Broken Record Award. Sorry, but she's gonna outsell your own book, Going Retarded, you poor obsessed little monkey.

So does that mean Sarah Palin flunked biology? Or if she got a good grade in biology did she lie to her teacher when evolution was being taught? Is lying about believing in evolution to a teacher a sin or a virtue? So many questions, so little time.

Posted by reinheitsgebot

George Soros personally thanks you for this post.

#1 | Posted by cookfish

Right on cue, TedO'follically-challenged breaks into tears.

The misplaced notion that only an all powerful (although not powerful enough to overrule his previous contradictory laws) mythical man in the clouds is the only thing that could have created man is nothing short of arrogance.

So she doesn't believe in evolution. Is this any surprise coming from a person who thinks angels and demons are duking it out over America's future?

Sideshow Sarah has been in the news way too much. If she weren't so easy on the eyes, she'd be just another nameless idiot.

Please provides links proving the theory of evolution.

What you can't? STFU then.

IT IS A THEORY. NOT A FACT. You tools don't seem to understand that. Knocking someone who does not believe the same THEORY as you makes you bigger tools. But please go ahead with your liberal tolerance.

The misplaced notion that there is no greater power or knowledge than man is nothing short of arrogance.

Please provide a link that states for a fact the earth is round. You can't? STFU! The notion that the earth is round is marxist and communistic. Everyone knows the earth is flat.

Sincerely

ELCIDCE90

I love the "you guys are obsessed" defense.

The incumbent party put her up as the VP candidate behind the oldest and most cancerous presidential candidate ever. Millions cheered. Very nearly 60 million people (more than ever voted for Reagan) put a mark by her name, affirming that she should be #2 in the leadership of the country.

She's insignificant? We're not supposed to pay attention?

"IT IS A THEORY. NOT A FACT."

You're aware, aren't you, that the term "theory" as used in science is more than just someone says something like, "I have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese," right?

Here, digest this:

How can a woman who hasn't evolved herself
believe in evolution? This is a gal who thinks
Meet the Press is a dry cleaners in D.C.
If this woman becomes president, Eunice Kennedy
Shriver's legacy will be tainted.

Neither does the Pope.

"IT IS A THEORY. NOT A FACT. You tools don't seem to understand that."

When's the last time somebody here took the pains to re-explain the difference between a lay definition of the word "theory" and its scientific definition?

Read my mind, Doc.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews,

How silly of me.

Of course the bible is a literal historical record of all of human history. God created man out of dirt and air and happy rays of sunshine. He created women out of a man's rib.

When you explain it like that, you are just plaing foolish to believe that it did not happen that way.

Please tell us the story again of how dinosaur's and man co-exited and the earth is only 6,000 years old.

It is a unifying theory like relativity. The
overwhelming majority of scientific professionals
accept Evolutionary Theory as a paradigm.

did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

what do God's parents think about evolution?

why would Noah load to roaches on the Ark?

The misplaced notion that there is no greater power or knowledge than man is nothing short of arrogance.

That is not what I said. Only man would be so arrogant to beleive that we are so special that we are unique among the universe and that only we have immortality in heaven.

You confuse humilty in the acceptance of the realization that we are probably not the only planet in the universe to have life on it with arrogance.

What a surprise.

I understand that dudes will listen to a stupid woman babble in person for hours on end if she's hot enough but who the fuck is buying this book?

why would Noah load to roaches on the Ark?
....#18 | Posted by AuntieSocial

.....wanted to save marijuana from extinction......

but who the fuck is buying this book?
#20 | Posted by sully

.....do you mean the hard cover or the coloring book edition ?.......

What does one have to do with the other anyway? The disproval of evolution is not the proof of creationism.

I understand that dudes will listen to a stupid woman babble in person for hours on end if she's hot enough but who the fuck is buying this book?

#20 | Posted by sully at 2009-11-16 10:23 AM

Nullifidian and Goatman.

theory

noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

dok, I don't know where you got your definition of theory. Try one from a dicitonary.

"But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."-Sarah Palin

Please tell us the story again of how dinosaur's and man co-exited and the earth is only 6,000 years old.

#16 | Posted by 726

The Earth, as modern humans know it, might really be only 5,000-6000 years old.

December 21, 2012 marks the end of time according to the Mayans.

A little over 5,000 years ago, the beginning of the current time cycle, the world was apparently wiped-out in a global catastrophe.

Maybe this is what the bible eludes to.

"but who the fuck is buying this book?"

Goatman's been waiting for a year to read this book and come up with an opinion about this dumb bitch.

good thing we still have Christians too mock...be brave and openly mock Islam....and may god rest your soul

dok, I don't know where you got your definition of theory. Try one from a dicitonary.
#25 | Posted by Sniper

Look up the page, Snoops, to post #11. See "www.fsteiger.com"? That's the link. It'll work if you click on it at #11 but not here. (Don't ask me to explain why, it's some sort of computer thang.) That's where the statement about "theory" came from. It's done all the time on the DR, but that might come as news to folks like yourself who spout unsupportable b.s. here on a regular basis.

But you've called for a dictionary, right? So, here are some dictionary defintions of "theory" as the term is understood in the scientific community:

"Maybe this is what the bible eludes to."

It attempts to elude a lot.

but who the fuck is buying this book?

#20 | Posted by sully

It is on the best seller list and hasn't even hit the book stores yet. I guess someone is.

It attempts to elude a lot.
#31 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

[sic]'s are not always so well gift wrapped.

Why are best selling "Conservative" books pushed to the top with bulk orders?
Can't "Conservatives" let the market decide if their books are worthy or not?

It is on the best seller list and hasn't even hit the book stores yet. I guess someone is.
#32 | Posted by Sniper

como se dice in sniperish.... bulk sales intended for $4.95 giveaway sale?

HAGBARD -
LOL!

"When's the last time somebody here took the pains to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-
re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-
re-explain the difference between a lay definition of the word "theory" and its scientific definition

Fixed it.

I'm pretty sure every evolution thread has had some dipshit say "But it's only a theory" and then sit there with their mouth hanging open, expecting praise.

However, considering those same individuals think the world is ~6K years old and that everything exists as they were poofed into existence at that beginning, is it surprising they don't understand anything else?

I probably won't buy it, but I'll read it when I see a copy floating around somewhere.

I guess someone is.

The RNC.

I saw pre orders at Barnes and Noble at 40% off.

How many best sellers are 40% off before they are released?

Dear Woke,
So there is a conspiracy going on with the book sales? Got it!

And we know this because book sales companies don't place large orders in an effort to obtain a better price from the publisher? Got it!

Economies of scale doesn't exist in the book business only in every other business on the Planet? Got it!

However, considering those same individuals think the world is ~6K years old and that everything exists as they were poofed into existence at that beginning, is it surprising they don't understand anything else?

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2009-11-16 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Please show evidence that anyone on the DR believes the earth is 6k years old or STFU.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

SIMPLEST POSSIBLE TOOL - which is why, more often that not, they are eventually proven WRONG.

Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory.

"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

Which goes to support the "well-established proposition" that ObaDoc has a serious Palin obsession. I always know I can find my ol' bud on a Palin thread here on the DR.

A thread on the meaning of life at the drudge... how enlightening... Good to know that Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikism, Judaism, Jainsim, Islam, Pagans, Wicca, Shintoism and Zoroastrianism are all a farce under this big liberal tent...

Isn't it immoral to throw Dogmatic Theories in the same thread as Scientific Theories?

There are a number of schools of thought on creationism.

Hardcore old school creationism goes with the 4004 BC creation date. Most anti-religious bigots INSIST that all creationism is of this school. The Bigots get highly annoyed when denied their straw man.

More common is the "inteligent design" hypothesis (or 'theory' if you want to be bold...)

The "intelligent design" hypothesis merely postulates that God 'directed' evolution to achieve the current world. Kind of hard to prove, or disprove.

As I've said before, science and spirit don't mix. Insisting that the spiritual is supported by the 'science' is a recipe for embarressment.

Is there 'something more?' Maybe, but science sure won't EVER be able to answer that question.

This book will be at Woke's reading level so I'll just wait for his synopsis in lieu of purchasing it.

Too many big words.

I hope Sarah's book doesn't have big words.

-- L. Cidney

How can you be the child of a science teacher and dismiss the theory of evolution?

Dear Woke,
#40 | POSTED BY DIRK AT 2009-11-16 10:50 AM

This book will be at Woke's reading level so I'll just wait for his synopsis in lieu of purchasing it.

#47 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2009-11-16 11:13 AM

Shout out to my stalkers, who provide zero attempts at debunking the FACT that many rw neocon books are purchased in bulk, as a way of making them, "best sellers", then they are most likely handed out at teabagger parties for further indoctrination purposes.....

LOL

you have no idea what term "theory" means in science, that alone proves you are a dumbshit.

#45 | Posted by VMA224

I guess it means something that isn't in the dicitonary.

d2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

The great and wonderfull dok posted this one.

then they are most likely handed out at teabagger parties for further indoctrination purposes.....

what kind of parties were they handing them out at before Obama was president?

WTF part of "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" don't you understand?

So she doesn't believe in evolution. Is anyone surprised? As backwards as those beliefs might be, they are held by a large number of people in our country, and those people deserve a representative in government as much as anyone else so long as said beliefs aren't being implemented in a way that harms others. Until someone can point to something bad that she would do as a legislator or executive because of these beliefs, this is nothing more than character bashing.

In the same vein, many lefties think belief in God is equally backwards. Yet there are plenty of liberals who believe in God, including just about every lefty legislator they raise the pom-poms for.

You've been shown dictionary defintions of "theory" as the term is used in the scientific community. Hell, Snoops, you've even been told what a link is today. Nothing seems to take. So, just mosey on back to the holler and 'splain to Mammy Yokum that you're just not ready for none a that thar eddicashun stuff.

And btw, I won't need to read it to tell you what's in it.....

1. It was all McCain's fault.

2. I really can see Russia from my house, so I do have foreign policy experience.

3. I wasn't really for earmarks before being against them, including the bridge to nowhere.

4. I didn't really leave the tiny town of Wasilla in massive debt.

5. I really do read some books and magazines.

6. The media is biased against me including that meanie, Katie Couric who asked my hard questions.

7. I really didn't spend taxpayer money flying my family to snake handler religious events.

8. I quit so I could better serve America.

9. I didn't know my kid, who was watching my other kid, was having sex in my own house.

10. I really didn't drop out of college 5 times.

on and on...eh?

