or bad, as long as it's attention.

He points this out himself when he answers in this way Sharmuta - "You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig." Gunjam - "I am laughing. Does that make me a happy pig?"

He will stoop to even comparing himself to a "pig" because it focuses the attention to him.

re: #227 Walter L. Newton

Think it's a her from the icon.

(Though I would prefer to see a man in her position, i do admit it.)

I hope gunjam realizes this sort of thinking put him in the same bed as liberals like 0bama supporters- if we're to use his "logic", that is.

re: #224 Thanos

But...but - Thanos! Louis Pasteur was a Christian! A Catholic, as a matter of fact.

re: #229 Sharmuta

I hope gunjam realizes this sort of thinking put him in the same bed as liberals like 0bama supporters- if we're to use his "logic", that is.

He has a mental illness that feeds on any attention. Normal people don't crave validation like that.

re: #230 Cap'n DOC

Indeed he was, just as Darwin was also a Christian

re: #224 Thanos

re: #210 ErnieG

Gunjam's assertion that a Christian must necessarily reject evolution is an example of another logical fallacy: the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

GJ uses the Blue Star Mom flag as an icon, don't think it's a he.re: #233 gunjam

Translation: You are all wrong, I'm exactly right because I believe I'm exactly right and you are exactly wrong. You will burn in hell.

re: #233 gunjam

re: #210 ErnieG

Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

The Bible says in Matthew that Judas throws his money into the temple. In Acts Judas keeps the money and buys a field.

Do you believe that bother happened?

re: #230 Cap'n DOC

But...but - Thanos! Louis Pasteur was a Christian! A Catholic, as a matter of fact.

Ya, because you cant possible be a real Christian and believe in evolution. As a Christian myself I believe that God was the author of all things scientific. I dont for one second believe that he used magic to create the universe. Everything he did was done according to physical laws that he created. Physical laws that scientists are mapping out.

There is no law, rule, commandment or suggestion in the Bible that says men are not allowed to understand how God created the Universe. In fact the Bible says, ask God for wisdom and understanding and he will give it to you. I fully believe in the process of evolution as documented in scientific journals.

The question of why god created is a question of theology and has no place in any science education program. Antiquated beliefs in creationism based on incomplete and misunderstood statements from the bible need to be dropped from any public discourse.

re: #235 Basho

PIMF. Do you believe both* happened

re: #234 Thanos

The Blue Stars also welcome fathers.

re: #233 gunjam

re: #210 ErnieG

Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

On the contrary, there is nothing in the bible that contradicts evolution, only the preconceived notions of individuals who havent understood what the bible actually has to say on the subject instead insisting on believing fairytale's passed down from one generation to the next as to what the bible does say. You really do need to learn to read the bible for what it says, and not for what you want what it says to mean.

re: #227 Walter L. Newton

Yes, gunjam is a narcissis. And all this attention, even the negative attention, makes him happy, because he is focusing all our ire toward him. Narcissis live for attention, any kind, good or bad, as long as it's attention.

He points this out himself when he answers in this way Sharmuta - "You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig." Gunjam - "I am laughing. Does that make me a happy pig?"

He will stoop to even comparing himself to a "pig" because it focuses the attention to him.

On these here internets, we call them types trolls.

re: #233 gunjam

re: #210 ErnieG

Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

Read this!

It might help towards clearing up your confusion about what 'logically' to 'believe'.

Hey, fair notice: I am leaving now.

It has been fun.

Though I have been put in my place, to be sure. ;-)

Perspective: I'd rather be bashed by lgf'ers in this forum than have my throat slit by jihadists any day.

One final note:

God tells Job he made behemoth (read: the dinosaur), and apparently Job had seen such. Job probably lived about 2000 BC.

You can believe evolution if you wish. You can believe the Bible if you wish.

However, once again: You simply cannot be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT while claiming to believe BOTH.

Note: I recognize that many folks of goodwill are logically INCONSISTENT.

re: #242 gunjam

Hey, fair notice: I am leaving now.

It has been fun.

Though I have been put in my place, to be sure. ;-)

Perspective: I'd rather be bashed by lgf'ers in this forum than have my throat slit by jihadists any day.

One final note:

God tells Job he made behemoth (read: the dinosaur), and apparently Job had seen such. Job probably lived about 2000 BC.

You can believe evolution if you wish. You can believe the Bible if you wish.

However, once again: You simply cannot be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT while claiming to believe BOTH.

Note: I recognize that many folks of goodwill are logically INCONSISTENT.

You obviously have absolutely no clue what logic is or how it is applied.

re: #201 gunjam

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

So, upon reading a sexist comment like yours, a lady would have cowered in the corner, or expressed benign discomfort with your statement?

I think not...... Sharmuta cut to the chase and let you have it....... that is the true definition of a lady. I know first hand, my wife is a lady.

Had I been one of the candidates, here is how I would respond - unequivocally, right out of the chute:

I do not believe in Evolution by Natural Selection. For such a mechanism to work, there would first have to be something to select from. The very Laws of Science which scientists are supposed to abide by, demand that matter cannot just pop into existence on its own. To think that Life and Personal Being could come forth from Non-Life, is foolish - to think it happened "randomly" - absurd.