Until someone can point to something bad that she would do as a legislator or executive because of these beliefs ...

She could cut funding to science education in this country and make us fall behind countries that do not think the scientific method is a threat to their religious beliefs. Among many other things an anti-science politician could do to harm the country.

I could never vote for a politician who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. It's established science that only ought to be challenged by more science. Inserting religious dogma into science is dangerous.

As I've said before, science and spirit don't mix.

And yet many want our science to be based on spirit.

As well as domestic and foreign policy.

"When's the last time somebody here took the pains to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-
re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-
re-explain the difference between a lay definition of the word "theory" and its scientific definition"

It has to be done every fucking day because of dumbshits like this...

WTF part of "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" don't you understand?

#53 | Posted by Sniper

my stalkers

#50 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-16 11:19 AM

Looking forward to your review of this book.

You've been shown dictionary defintions of "theory" as the term is used in the scientific community. Hell, Snoops, you've even been told what a link is today. Nothing seems to take.

#55 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

theory

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
dictionary.reference.com

#30 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

This is your post dok. Read the fucking words if you know how to read english.

She could cut funding to science education in this country and make us fall behind countries that do not think the scientific method is a threat to their religious beliefs.

Has she ever exhibited a tendency or desire to do that?

When people dismiss scientific theories as if they were just guesswork, it makes me wonder how they get through the day, given the number of things in their lives that are based on scientific theories. Fly a plane, undergo surgery, drive a car over a bridge, get a vaccine shot ... the scientific method made the modern world possible. Without it we're still crapping in caves and trying to make zug-zug with Barbara Bach.

Does Palin distrust gravitational theory too?

"She could cut funding to science education in this country and make us fall behind countries that do not think the scientific method is a threat to their religious beliefs. Among many other things an anti-science politician could do to harm the country. "

Damn. Now why didn't I think of that?

--Counselor Joe

I could never vote for a politician who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. It's established science that only ought to be challenged by more science. Inserting religious dogma into science is dangerous.

#57 | Posted by rcade

Same with inserting "political" dogma.

The Man-Caused Global Warming Theory is based first and foremost on politics - based ENTIRELY on cherry-picked evidence.

That's a fact.

#64 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-11-16 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag: Nothing to offer; cheerleader

When people dismiss scientific theories as if they were just guesswork, it makes me wonder how they get through the day, given the number of things in their lives that are based on scientific theories. Fly a plane, undergo surgery, drive a car over a bridge, get a vaccine shot ... the scientific method made the modern world possible. Without it we're still crapping in caves and trying to make zug-zug with Barbara Bach.

Does Palin distrust gravitational theory too?

#63 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-16 11:34 AM

The Man-Caused Global Warming Theory is based first and foremost on politics ...

No, it isn't. It's an established theory in science because of the work of scientists. The fact that other scientists are challenging it is a part of the process as we learn more about humankind's ability to alter the climate.

She's rejecting the theory that seeks to explain our origins, not the scientific method in general.

The theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method. Most of the people who ridicule it -- and would insert disclaimers about it in textbooks -- are making a general anti-science argument that would do great harm to our society.

She does believe in peanut butter, though.

Rcade-

Has Palin ever exhibited a desire or tendency to cut funding to science education?

I've never heard a rational argument that evolution and theism are mutually exclusive.

Come to think of it, I've never heard a rational argument that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

As small as we feel when we look at the state of our science compared to the vastness of the little known universe, is about as small as is our understanding of "God", if as some scientists agree, the universe appears too ordered, and the info carried in atoms too limited, not to have been created.

Has Palin ever exhibited a desire or tendency to cut funding to science education?

Now that we know her opinion of evolution, I would never give her that chance. Regardless of her past record on science funding.

I've never heard a rational argument that evolution and theism are mutually exclusive.

It seems to me that creationists can still find plenty of room for themselves in the origin of the universe, as long as they're not biblical literalists.

"I've never heard a rational argument that evolution and theism are mutually exclusive.

Come to think of it, I've never heard a rational argument that science and religion are mutually exclusive."

That should be the disclaimer above every one of these threads.

Regardless of her past record

Translation: words speak louder than actions, but only when it supports my desire to dislike someone.

Neither does the Pope.

#13 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-11-16 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag: BULLSHIT. EVOLUTION IS ACCEPTED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

What is so funny about the fundies, is they keep saying evolution has been debunked, but they can't bring a single scientific truth or theory to the table that supports anything they say.

Translation: words speak louder than actions, but only when it supports my desire to dislike someone.

You're a libertarian. I'm sure there are things that a candidate could say that would make them someone you would never vote for.

It's not about disliking Palin. It's about not wanting to let anti-science dopes take power in this country.

-not biblical literalists

Most modern "biblical literalists" are trying to be literal with a translation of texts from nearly 2000 to 3500+ years old from the 14th century sans modern discoveries and translations.

Which, more often than not, makes them appear about as rational as a Teabagger on acid.

Former epic atheist apologist Anthony Flew said that to follow the science, he had to change his mind to deism, as he could not explain the universe without design.

He also said that he did not believe in an afterlife, as he could not explain how chemical bonds could hold consciousness together after physical death.

Some of us are just hoping he was wrong about that last part, and are encouraged by what we find when we study those texts in their ancient languages....
a thread of history and prophecy that perhaps sheds some light on our existence.

(It says, "42")

You're a libertarian. I'm sure there are things that a candidate could say that would make them someone you would never vote for.

How does that second sentence relate to the first? And unless I've ever shown that I give more deference to words than actions, you're merely projecting.

If I've said it once I'll say it again. How did the conservatives, the party offspring of Ayn Rand and Willaim F Buckley get saddled with these fundie wack jobs????

Wait don't tell me I know.

For some stupid fucking reason, the party that defended the union and set free the slaves allowed a bunch of racist asshole defectives from the southern democrat party in in the mid sixties. THEN they started hanging with fundie evangelical ministers in the early seventies, inventing terms like the moral majority, which by the way was neither.

Both of which were hatched on Nixon's watch.

I answer my own query.

How does that second sentence relate to the first?

Palin says "I don't believe in evolution," so I take her at her word and will never vote for her.

Democrat X says "I don't believe in the right to bear arms," so Joe takes X at his word and will never vote for him.

I don't think there's anything unfair about taking a politician at his or her word, rather than judging their past record. If she calls herself anti-evolution that's enough for me.

"the party that defended the union and set free the slaves allowed a bunch of racist asshole defectives from the southern democrat party in in the mid sixties. THEN they started hanging with fundie evangelical ministers in the early seventies, inventing terms like the moral majority, which by the way was neither."

There's a documentary from the early 70's about a minister turned I don't know what who attempts to uncover the shams of revivalist preaching. In it he spends time with a wealthy guy who talks about planting the seeds of what we've seen these past 15 odd years. The long term vision and the way this man spoke on it was pretty creepy.

Sarah Palin is an idiot.

#81

Additionally, at the time GOP Supreme Commander George Shultz and his GOP Pres Selection Committee, including Dick "I'll Find Ya A VP!" Cheney, figured out that if Karl Rove could do what he said he could do, convert Pat Robertson's Evangels from his failed Pres campaign into ardent supporters of little known and and little regarded Texas Gov George Bush, they could win the, er, "their", Presidency again.

Which opened the gates for all sorts of airheaded incompetents to be considered serious Pres candidates.

A surprising number of people don't believe in evolution. I met a PhD scientist who's thesis was dependent on evolution that didn't believe in evolution. There are all kinds of nuts out there.

my stalkers
#50 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-16 11:19 AM

Don't flatter yourself, goofy.
Looking forward to your review of this book.

#60 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2009-11-16 11:30 AM

The record here on DR is replete with examples of stalking including many of your own.

Want to be taken seriously?

Try debating the CONTENT of my posts instead of merely posting idiotic and inane responses that are personal attacks as per #47.

eh?

Democrat X says "I don't believe in the right to bear arms," so Joe takes X at his word and will never vote for him.

And unless you can provide an example of this occurring, you are, again, projecting. We see you putting words before actions here in this thread. When have I done it?

How can you be the child of a science teacher and dismiss the theory of evolution?

Because it's politically expedient to do so?

Or she's just dumb.

Take your pick.

Translation: words speak louder than actions, but only when it supports my desire to dislike someone.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You're lying out your ass if you say you've never been swayed to vote one way or another based on stated beliefs or motives.

She's rejecting the theory that seeks to explain our origins, not the scientific method in general.

Evolution has nothing to do with origins.

Yet another misconception that is corrected over and over and over and over....

Looking forward to your review of this book.

#60 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2009-11-16 11:30 AM

Had you bothered to read the thread, BEFORE you posted this, you'd have seen my review at #56, only I didn't have to read it to review it...eh?

It's about not wanting to let anti-science dopes take power in this country.

Like the ones who are willing to destroy our economy with a regulatory scheme they somehow think will alter macro-climate cycles?

You're lying out your ass if you say you've never been swayed to vote one way or another based on stated beliefs or motives.

When those stated beliefs cannot be substantiated by prior actions, I will trust the actions more than I trust the words. Politicians lie all the time to get elected. The fact that they are stating something you want to believe should make no difference if it is unsupported by their record.

Even I think it's silly to discount evolution.. Like a higher power couldnt be responsible for the development of life as we know it.. Science and God can certainly exist together..because..well.. they already do..

Science and God can certainly exist together..because..well.. they already do..

#96 | POSTED BY GODISFEMALE AT 2009-11-16 12:26 PM

I can agree with that.

But, can one accept God as female and also accept the Bible literally as being correct?

LOL

I worship The Goddess at every opportunity.

">..IT IS A THEORY. NOT A FACT. You tools don't seem to understand that....#7 | Posted by elcidce90"

Another Christian Moron who cannot understand the difference between Hypothesis and Theory...

But Oh well. At least Jesus looked HOT in that loin cloth on the cross. And how about those ABs? Whaddyathink? 24 Hour Fitness?

"I don't think there's anything unfair about taking a politician at his or her word, rather than judging their past record. If she calls herself anti-evolution that's enough for me."

You should ignore what she says and just think good thoughts about what she might do in office.

The Man-Caused Global Warming Theory is based first and foremost on politics ...

No, it isn't. It's an established theory in science because of the work of scientists. The fact that other scientists are challenging it is a part of the process as we learn more about humankind's ability to alter the climate.

#68 | Posted by rcade

Are you really so easily suckered RCADE?

Maybe once you start paying your very own, and unconstitutional, Global Carbon Tax...

...or when businesses are shut down in your state and forced to relocate OVERSEAS based on a fundamentally flawed and guaranteed-to-be-corrupt carbon balancing scheme...

...maybe then you will finally realize you've been duped.

Or, and more probably, you will find a way to blame George W. Bush.

This is a power and money grab, based on lies, orchestrated by the world's so-called elites.

Actually, according to the Bible, in heaven there is no marriage, and perhaps no men/women...

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Kinda also takes the wind out of the sails of those people who claim God only wants one man, one woman=marriage, since if marriage is so revered by God, why does it not continue thru to heaven?

-But, can one accept God as female and also accept the Bible literally as being correct?

One of God's many names in Hebrew is el shadai, the Many-breasted One, which has more to do with attributes of motherly protection and sustenance than gender.

Christianity teaches that gender and race are inconsequential to God.

I hate to keep asking questions with other questions but where does it say that you have to believe every word of the Bible in order to believe in God? Like God wouldnt already know what was in your heart and She would deny you the afterlife because you didnt read a book written thousands of years ago. Some people need to read, some need to hear and others need to find their own way.. What if just believing in God was good enough and how you got there didnt matter?

"Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

That might have been left out of the version the "for time and all eternity" folks read.

el shadai, the Many-breasted One

Many Breasted?

Can't wait for heaven!!!!

Is the devil the many penis'd?

No bending over in hell

'Does Palin distrust gravitational theory too?'

#63 | Posted by rcade

All you righty tighty idiots who are yelling STFU while loudly proclaiming you ignorance I have one suggestion.

Go Jump off a cliff - on the journey down yell loudly at the world that the concept of gravity is JUST A THEORY and NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN AS A FACT!.

#104 | Posted by Godisfemale at 2009-11-16 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag Moment of Clarity Award

#93 | Posted by WOKE at 2009-11-16 12:24 PM

#106 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-11-16 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Lifetime South Park Award

What if just believing in God was good enough and how you got there didnt matter?

#104 | Posted by Godisfemale at 2009-11-16 12:37 PM

#104

We don't disagree.

But this thread is about Palin, someone who does seem to accept the Bible literally.

#109

So, now, that is now at least 3 posts directed at me with little to nothing actually addressing the content of my posts, from someone who claims they aren't stalking me...eh?

LMFAO

And unless you can provide an example of this occurring, you are, again, projecting. We see you putting words before actions here in this thread. When have I done it?

I don't need to prove anything about you personally. The larger point is whether someone can be engaged in politics as a voter and always judge a candidate more by their actions than by their words. I don't regard that as possible or desirable.

Getting back to what you originally said, it was to call my position "Translation: words speak louder than actions, but only when it supports my desire to dislike someone."

That was bogus. There's absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about taking a politician at his or her word. Palin says she is anti-evolution. I don't need to hear anything more. She's sold me on her unsuitability for public office.

"She's sold me on her unsuitability for public office."

Posted by rcade at 2009-11-16 12:49 PM

I was going to write in Paris Hilton until McCain chose that ignorant superstitious moron as his VP running mate.

She's sold me on her unsuitability for public office.

The sad thing is that her most recent demonstration of self-delusion and willful ignorance has convinced other people of exactly the opposite.

There's absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about taking a politician at his or her word.

Nobody said you can't. Go ahead and think she doesn't believe in evolution. But if you're going to extrapolate some sort of belief that she is going to defund science education based on those words, then maybe you ought to look at her record and see if she's ever done it before.

Democrat X says "I don't believe in the right to bear arms,"

#82 | Posted by rcade

It is in the second amendment of the constitution. That isn't a theory. It is a fact.

But if you're going to extrapolate some sort of belief that she is going to defund science education based on those words, then maybe you ought to look at her record and see if she's ever done it before.

True. But personally, I think the risk is too great to take. Let Palin and the rest of the fundies start their own theocracy. I like my mostly secular country to stay that way.

"then maybe you ought to look at her record and see if she's ever done it before."

What record? She governed a patch of frozen dirt for a half-term. That's not a record, that's a joke.

I was going to write in Paris Hilton until McCain chose that ignorant superstitious moron as his VP running mate.

Yeah, we know.

Personally I'm supporting Paris Hilton.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-11-04 07:09 PM

I was going to write in Paris Hilton. I'm so sorry I didn't.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-10-04 08:18 PM

My only regret is not writing in Paris Hilton for president.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-10-03 05:33 PM

I am so sorry I didn't vote for Paris Hilton.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-11-01 06:02 PM

I am so sorry I didn't write in Paris Hilton.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-04-18 11:17 PM

Perhaps I'll write in Paris Hilton.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-08-19 04:44 PM

I was going to write in Paris Hilton. I am so sorry I didn't. At least I could gloat.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-09-03 10:21 PM

I was going to write in Paris Hilton until that stupid, superstitious bimbo showed up.
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-08-27 10:49 AM

I really am gonna write in Paris Hilton next time!
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-06-04 12:19 PM

It is in the second amendment of the constitution. That isn't a theory. It is a fact.

Dude, it was a hypothetical. You may continue locking and loading in preparation for Red Dawn.

She governed a patch of frozen dirt for a half-term.

She was also a two-term mayor. And regardless of the size of the population she governed, there were multiple budgets you could look at to see if she cut science funding or ever expressed a desire to do so.

Not that you'd ever want to look at facts.

-That's not a record, that's a joke.

lmao!

-Red Dawn

Never underestimate the usefulness and longevity of the Red Scare.

Sometimes you just have to use different colors is all.

Will one of you people that believe in eveloution pleast tell me how life eas formed in the first place?

#117

Ok, Joe, here are examples of Palin wanting to CUT scientific studies....and wanting to creationism taught as science.

I really am gonna write in Paris Hilton next time!
Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-06-04 12:19 PM

Time for some new meds, old man?

#121 | Posted by JOE at 2009-11-16 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Aiming to be the next Hans

if you're going to extrapolate some sort of belief that she is going to defund science education based on those words

That's not a very legitimate concern. The anti-evolution camp is not seeking to reduce funding for science education. They want to reduce its quality, not its funding.

You can certainly form expectations based on her her stated position on the evolution. If empowered to do so, it is reasonable to expect her to open the door for unscientific claptrap like "intelligent design" be taught under the guise of science. Based on her history of divinely-inspired willful ignorance, it is also reasonable to expect Palin to ignore sound evidence and logical arguments that contradict her religious beliefs.

And regardless of the size of the population she governed, there were multiple budgets you could look at to see if she cut science funding or ever expressed a desire to do so.

A mayor is unlikely to have any science to fund. Science education would be under the purview of the school board, and government-funded scientific research is generally coming from the federal or state level.

creationism and cretinism are quite similar words aren't they?

Will one of you people that believe in eveloution pleast tell me how life eas formed in the first place?

Will one of you people that believe in eveloution pleast tell me how life eas formed in the first place?

You do know that the two are not the same right?

Evolution is NOT about the origin of life.

Joe, nice of you to bring up her stint as mayor.....

Here is more info on how Palin interjected her religion into running for mayor.

You might want to turn your eyes away.
>>>
In Stein's view, Palin's main transgression was injecting big-time politics into a small-town local race. "It was always a nonpartisan job," he says. "But with her, the state GOP came in and started affecting the race." While Palin often describes that race as having been a fight against the old boys' club, Stein says she made sure the campaign hinged on issues like gun owners' rights and her opposition to abortion (Stein is pro-choice). "It got to the extent that I don't remember who it was now but some national antiabortion outfit sent little pink cards to voters in Wasilla endorsing her," he says.
Vicki Naegele was the managing editor of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman at the time. "[Stein] figured he was just going to run your average, friendly small-town race," she recalls, "but it turned into something much different than that." Naegele held the same conservative Christian beliefs as Palin but didn't think they had any place in local politics.
"I just thought, That's ridiculous, she should concentrate on roads, not abortion," says Naegele.

A mayor is unlikely to have any science to fund.

There were multiple budgets during her tenure of mayor. Feel free to examine them and provide an example of her cutting funding to science or proposing to do so. My comment about her having been mayor was in response to someone saying that the only thing she did was govern for half a term.

tenure of mayor=tenure as governor.

# Speaking of the creation of man, did you know that there is only a 2% difference between the overall genetic makeup of man and chimpanzee? I can see God, on the sixth day of creation. On the last minute of the sixth day of creation. He's been goofing off all day. He still hasn't created man. Then he looks at his watch. "Oh Meeee! Wait, I've got an idea. Where'd I put those chimpanzee genes?" (God searches His pockets.)

- E. T. Babinski

# On the sixth day of creation God was walking alone through the garden of Eden and thought "What this place needs is someone to cultivate and keep it (Gen.2:15)." Then God spied some chimpanzees in a tree and thought, "Hey, what if I monkeyed around with this creature's genes? If I changed just 2% of its DNA I think I might be able to come up with a passable gardener."

Here is more info on how Palin interjected her religion into running for mayor.

And as I said to RCade. Feel free to examine the budgets during her tenure as governor and provide an example of her cutting funding to science or proposing to do so.

- E. T. Babinski

I don't see the point of this forum. Neither of these theories (being as they are THEORIES scientifically)Spiritual nor Evolution can disprove the other, and both of them hold up under scientific laws. Unless the point is to make fun of someone for their worldview which demonstrates a level of maturity that I thought I had left in high school. To prove my point following this post there will be a string of insults thrown at me for stating facts. I really hope that I am wrong but even if you don't post a response you will judge me an idiot or a fair-minded individual without even knowing where I stand on these viewpoints. Palin has her own worldview and you have yours both I hope are educated, well researched, and not just because it was force-fed to us in school, or fired at us in a religious institution. Good day.

"and both of them hold up under scientific laws."

Do they?

And as I said to RCade. Feel free to examine the budgets during her tenure as governor and provide an example of her cutting funding to science or proposing to do so.

What science funding would she be in charge of during her governorship/2? Science funding comes from the federal government or private institutions. Putting her in charge of that ship WOULD worry me for reasons contained in this thread and many many many others.

What about science education funding? No governor in their right mind would cut educational funding unless they really wanted the consequences. More than likely, she would attempt to change the curriculum, something she expressed as something she'd like to do.