A simple wooden box, fashioned with nails and slats, demands an intelligent designer.

To be sure, Naturalism/Materialism, the idea that all things can be explained by natural processes acting upon material, is the accepted philosophical foundation for Evolution Theory, but order and complexity, arising from disorder, by chance, randomly, has never been observed. Real science confirms the opposite: our world tends toward disorder and chaos.

Evolution by Random Selection should be taught simply as one Model. That another model might suggest that something outside of Nature would be necessary as a First Cause should not hinder it from being taught as a competing Model. A real education would not be afraid to apply the evidence to both Models, simply because the implications are unpalatable for some.

Thank you.

It's easy to see evolution in action today. Witness man's inventions over the years (e.g. - compare today's car models with the Model T Ford). But what won't be taught in schools is that all of the diversity seen in the animal kingdom today can be explained by the process of devolution, given that all of the variability within an animal's genes was present in the original kind. But, that would imply an intelligent designer was necessary to supernaturally create those original kinds. Therefore, the science of devolution gets thrown out with the bathwater.

I had a paper in Nature over 30 years ago. It was the best science journal in the world, totally objective. After the global warming mania began, it went left in a big way. Very biased editorials started appearing. They despise Bush for every reason imaginable, and make a big deal out of it.Evolution is fervently protected since to them every thing about man can be explained by it eventually. No science budget is ever big enough. A recent editorial suggested that the worlds leaders ask scientists to set up giant computers to model global warming and then immediately heed their advice on what to do about any changes detected by the programs, effectively enslaving everybody to Hal and his minions. It was nice to read about new things in science every week but recently I've made it a habit to stop giving money, no matter how little, to people who don't have my interests at heart. So I dumped my subscription, just like I did the NYT.

re: #245 Devolving One

I wouldn't vote for you.

So we have to vote for Obama now. Obviously he is smarter than McCain, the Il Sen. believing in Evolution as the only cause. And for proof. US citizens want an intelligent president. Further obviously, McCain is not. Well that settles it. Obama for President.

So what came first the chicken or the egg? Also, since the American public is becoming more stupid, does this “evolution” trend illustrate a backward regressiveevolution?

According to science it goes one way – worm (stupid) to man ( intelligent); well to me it looks as if it is going backwards. Doesn’t , make much sense then.

Because of European government's control of health care, most new drugs are invented in the U.S. The socialized medicine Obama's policies will lead to will stifle drug innovation.

---------------

New question: According to the scientific consensus, when does life begin?

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

"Life is Grand,
Some pianos are Grand,
So life it just a bunch of pianos."
--anonymous

"You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish."
--anonymous

re: #251 NomadOfNorad

PIMF!

it = is

re: #251 NomadOfNorad

"You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish."
--anonymous

I think that was REO Speedwagon no?

re: #249 straitcircle

According to science it goes one way – worm (stupid) to man ( intelligent); well to me it looks as if it is going backwards. Doesn’t , make much sense then.

You don't know anything about evolution. And before calling others stupid take a look at the mirror.

re: #245 Devolving One

I do not believe in Evolution by Natural Selection. For such a mechanism to work, there would first have to be something to select from. The very Laws of Science which scientists are supposed to abide by, demand that matter cannot just pop into existence on its own.

Give me one quote from a scientist that says matter came into existence on its own. It's as nonexistent as IDers explaining how the designer came into existence. Scientists can only turn the clock as far back as the Big Bang.

A simple wooden box, fashioned with nails and slats, demands an intelligent designer.

Do clouds, valleys, mountains, and planets demand a designer? Or do they have natural explanations. Do you even try to scrutinize your thoughts to see if there are any flaws in them?

To be sure, Naturalism/Materialism, the idea that all things can be explained by natural processes acting upon material, is the accepted philosophical foundation for Evolution Theory,

Because everything that is natural can be explained naturally.

but order and complexity, arising from disorder, by chance, randomly, has never been observed. Real science confirms the opposite: our world tends toward disorder and chaos.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You know nothing of chemistry, statistics, or thermodynamics.

Evolution by Random Selection should be taught simply as one Model. That another model might suggest that something outside of Nature would be necessary as a First Cause should not hinder it from being taught as a competing Model. A real education would not be afraid to apply the evidence to both Models, simply because the implications are unpalatable for some.

Thank you.

You can't prove the existence of something outside of nature.

Seriously, IDers, at least try to find flaws in your posts and adjust according.

re: #242 gunjam

You can believe evolution if you wish. You can believe the Bible if you wish.

However, once again: You simply cannot be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT while claiming to believe BOTH.

Look, I tried making this point to you before but you ignored it: The Bible itself isn't logically consistent. Some things happen one way in one verse, then happens differently in another. If you're a biblical literalists, you yourself are logically inconsistent!

re: #246 Dadmin

It's easy to see evolution in action today. Witness man's inventions over the years (e.g. - compare today's car models with the Model T Ford). But what won't be taught in schools is that all of the diversity seen in the animal kingdom today can be explained by the process of devolution, given that all of the variability within an animal's genes was present in the original kind. But, that would imply an intelligent designer was necessary to supernaturally create those original kinds. Therefore, the science of devolution gets thrown out with the bathwater.

Question 1: What kind of drugs are you on?

Question 2: May I have some?