Joe

Anyone who thinks they actually know "God's Plan" and plans to run the US government and American Foreign policy accordingly is not fit for public office.

Anyone who believes it was "God's Plan" to attack Iraq (or to do anything else) needs to be put on a psychological evaluation to determine if they should be allowed to roam freely with the rest of us. Just like the shooter at Fort Hood should have been.

By the way, can I get a link to "God's Plan"? I'd like to review it before we start following it as a national policy.

Thanks

#139 | Posted by Mountainjack at 2009-11-16 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag: has no clue what a theory is

Neither of these theories (being as they are THEORIES scientifically)Spiritual nor Evolution can disprove the other

If I understand you correctly, you're trying to say spirituality is a scientific theory just like evolution?

Palin has her own worldview and you have yours both I hope are educated, well researched, and not just because it was force-fed to us in school, or fired at us in a religious institution.

Why do I get the feeling that Palin, just like most of the anti-evo people on the DR, don't know jack or shit about evolution and don't understand what little they do know?

Most evolution naysayers show a vast ignorance of the topic. I'm not willing to make an exception for Palin until she proves otherwise.

#139 | Posted by Mountainjack

ummm Creationism is not a Theory.

What science funding would she be in charge of during her governorship/2? Science funding comes from the federal government or private institutions

Alaska, like all other states, has its own department of education with a budget of over a billion per year. There are opportunities to allocate more or less funds toward different programs within that budget.

Evolution is NOT about the origin of life.

That point gets lost in the rabble all too often. Evolution does provide a path back to the origin of life. Considering sorts of systems that can undergo evolution, it also makes you seriously consider what "life" really is and wonder where it might have come from.

Palin has her own worldview

Sarah Palin believes that "War is Peace". Watch how she connects the dots in her "mind". After reading this I don't think I need to know anything more about her "worldview".

"But did y'know that the guy who invented dynamite also invented the Nobel Peace Prize? That guy was Alfred Nobel, and his dad, Immanuelwho helped the Russians during the Crimean Warwas way into gunpowder, just like I've always been. I don't remember who won the Crimean War, but the lesson I took from it is if the guy who invented dynamite can also invent the peace prize, then war is peace."

And there you have it...such Brilliant logic...for a neocon.

Someone else posted this link here (doc?) and it provides an excellent insight into the "mind" (or mindlessness) of Sarah!

Anyone who thinks they actually know "God's Plan" and plans to run the US government and American Foreign policy accordingly is not fit for public office.

I agree. Now guess who said the following:

"God is with us and He wants us to do the right thing."

"When people work together, there is nothing that can stop us because that's God's intention."

But if you're going to extrapolate some sort of belief that she is going to defund science education based on those words, then maybe you ought to look at her record and see if she's ever done it before.
joe

yes joe that probably what they were thinking at ft hood.
"well he does talk about being a son of islam and supporting jihad."
"wait let's look in his past to see if he's been violent"
"nope"
"ok he's alright then because of no previous history"

you're a moron.

#150 | Posted by cjk85 at 2009-11-16 01:47 PM

Politicians have a history of saying one thing and doing another. Murderers don't.

Dumbshit.

Palin doesn't believe in Evolution? Fine, I don't believe in Palin. She is obviously a made up character to keep things interesting, honestly, no one could really be that stupid, could they?

good thing we still have Christians too mock...be brave and openly mock Islam....and may god rest your soul
........#29 | Posted by Turd_Ferguson

.....sure......Islam is full of shit......

.....the Koran is a meaningless pile of drivel.....

....Mohammed was an illiterate warlord who used the pretext of "words from God" to get gullible ignoramuses to follow him......

....so.....are you a happy little Turd now ?.....

Levels of Scientific Speculation:
Level 0 - Sarah Palin - Absent any cognitive intuition of a correlative relationship between a guess and the evidence available
Level 1: Hypothesis - aka Solid Guess based upon the Evidence - supported by little evidence of a causal nature, but also contradicted by little evidence
Level 2: Theory - aka Scientific Theory, half step away from undeniable fact - Supported by significant evidence with few unexplainable or contradictory pieces of evidence
Level 3: Law - aka Not fact, but so close no one cares - Supported by vast evidence with almost no unexplainable or contradictory pieces of evidences

Creationism would be between Level 0 and Level 1.
Evolution would be solidly in Level 2.
Newton's First Law is solidly at Level 3 (In the absence of force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.)
Newton's Second Law is also solidly at Level 3, despite being wrong (Force = Mass x Acceleration).

Sarah Palin's dad taught elementary school science.

Though, apparently, not to her...

"God is with us and He wants us to do the right thing."

A lot of people say that...seems safe enough to appease the fundies in the crowd but not crazy enough to cause problems like committing us to illegal wars of aggression.

And "God wants us all to work together" (paraphrased).

Hmm a lot of people say that too! Again...safe enough to appease the crazy fundies but does no harm to foriegn relations.

And both statements are a far cry from "Attacking Iraq was God's Plan".

Hmm a lot of people say that too!

And they are stupid.

Your statement was that "Anyone who thinks they actually know "God's Plan" is unfit for public office. Obama appears to think that he knows God's plan given those quotes. No?

In the beginning God created amino acids.

#131 | Posted by rcade

But........ there ain't no God remember.

If he created amino acid, why didn't he create anything else. Is your grandady a tumble weed? Tell me how man came from that acid that God created. Start with the acid and walk me through it.

Tell you what Joe, I just googled "palin governor action on science"

Why don't you do the same and get back to me.

Here's just one page of 1,530,000

I have to give #160 a FF.

I think all the attention to Palin is absurd and anybody who is afraid of that idiot is an idiot themself.

But some of the insults are hilarious.

Re: #161 - I have always maintained that Eberly is a man with an unusually keen sense of humor.

161

Yeah, all the attention to palin.
Who brought her to our attention and keeps her there with a non stop slo mo train wreck of one faux pas after another.......

And whodathunk that so many Americans would have voted lilaWol into office, not to mention even nominating palin for veep, eh?

IKE saw the neocons coming, but didn't think Americans would fall for it.......

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,

okay, I'll play with the retard for a bit....which one of those things did GWB try to get rid of?

And whodathunk that so many Americans would have voted lilaWol into office, not to mention even nominating palin for veep, eh?

he ran against 2 retards easy to beat up on. doesn't surprise me that you can't see that.

I'll concede that her nomination was a poor decision.

Here's just one page of 1,530,000

LOL. Certainly this means that Palin made 1,530,000 cuts to science education. Can we add a new logical fallacy to the list - the "google result count fallacy?"

No. She sucked off her biology teacher and let him splooge on her tits. However, she only received a B+ because she scraped a little with her teeth, and because she had very hairy nipples.

Mike, that was a rookie mistake. You won't see a seasoned veteran making those sorts of preventable errors at key moments in the game. She may have had the flexibility and tongue coordination to make those moves work earlier in her career, but the bar gets raised when you step onto the national stage. Everyone here is a star, Mike, and the expectation is perfection.

- You're absolutely right, Bob. Watch the replay. Someone like Palin should be getting heavy pressure in the pocket but so far no one can seem to get good penetration. The coverage is excellent, though, and it doesn't look like she will be able to get it off. She panics and gets a penalty for illegal use of teeth to the head right before getting a pounding from behind.

Yeah, Mike, I haven't seen something like that since my college days. The only way you can hope to handle an athlete like Palin is to keep pounding at every opportunity. Even though she made an unforced error on this play, she did a nice job of protecting the balls as she's going down.

- And now to Leslie for an update from the sidelines...

There are 58,400 google search results for "Woke sucks cock."

Just saying.

Given little Track, or Bolt, or Crank, or whatever his name is, evolution apparently doesn't believe in the Palins either.

#158 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-16 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Fell into a trap and didn't even know it....shows how little you have actually ever read up on evolution and tests done that support it's position. Until you decide to try and at least educate yourself, you just look really dumb on your line of questioning.

LM

There are 58,400 google search results for "Woke sucks cock."
Just saying.
........#168 | Posted by JOE

.......there are 210,000 for "Joe sucks cock"......

....what's the matter Joe, slowing down ?.......

"As Napoleon was deceiving the neighboring farmers he was also tricking his own animals."

"The scapegoat was again Snowball."

"Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball."

"In fact many of the claims begin to sound ridiculous to the objective mind."

"Of course, Squealer's mission is to keep everything subjective in the minds of the animals."

George Orwell-Animal Farm

Woke: The bigger danger is that folks like her would INCREASE science funding and then mix religuous stuff in so her Christian fundy programs start receiving educational funding.

She may be dumb, buyt she aint stoooopid.

The woman who actually wrote the book doesn't believe in Evolution, either.

Where did Wokeback go?

"There are 58,400 google search results for "Woke sucks cock."

Just saying.
#168 | Posted by JOE at 2009-11-16 03:27 PM"

Actually, there are NO results for "Woke sucks cock.":

Don't know what the Pope - in his head - believes or does not believe, but the Vatican now espouses evolution:

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.

By Chris Irvine
Published: 8:03AM GMT 11 Feb 2009
Gianfranco Ravasi: The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
Gianfranco Ravasi: Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church Photo: EPA

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Related Articles

*
Charles Darwin: The man behind the theory of evolution
*
The Vatican's search for ET

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.

The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.

Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".

Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's legacy.

They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.

The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds.

Evolution is NOT about the origin of life.

#132 | Posted by jpw

You dodged the question. How did life start on earth?

Fell into a trap and didn't even know it....shows how little you have actually ever read up on evolution and tests done that support it's position.

#170 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel

You are right lib. I totaly forgot that eveloution din't start with the creation of life. It starts with your uncle hanging by his tail from a tree in africa and throwing shit at everything that came by while he played with himself. How stoopid of me. I'll try to not forget that again.

good thing we still have Christians too mock...be brave and openly mock Islam....and may god rest your soul
........#29 | Posted by Turd_Ferguson

.....sure......Islam is full of shit......

.....the Koran is a meaningless pile of drivel.....

....Mohammed was an illiterate warlord who used the pretext of "words from God" to get gullible ignoramuses to follow him......

....so.....are you a happy little Turd now ?.....

#153 | Posted by skizziks

Don't forget that Mohammed also loved the scent of young boy's ass in the morning.

The pungency was erotic to him.

Don't forget that Mohammed also loved the scent of young boy's ass in the morning.

Mohammed was Catholic?

166

Didn't say that, but if that's the best you can do to avoid facing the facts I've presented: that palin began her first campaign interjecting religion and continued to do the same throughout her career, (just ignore doing any research yourself, k?) and feels that replacing actual science teaching with creationism as a debate isn't stealing science money....then, what more could I possibly have that would convince you......

You obviously immediately thought up your little 1,530,000 diversion as if I said that so the end result was you placing your fingers in your ears, along with your lil brother eberly and saying no,no,no,no....

Each to their own.

168

Again, as I have pointed out repeatedly, namecalling, insults, ad hominem attacks are NOT arguments and in fact, insure that everyone with the exception of juveniles understand that you either have no facts to combat what is being explained to you, or you don't have the ability to communicate them, or you choose not to.....

which is it?

So we have the land's leading exponent of a theory that fetuses are people (Cidney) and his major cohort in fundamentalist nonsense (Sniper) attempting to legitimize Ms. Palin as a distinguished author. Well, maybe with a little help from a friend. Is "Going Rogue" really going to assault Barnes and Noble in the same month as Carrie Prejean's "Still Standing"? Can the New York Review of Books survive under the weight? Will university English curricula be revised? herm

Evolution has no scientific evidence. Just a theory.

"Evolution has no scientific evidence. Just a theory."

I apologize for forgetting to lump TakeIt with Billy El Cid and The Snipe. Sure, just a theory. Charles Darwin ranks with Copernicus and Galileo only to tweak assorted popes. herm

You dodged the question. How did life start on earth?

No I didn't. I don't really care how life started on earth.

My interest in evolution is independent of the origin of life.

Darwin was ignorant of the complexity of 'cell'.

I am very happy to declare evolution as simply a modern dogma.

Evolution has no foundation, because it can never figure out how life originated.

Evolution has no scientific evidence. Just a theory.

Ugh, this again? Like a broken record.

No, wait. Like a broken Rick Astley record.

Where did Wokeback go?

#175 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-16 03:40 PM

Thanks for the concern, I'm fine, but have much more important things to do than interact endlessly with internet stalkers who have nothing of content to say.....sorry.

Let's review your posts to/about me so far:
1.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
okay, I'll play with the retard for a bit....which one of those things did GWB try to get rid of?

#164 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-16 03:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

2.
And whodathunk that so many Americans would have voted lilaWol into office, not to mention even nominating palin for veep, eh?

he ran against 2 retards easy to beat up on. doesn't surprise me that you can't see that.
I'll concede that her nomination was a poor decision.

#165 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-16 03:16 PM

1. a. Uh, bush tried to PRIVATIZE Social Security....try using what's left of your ability to think for yourself what happens if the market fails (i know, i know you can't believe that might happen) and all our senior's have to depend on that instead of a govt program to insure they have some retirement....Thank God AARP stopped him.

Yes, no scientific evidence for macro evolution. It is simply being pushed by dogma....

#188 | Posted by takitez at 2009-11-16 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag: failed biology

Organic molecules occur in nature.
Deal with it, you mentally retarded wankstain.

Science 2 October 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5949, pp. 64, 75-86
DOI: 10.1126/science.1175802

Research Articles
Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids

"When people dismiss scientific theories as if they were just guesswork, it makes me wonder how they get through the day, given the number of things in their lives that are based on scientific theories"

or the theory of relativity.

our gps satellites clocks actually run slower in space in orbit then our clocks on earth.

"Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin's works put together. This year's volume might start with a proposed rearrangement of the microbes at the base of the tree of life and end with the discovery of 190-million-year-old dinosaur embryos."

"When people dismiss scientific theories as if they were just guesswork" ... using transistors, no less.

LOL!

zat..

using the phrase "macro evolution"

proves a failure in biology.

the concept of billions of years is comprehendable by takeitz and his ilk

"the concept of billions of years is comprehendable"

not

later, folks

"Evolution has no scientific evidence. Just a theory."

For those that don't look, this is true. But they can't look because that would reinforce that they are dumbshits!

there is a lot of proof that TAKITEZ is an idiot!

She also still believes in the effectiveness
of Abstinence Education, despite evidence to
the contrary.

yer right i meant NOT comprehendable

Left-handed amino-acid disproves evolution.

Left-handed amino-acid disproves evolution.

That's already been tried.

And not they don't.

How did life start on earth?

The answer to that question may remain somewhat mysterious for a long time. There are many scientific hypotheses, sniper, and they're fairly well-described in the the "abiogenesis" Wikipedia entry that RCade linked to. It's not currently possible to determine which, if any, are correct. Each of these hypotheses does have the virtue of being testable and accounting for past events through natural processes. This is not true of creation myths, so it is no surprise that they are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Demonstrating precisely what processes led up to our origin may be difficult, but it is becoming increasingly clear that life on Earth did not by definition need a supernatural origin. God is no longer necessary as a creator. There is enough uncertainty that you need not become an evolution denier to keep your faith, falling back on a "god of the gaps" position is not productive. Those view the supernatural as the explanation for today's mysteries are constantly threatened by tomorrow's discoveries. It's an unpleasant reality for any believer to deal with.

As others have stated - none of this discussion of origins is really relevant to evolution, which describes what happens after the origin of life.

Here's a 50,000 year old hole in the ground.

No, that's a crater from the nuclear war that killed the dinosaurs 4000 years ago. How do you think all of that radioactive carbon 14 got everywhere?

Left-handed amino-acid disproves evolution.

Google "frozen accident". Then do a bit of digging on how left-handed amino acids are synthesized and employed by the organisms that have them.

Nothing Created Everything....

This book debunks atheism and exposes the impossibility of evolution... something for naturalistic thinkers to chew on...

Don't forget that Mohammed also loved the scent of young boy's ass in the morning.

Mohammed was Catholic?

........#181 | Posted by ZombieHunter

........no......just opportunistic........

This book debunks atheism and exposes the impossibility of evolution... something for naturalistic thinkers to chew on...
........#206 | Posted by takitez

.....no it does'nt......

Muhammad was not Catholic, for he would murder them....

Muhammad was a pedophile and adulterer....

Obama appears to think that he knows God's plan given those quotes. No?

#157 | Posted by JOE

no ... Show me exactly where Obama says "he knows God's Plan".

Nothing in the quotes you dug up say that.

And while you are at give me a link to that Plan.

Thanks

How did life start on earth?

What does that have to do with evolution (the topic of this thread)?

But, OK you show me your "theory" and I will show you mine! After I get done pointing and laughing at how "small" your "theory" is! I bet your "theory" is about 3 words long right? And completely unverifiable.

Muhammad was a pedophile and adulterer....

Same screed, different day. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if we're being trolled by some sort of fundiebot.

#211.... Muslims are afraid to probe into the real life history and lifestyle of Muhammad and will begin to attack those who do.

Nothing Created Everything....

referring to the Big Bang Theory?

If God created the Universe then who/what created God?

Don't you see you just moved the "problem" over to God? Wasn't God created from Nothing? And didn't God created everything from Nothing? So a Nothing created everything out of Nothing! Isn't that your biblical theory? Anyway I think that means you just proved we actually don't exist!

Just because we don't know the answer of where it all began it does not logically follow that there was necessarily an intelligent designer or creator involved.

Why does there have to be? To satisfy YOU and your lack of understanding of the Universe? Why can't the Universe and the Life that has arisen in that Universe just exist because it does. Maybe life is way more common in the Universe than you think. The evidence is not all in on that one yet.

It may be that the Big Bang theory "sounds" absurd but believing that a God "poofed" Life out of the dust whole and intact is just a bit more absurd...don't you think? A lot of scientific theories seem absurd until you understand them. Maybe I just don't understand the whole poofing business. Too bad we can't reproduce any evidence of that! Like we can with electron theory or the warping space and time and quantum mechanics.

And on top of that we have actually found evidence of evolution exists whereas of yet I believe there is NO evidence that a God exists anywhere or has created anything intelligently (out of nothing or something).

Nothing Created Everything....

This book debunks atheism and exposes the impossibility of evolution... something for naturalistic thinkers to chew on...

www.youtube.com

#206 | Posted by takitez at 2009-11-16 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

No shit. Your going to throw out there a video by Kurt Cameron?

Kirk Cameron is a child actor who was famous for his role in "Growing Pains". His education seems to have been grabbed between takes on the set while growing up. Child actors these days do receive a good High School education, but it is difficult to teach under those conditions, so I wouldn't be surprised if much of his science courses didn't stick. Around the age of 17 Cameron converted to evangelical Christianity and started making an ass of himself to his coworkers and boss. He was in an enviable position of being a popular show persona, and it would have been difficult for the producers to write him out of the show. They stuck with his attitude, but he didn't win many converts or friends. Cameron's education also seems to have ended at High School, and he has not attended any sort of seminary training.

The techniques are similar to those techniques that cults use to gain membership, and in order to learn them you'll need to spend a little money for a CD or DVD. Some items are not that cheap either - but they are all flashy.

And yes, Comfort and Cameron do deny evolution. Comfort denies evolution very comically in his now (in)famous Youtube classic about the Banana designed by God. (He completely misses that the banana is an invention of humans through selective breeding. He has since denied that he was actually serious about this argument.) Comfort and Cameron's website, Living Waters, is full of evolution denial. Most of the evidence against evolution is presented as books, DVDs, and even a board game, all for sale on their web site. Obviously a nonbeliever like myself isn't going to purchase this sort of thing, so I can't tell you how an uneducated person like Ray Comfort, who has no religious qualifications other than his conversion story, is able to understand biological science better than thousands of scientists.

That from a website I quickly googled.

Im sure there is more out there.

Seriously Taki, you are an embarrassment to conservative thought.

See my post on you and your ilk above in post #81

Caveat: He is not so stupid that he can't make money off sheeple like Takitez

I get a decent pay for my work in writing/preaching the gospel. I don't necessarily agree in all things with Kirk, but I appeciate his efforts to open the eyes of people toward spiritual matters. I consider "Nothing Created Everything" a good tool to spook and debunk atheism.... and evolution....

Taki, why can a Catholic or an Anglican get it but you baptists don't?

You live off your little evangelical talking points and refuse to look at the scientific evidence in front of you. The recent work in genome study has isolated the mechanisms of change at a cellular level that do show how the process of evolution is ongoing even today within us.

But Growing Pains is still on cable if you want to see Kirk's better work.

You know, you can still be a Christian and come into the modern world. They are not mutually exclusive as you have convinced yourself that they are.

Booj, please learn to see things beyond your pet evolution....

#214 | Posted by boojiboy

That was a fine post, bijouboy.

"didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea"
So evolution is still okay for Republicans?

But Growing Pains is still on cable if you want to see Kirk's better work.

Yeah, that career took a nose-dive for the gutter.

How can you be the child of a science teacher and dismiss the theory of evolution?

#49 | Posted by rcade

I had a biology teacher in HS. He believed in intelligent design as well.

#206 | Posted by takitez

LOL that video is hilarious.

Kirk Cameron is such a tool.

And Ray Comfort? What the fuck kind of pedophile name is that?

I had a biology teacher in HS.

I would hope so.

He believed in intelligent design as well.

That explains some things.

For Dipshit:
1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Please provides links proving the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact--and a theory--the theory part is HOW it happens--not that it happens.

ZH--that was a public school too.

One result of the theory of evolution is the use of pig heart valves in humans. I have 2, aortic & mitral, these valves saved my life. The hosptital did over 300 valve transplants the year I got my valves so many lifes are saved. DNA used to identify people works because the DNA evolves diffently in each person, so evolution solves crimes, WOW. There is not a science organization in the world that doesn't respect evolution. There is not a university in the world that doesn't teach it. (except for bible thumper schools)

Buffalo Bob, please quit saying Evolution is fact. It is not. If so then tell each of the previous animals that a chicken was before it was a chicken?

How about a lion?

Darwin said it himself. There should be all these in between creatures that show us the small increments between one creature and the next. Unfortuneately for the true believers in evolution there is not.

Buffalo Bob, please quit saying Evolution is fact. It is not.

#231 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-11-16 10:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

As they say--you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. In your case, you can lead an ignorant person to knowledge, but you can't make them read. Evolution is a fact---not a theory. The theory comes in as to HOW it happens, not THAT it happens. As in the theory of HOW evolution happens. That evolution happens is fact.

"Evolution is a fact."
~Carl Sagan

Deal with it.

I think some people's problem with evolution being a fact is you can't reproduce it in the lab. Now I'm referring to one species turning into another species (even creationists don't deny a species can evolve different characteristics (colors, etc)). Of course the time periods required make the experiment unfeasible, but it's not as obvious as dropping a rock to see gravity.

The "what created life" remarks result from the habit of many Atheists to use evolution to try to disprove God or the Bible. It does not. The Bible only says God created the creatures of Earth, not how he did it. The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook.

The fact that all life uses similar materials (DNA, etc.) could either be a result of evolution or a result of a designer using the same basic principles in all life because they work the best in our planet's environment. So much of the evidence can be seen from either side depending on the assumptions you bring with you.

I find the debate fascinating. It forces both sides to further investigate the world creating more knowledge for all.

Evolution is a false religion get over it
Palin is actually smarter than I thought.

Facts are things that have happened, therefore evolution is not a fact.
Science proves daily it hasnt happened

every species has always the same species in procreation in distinct lines they are still LOOKINg for ONE missing link

theyll never find it cause it is not fact.

Just fiction

Darwin was an pastor who apostatized and wanted to make himself feel better about it

Evolution is a false religion

I guess that makes it the only religion to ever be confirmed by experimental evidence. Give the sanctimonious bible thumping a rest, dickweed. You're way out of your league here.

Come back when you have learned enough biology for a GED and are capable of formulating an argument without blathering on about your imaginary friends.

Carl Sagan is a nature worshipper (Romans 1:25).

The church of evolution has dogma of its own. Its a mystery religion.

Sagan, Darwin, Lennon, etc are in the nether world... regretting...

"Sagan, Darwin, Lennon, etc are in the nether world"

Another nitwit too stupid to read his own Bible, and realize he just committed blasphemy.

"Bad rehearsal, Danforth? Put your hose on inside-out, maybe?"

Good God, you're a pathetic self-loathing closet case.

Why on earth does everything seemingly put you in mind of gay sex Something you'd like to admit to the class?

Lennon, etc are in the nether world

So how are we going to celebrate St. Chapman"s day this year Takeitez

Good God, you're a pathetic self-loathing closet case.

Now, Now...

Let's not project, Swish.....

"Let's not project, Swish....."

Too funny, coming from the guy who always is the first to bring up gay sex references.

'Night-night, Swish.

Daddy's tired.

Evolution has never been confirmed by experimental evicence. everytime you procreate a species, the same species results, that is called scientific expirimentation.

HName one experiment that confirms evolution
then name another more likely experiment that the moon is made of green cheese.
You are way out of yourn league here, come back when you studied bilogy and realize that species lines are set in stone, despite even genetic attempts to cross them, the rabbits are still rabbits

after 5000,000 generations of ECOLI, they are still ECOLI

amazing, that is true science.

"'Night-night, Swish."

Awwww....Isn't that too cute? The little twerp thinks a guy who has spent a generation in the arts is upset by some self-loather calling him "swish".

"You are way out of yourn league here, come back when you studied bilogy"

You cannot make this shit up.

Went to a museum on the way to work one day, I asked the man how he knew the rocks were 5 million years old.
He said, because they were found in 5,000,000 year old strata layers of the earth.
Oh, I said
I asked him how he knew the stratta layers were 5,000,000 years old.
"Because", he said without batting an eyelash, "They found 5,000,000 year old rocks there!

Pah-rah-rah-rah-rump!

Evolutino is a joke, anyone who believes it is going to die.

YOU are WAY out of YOUR legues here, they make this shet up all the time for money.

run the biology departments and keep christians (true scientists)from getting jobs, happens all the time.

anyone who believes it is going to die.
Hahahaha

Evolutino is a joke, anyone who believes it is going to die.

Here's a hint: everybody who doesn't believe it is going to die too.

My apologies: there should have been quotes on the first line of the prior post.

Good God, I don't want anyone to think I'm the author of RichardRhine's idiocy.

Go to school where they teach you to think Danforth.Not public school.
No way to form proteins randomly it isnt possible.
Try it when you get a few million dollars and a few centuries, you won't be able to make even one protein with all the resources on the planet from scratch, it isnt possible.

Truth is truth, Danforths are idiots.

Can't make a protein Danforth. Not with all the science on the planet, cannnot be done.

going to do it randomly, huh? Yuk yuk you have a few cards short of a full deck.
Not so smart.

"Go to school where they teach you to think Danforth.Not public school."

I'm the product of parochial schools. That's where I learned not to misspell like you:

"evicence"
"expirimentation"
"HName"
"yourn"
"bilogy"
"legues"

and a few centuries

You mean 45 million centuries

Instead of saying good god, you should say good darwin

got you there!idn't I?

:) HYUK! You loose

you should say good darwin

Good Darwin,Richard.
Darwin didn't claim he created the universe

"got you there!idn't I?"

Are you actually that big of a moron? You can't even capitalize, use the space bar, or spell the word "didn't"?!?

"You loose"

Yes...yes, you are that big of a moron. You lose.

When you have no resources you pick on people really smart good logic there, you wuss.

:)

million centuries? what a maroon!

the average LIFE of an amino acid radical is about 4 millisecondsin solution, if it isnt bound to another it willl be neutralized to garbage.

how is any protein going to last a couple milllion years?

totally unscientific!
impossible Danforth, what a maroon.

and to make ONE PROTEIN yo need 100,000 of them all made and combined within seconds of each other.

NO PROTEIN LASTS EVEN AN HOURN much less a million years.

"Here's a hint: everybody who doesn't believe it is going to die too.

Posted by Danforth"

Well, depends on your definition of "die." Some think this is "boot camp"...and "we" move on...hope so!

"impossible Danforth, what a maroon."

I never made a single assertion, idiot...other than you're a moron who can't even seem to spell simplistic words.

PROTEINS REPLICATE at 3600 revolutions per minute! If it slows down much the amino acid radicles would spontaneously oxidize. so you are going to suddenly evolve 100,000 amino acid radicals at the same moment, and SUDDENLY all at once (before 4 seconds are up put them all in the right sequence before they oxidize and come apart.

tall me another one you big smart evolution beliving cheeky babe, you!

HYUK!

llike I said GO TO SCHOOL DANFORTH you are a fool.

it CANNOT be done randomly.

PS my degree is MUCH higher than yours I guarantee it.

First,remember who your arguing with.
2nd you brought up centuries.I argue the earth is about 4.5 billion years old,lots of time for lots of chemistry.
3rd either you have fat fingers or you're a good drinking buddy,nothing wrong with either

You know, cells are held togehter y electrostatic force with a voltage differential of 0.8olts equally. if one part of the cell wall depolarizes, the thing collapses like a raw egg with point pressure. eggs raw, with equal pressure can stand a lot of force. simultaneously within mie,

IT AINT HAPPNIN BABE!

EVOLUTION is a joke.

"llike I said"

Like I said....

"PS my degree is MUCH higher than yours I guarantee it."

It's not in English Literature, I guarantee it.

And if your degree is higher, I'm betting the barometer is altitude.

that is a copout.

why dont you make it TRILLIONS of years huh? why not?

cause your SUN would not last that long.

You would if you could

there is no time for protein production sir, the proteins have to be assembled spontanesouly within microseconds or they disintigrate.
you can not even make ONE amino acid in an oxygen atmosphere even in a pentillion years, cause oxygen oxidizes.

it aint happnin babe.

no amino acids survivbe even minutes much less millions of years to try again
it isnt real it never happened it cant happen evolution is a false religion.

dudey, theylooked 10 billion years into the past with HUBBLE and they found nice, average gallazies. they looked 5 billion years into the past and found nice normal galaxies they looked 1 billion years into the past and they found nice normal galazies and nowhere did they see dying or forming galaxies. stars dont last 15 billion years, explain that.

you cant

or you would have a PHD

you are out of your nleague.
Evolutionists just quote rote ritual phrases but dont think
IT CANT HAPPEN DANFORTH

IT NEVER HAPPENED.
its a sham religion.

And if you believe in it, you will perish for eternity. Ain't worth it.

you can not even make ONE amino acid in an oxygen atmosphere even in a pentillion years, cause oxygen oxidizes

Well the thinking goes that there was no oxygen(O2 by itself) until the EVOLUTION of plants,what do you think about that

The truth is not desireable, because the truth is that we are ignoring OUR creator and that is going to make him upset. And you.

I go to vietnam, adopt a boy raise him through flu, sickness, appendicitis, buy him clothes feed him and when he gets to be twenty one, he cuts down a tree and boys down and thanks his idol for raising him and paying for his schooling and keeping him healthy.

howzat make me, the true father, feel>

Disrespect. also, the kid is an idiot, obviously.

"IT CANT HAPPEN DANFORTH"

Show where I claimed it could, fool.

Evolutionists just quote rote ritual phrases but dont think

hehehe

HA HA HA NO OXYGEN!

so why would a cell designed to run in an oxygen atmosphere with the mitochondrial O2 scavenging system DEVELOP when it DID EXIST?

dude you make no sense at all.

(Thpought you were going to claim that lie)

You see, oxygen is necessary to power the cell to hold it together!

without oxygen ANY CELL disintegrates within minute.

So a stupid cell instantly made TRILLIONS of proteins SIMULTANEOUSLY within MINUTES of the lightning strike and DESIGNED ITSELF to develop for an OSYGEN ENVIRONMENT quickly before the oxygen was produced because after oxygen was introduced it couldnt create proteins!

So when in time did we have a reducing atmosphere, so that a full cell can form and then within 5 minutes a full O2 atmosphere so it could continue to function?

You dont have a clue what you are saying you are totally ignorant. like aI said go to school

Thpought

Man is your head going to hurt tomorrow.
Why do you desecrate god's temple

so why would a cell designed to run in an oxygen atmosphere with the mitochondrial O2 scavenging system DEVELOP when it DID EXIST?

Simple.Evolution,my friend

So, you are claiming the cell GREW AND DEVELOPED in a no oxygen envoronment, using an oxygen dependant ATP system to hold it together (used a scuba tank for a few million years) until the plants that made the oxygen could be developed.
hesis to make oxygen from sunlight.this poses the final difficulty.

LIGHT BREAKS DOWN PROTEINS
amino acids combine with light energyit couldn't build up while there was light.

So the plants had to evolute in the dark until they were ready to power on, and the germs had to create themselves to be dependant on O2 but could only do it while there was no o2

So , you call this science?

I call it religion, like Disneyland and fantasyland.
cant happen.

the plants actually need oxygen to hold themselves together in order to photosynthesis. You see they run on ATP too and they make their own.

and

LIGHT BREAKS DOWN PROTEINS

They evolved at night LOL

dude, it is stupid.

so some "scientists" believe intelligence from another universe had to come to plant the seeds of life. I guess in that universe fantasy is reality.

here is the nail in your evolution coffin.

Look up ISOMERS.
tell me how it is possible to create just ONE protein, made of ALL LEFT isomer amino acids?

How can this be done?

Even the US nuclear scientists , bell labs, union carbide and Pacific power and electric with westinghouse as backers cant even creat ONE insulin molecule ALL LEFT AMINO ACIDS from scrath

IT CANNOT BE done with all the most poerful equipment in the world, cant make one insulin amino acid all left isomer from scrath.

cant be done because, because
why?
becfause it is impossible that is why.

so this is going to happen randomly when they must be created and united with microseconds?

and this is going to happen spontaneously to form olecues at the same time in the same cell so it will be one of the MILLIONS of proteins necessary to run at the exact instant in its series of movements

dude, martians with green cows flying faster than light to deliver green cheese to make up the moon is infinitely more likely.

it never happened .

Those that say it did are just showing total ignorance of the science involved.
Our creator is infinite, he made the cell a working structure which is more than our scientists can ever do

Even in 500 yourse the scientists in star trek could not make a protein molecule all L isomer, because there is NO WAY to track L and R isomers moving at 600 miles an hour, determine which is L and R and unite them all within four minutes

it wil NEVER HAPPEN.never happened, never will happen and dont even think about it.Millions of insulin mio

Ok, you win.
Thanks god for malaria,tapeworms,multiple sclerosis,measles,small pox,polio.

Intelligent design.

IT AINT HAPPNIN BABE!

EVOLUTION is a joke.

Catch you later Richard

"nowhere did they see dying or forming galaxies."
~ RICHARDRHINE

"A dying galaxy near the Milky Way appears to be sowing the seeds of its own rebirth and may hold the secret to the apparent reincarnation of several other similar galaxies.

Evolutionists are just hubritic idiots.
Hubris
hubris
go go go
It can happen we say so!
YAY

One guy said, "I can prove evolution happened!"
I said HOW?
He said
"Because we are here."

that sounds about right, all our scientists are now idiots.

dude, martians with green cows flying faster than light to deliver green cheese to make up the moon

most sense you've made tonight

If you believe this lie, you will surely die.

It aint worth it.

200 years ago EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD knew exactly how we got here.
Just ask them. Copernicus, galileo all of them, they knew.

So why don't we listen to them?

Darwin and a few pagans invented tall stories so they wouldn't have to be good.
bottom line.

I believe in evolution because I don't want to be good

"Evolutionists are just hubritic idiots."

Too funny for words.

galileo

Died in 1642,could have been earlier on the rack,but then he saw the LIGHT

"Died in 1642"

Ssssshhh...Drunkie thinks he's living in 1842.

BTW, Copernicus died in 1543.

Drunkie thinks he's living in 1842

Must be using windows 1

and to make ONE PROTEIN yo need 100,000 of them all made and combined within seconds of each other.

NO PROTEIN LASTS EVEN AN HOURN much less a million years.

My God, how can someone post so much that is so wrong.

What's your degree in again, Richard? Bible biology?

Everything you've said is absolute bullshit.

Proteins are quite stable in aqueous solutions. Depending on the protein, instabilities can range dramatically.

In fact, if you lyse cells, the most prolific degradation of proteins is due to proteins themselves (called proteases). If you inhibit these proteins, you'll see that spontaneous degradation is rather slow.

You see, oxygen is necessary to power the cell to hold it together!

What? Oxygen is required for the primary mode of energy production, but cells can and do survive without it.

without oxygen ANY CELL disintegrates within minute.

Absolutely untrue. Low oxygen concentrations induce a state called hypoxia, which cells can survive in for several hours before they die.

I was thinking about responding to more, but it's not really worth it.

Enjoy the rest of your night, buddy, you're going to regret it in the morning.

.. There's a documentary from the early 70's about a minister turned I don't know what who attempts to uncover the shams of revivalist preaching. In it he spends time with a wealthy guy who talks about planting the seeds of what we've seen these past 15 odd years. The long term vision and the way this man spoke on it was pretty creepy.
www.imdb.com Marjoe
#83 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-16 12:17 PM

I'm downloading Marjoe immediately. 7.3 for a documentary, particularly one dated in the early 70's is bound to be highly embarrassing in this day of 700 Clubbary .

On topic: I believe in her farewell to government she bore her distinct, poetic soul for us to decipher. Her mind comprised of two sheets of paper filling simultaneously; one hand reciting an electrocardiograph and the other transcribing bass tabs from newspaper produce ads.

It's no wonder her followers are now befuddled, her symmetrical-appearing design is appealing for sexual reproduction and her psychological condition is an undiagnosed, but quite medicated common megalomania, so why the disagreement with the Vatican? Where is that "Maverick" sleeping tonight? Why can't Sarah be both Ted Stephens & Ted Kennedy? She's cynical enough to birth a special needs child en route to a business trip - and didn't miss her speech despite the morphine. Other than having an enlarged prostate, I detect no trace of erectile difficulties from her, so she's already half of each Ted. She can spend like the big government whore she believes she's entitled to be, but also live the glamorous connections that a hard drug addiction provides the whole family, particularly to ensure a future memoir missing chapters prior to publication. She doesn't need to believe in the sanctity of some fancy science-guy claiming he's descended from animals until it's morally required to stop shooting at him, or she needs him for drugs. Fancy science-guy's are all from the same place - their ivory tower 20,000 leagues under Obamacare. Hippys are not lucky that she can not only see their Ruskie ass, but Mexican swine flu deficit spending spotted owl drill babies beware too!

People who also disbelieve evolution are just rebelling against their fathers. Those poor Christians merely want the love of their father, not his "wisdom", "thoughts" or perhaps "education". She shares more in common with these disenfranchised communalists than anyone aside from a child services councilor should readily admit. "Doesn't believe" sounds more like a cruel bumper sticker than the headline she should be remembered for.

"IT IS A THEORY. NOT A FACT. You tools don't seem to understand that."

When's the last time somebody here took the pains to re-explain the difference between a lay definition of the word "theory" and its scientific definition?

#14 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-16 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

That would make it....a still unproven theory.

A theory based on presupposition that the universe is orderly. If not orderly, then observation of consistent evidence would be unobtainable; rendering knowledge unknowable. So, we presuppose an orderly universe on which to base consistent observation to acquire knowledge.

Evolutionists cannot confirm the origin of this order. The theist believes God created all things and ordered all things. We do (or should) know that we cannot ascribe the origin of all things to chance. Chance has no power to do anything. Chance essentially is mathematical probability; the likelihood that given a, then b. Chance cannot give a.

There's a documentary from the early 70's about a minister turned I don't know what who attempts to uncover the shams of revivalist preaching. In it he spends time with a wealthy guy who talks about planting the seeds of what we've seen these past 15 odd years. The long term vision and the way this man spoke on it was pretty creepy.

www.imdb.com">Marjoe/a>

#83 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-16 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

One cannot understand decision theology, holiness teaching, Pentecostalism, or, for that matter, the Promise Keepers without understanding Revivalism.

Revivalism emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century in what has been called the Second Great Awakening. Under the leadership of Charles Grandison Finney, an eastern lawyer with no theological training, "new measures" were developed to produce on-going revival. Finney taught that conversion was an act of the human will. The unbeliever had to be educated, motivated, and moved by emotions to choose to live a holy life.

Finney was a heretic who rejected the doctrine of original sin, the vicarious atonement, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer.

Resources:
Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994).
Michael Horton, Made in America, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991).

That's because she's just another religious fanatic. Just what this would needs.

How can you be the child of a science teacher and dismiss the theory of evolution?

Scary is a Rebel!

A Rebel without a Clue.

That would make it....a still unproven theory.

You know nothing.

When the science of genetics first came into play there was a chance that Evolutionary theory was gonna be totally toppled by all the massive new data.

In fact, all the new science did was reconfirm that Darwin was right all along.

All science is based on theories.

All science presupposes that all theories are capable of being build upon or destroyed by newer theories with stronger data.

The theory of gravity holds that when you drop a rock while standing on a planet it will fall down.

Who knows, maybe one day that rock may fall up and then science will have to account for that notable exception to the theory.

Wot people need to understand and acknowledge here is that Creationism is merely a feeble attempt by early, ignorant man to describe something they literally did not have the first clue about.

Saying "God did it" is basically just saying "I don't know and I don't care to know".

"Intelligent Design" aka ID is merely a transparent attempt by religious fundamentalists to bully their spiritual beliefs into a science class.

Spud calls people who take ID seriously "IDiots".

Spud calls Sarah Palin an idiot here.

Only person stupider than Sarah Palin is anyone who voted for her.

K?

Be Well.

/As he do
stage left.

I get a decent pay for my work in writing/preaching the gospel.

#218 | POSTED BY TAKITEZ AT 2009-11-16 08:01 PM

You WRITE the gospel?

Whoa!

"IT IS A THEORY. NOT A FACT."

Scientific illiterates everywhere you look.

The education system seems to have collapsed.

I asked him how he knew the stratta layers were 5,000,000 years old.
"Because", he said without batting an eyelash, "They found 5,000,000 year old rocks there!

Pah-rah-rah-rah-rump!

How old do you think the earth is?

Evolutino is a joke, anyone who believes it is going to die.

You don't think you are going to die? Even if you believe in heaven, you have to die before you get there. Chances are your god will see to it you develope some horrible disease to accomplish the feat of dying. Besides, heaven is described as the "firmament" in the bible---doesn't sound very enticing. What do you think you will do in heaven? No sex--no fast cars--no nothing. Sit around being content and happy for eternity? Sounds like a pot smokers dream--but no pot. Sounds like a great existence for a fish, or a pet with no brains--no goals--no ambitions--no dreams. No thanks.

#252 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-11-17 02:28 AM | Reply | Flag

That's because she's just another religious fanatic. Just what this would needs.

#302 | Posted by bat4255

She's not a "true" Christian. I've looked into her heart, she's into whatever sells.

That was my meager imitation of Takitez.

BTW, if you really want her book-Walmart, $20 off.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
dictionary.reference.com

That's only a partial definition. Scientists use the term 'theory' to describe the entire gamut of explanations of physical phenomenon from the totally discredited, e.g. 'Ether Theory' to those consistent with all available measurements e.g. Relativity theory, Evolution.

Since the validation of a theory invariably depends on measurements or data of limited accuracy, it is impossible completely validate a theory so the claim that "Evolution is not a fact" is, in fact, true, as is the statement "No theory is a fact".

"Evolution is not a fact" is, in fact, true, as is the statement "No theory is a fact".

#308 | Posted by Tom_W at 2009-11-17 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Evolution is a fact--not a theory. That evolution happens is factual. The "theory" part is how it happens--not that it happens.

I'm an engineer.. and while I don't claim to be a "scientist" I can probably run circles around most folks posting here in the areas of physics and math.. and I don't think evolution happened..

There's not a shred of credible scientific evidence to suggest that one species "evolved" into another.. despite almost a century of frenzied research and hope to verify it.. and the lunacy that has become pervasive in pop science circles that claims there is usually cites example after example of adaptation.. not evolution..

I think the adherence to a silly theory like this (Darwin knew nothing about cellular structure)has had the effect of stifling true science.

What do you call people that continue to believe something that doesn't conform to reality? Let's just settle for... idiots..

There's not a shred of credible scientific evidence to suggest that one species "evolved" into another.

Actually ALL the evidence gathered in the last hundred years or so supports Darwin theory.

There's not one shred of evidence that it occured any other way.

Maybe that's where yer getting confused?

/Always helpful, that's Spud! ^_^

Be Well.

I'm an engineer.

The church of evolution has dogma of its own. Its a mystery religion.
.......#239 | Posted by takitez

......the worst insult a believer can make, is to accuse others of being believers also........

".....the worst insult a believer can make, is to accuse others of being believers also........"

Exactly. It's the number one argument of theists. "You are as nutty as we are".

#307 | Posted by nmg_no at 2009-11-17 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

How old do you think the earth is?

Do you think the first of all species just popped into existence as fully formed adults? Take for instance--the first elephant. Do you think the African plain was empty, and suddenly an elephant just appeared out of nowhere?

How old do you think the earth is?

Do you think the first of all species just popped into existence as fully formed adults? Take for instance--the first elephant. Do you think the African plain was empty, and suddenly an elephant just appeared out of nowhere?

#312 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Without a creator, that is exactly what you have to believe...

...the most complex biological designs can simply happen all on their own.

Damn, I sure wish my dirty dishes would evolve in clean dishes by themselves.

I mean that should be possible right? A ceramic plate isn't nearly as complex as an African Elephant.

Evolution is a fact---not a theory. The theory comes in as to HOW it happens, not THAT it happens. As in the theory of HOW evolution happens. That evolution happens is fact.

www.talkorigins.org

#231 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I'm not here to argue agaisnt evolution, but I do have to say to you, Bob, that it is not a fact. It is a theory that continues to gain more and more evidence but it is not a fact. You are ignorant to say so.

#313 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-11-17 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

You missed a couple of questions.

1. How old do you think the Earth is?

2. Do you think the first of all species just popped into existence as fully formed adults?

3. Take for instance--the first elephant. Do you think the African plain was empty, and suddenly an elephant just appeared out of nowhere?

Hints--the answer to the first question is a number. The answer to the next two questions are either "yes" or "no".

What you did say--makes absolutely no sense at all. Evolution does not say elephants simply popped into existence fully formed on the African plain one day.

I'm not here to argue agaisnt evolution, but I do have to say to you, Bob, that it is not a fact. It is a theory that continues to gain more and more evidence but it is not a fact. You are ignorant to say so.

#314 | Posted by everlong at 2009-11-17 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag

My point was proven in the link.

Evolution is a fact--not a theory. That evolution happens is factual. The "theory" part is how it happens--not that it happens.

Life begets Life.

Wrong again, bOoB. Everlong is right. Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact.

Life begets Life.

#317 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-11-17 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

I missed your answers to post #312. Try thinking real hard.

I'm an engineer.. and while I don't claim to be a "scientist" I can probably run circles around most folks posting here in the areas of physics and math.. and I don't think evolution happened..

So what. You're an engineer, not a biologist. Do you expect to get some sort of authority or smart guy points for being an engineer? It's irrelevant to the conversation.

There's not a shred of credible scientific evidence to suggest that one species "evolved" into another.. despite almost a century of frenzied research and hope to verify it.. and the lunacy that has become pervasive in pop science circles that claims there is usually cites example after example of adaptation.. not evolution..

You're absolutely wrong. There are reams upon reams of data supporting evolution, much of which is not ever reported on in popular media sources given the extreme dryness and boring nature of the work. But it exists.

Most people make this claim out of their ignorance of the data, not because they've studied it.

I think the adherence to a silly theory like this (Darwin knew nothing about cellular structure)has had the effect of stifling true science.

What makes you think you have a clue what "true science" is?

What do you call people that continue to believe something that doesn't conform to reality? Let's just settle for... idiots..

Says the engineer who steps way out of his home turf and spews unmitigated bullshit throughout his entire post.

Wrong again, bOoB. Everlong is right. Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact.

Actually, Bob isn't far off on this one.

Amongst biologists evolution is damn close to being fact and is often treated as such. The debate is more about the mechanisms by which evolution proceeds.

Damn, I sure wish my dirty dishes would evolve in clean dishes by themselves.

I mean that should be possible right? A ceramic plate isn't nearly as complex as an African Elephant.

There's one not so subtle difference between your dishes and an elephant that you seem to be missing here.

Figure it out and you'll understand why your statement is idiotic.

Darwin knew nothing about cellular structure

The microscope was invented in the 1600's. What the hell are you talking about?

No matter how many times you explode a deep penetrator nuclear ordnance in a gravel pit, you are not going to end up with a complete pentagon building wired with fiber optic complete with pentium quad processor computers programmed with windows 8 which hasnt been released yet.

The single eukaryotic cell is far more complex than a pentagon building.

Ain't gonna happen, aint never happened and ain't never happened.

Sorry.

See, the false premise is that ENERGY somehow empowers simple elements to get complex when this is a big lie.

Energy DESTROYS fragile molecules. a lightning blast would destroy any possible amino acids.

If I imparted ENERGY to your house roof in the form of a lightning bolt in a severe thunder storm, the evolutionists would say "GREAT! A BRAND NEW ROOF WILL APPEAR AND I WONT HAVE TO RESHINGLE, there is enough energy in a lightning bolt to re-roof ten houses!

then the person with intelligence will say
"Oh, Lighthning bolt, LOTSOF ENERGY your roof will be acattered around the block because entropy increases with explosions."

Who would be right?
Who is a "hater" because he is thinking negatively?
Who is afraid to give his opinion in public?
Who would be praised for being a loving person?
Right, the idiot gets the dlory just like the evolutionists.

You are correct, Darwin knew nothing about cellular structure.

Lewenhook saw the cell and saw LITTLE ANIMALS in the cell and he purposed there were little beings in there running the machinery.
Like the man said, they knew nothing of cellular structure, enzymes, proteins atoms molecules chemical reactions entropy nothing

they thought little animals ran the cell.

That far right nuts are illerate as to science is a given, if their views prevailed we would still be stuck in the dark ages. The growth in biology and health sciences due to evolution is tremendous and life saving. Covering your eyes and saying "I don't see no evidence" is a hallmark of the far right (and wing nuts). Be pround of your ignorance! By the way, Sarah also belives in witches, if you wish you can follow her all the way to Salem!

If you are an evolutionist, you are an ignorant, who cannot think for himself and just wants to have somthing be true that is impossible to be true.

bottom line.

The left nuts of the far left magical thnking spontaneous windows environment just dont want to give up sinning.

If you are an evolutionist, you are an ignorant, who cannot think for himself and just wants to have somthing be true that is impossible to be true.
bottom line.
#327 | Posted by hopebobby

The left nuts of the far left magical thnking spontaneous windows environment just dont want to give up sinning.
#328 | Posted by hopebobby

Is there a reverse Gobbledygood Generator?

The far left nuts are illiterate as far as science is concerned.
You cannot make left isomer proteins randomly or even in a laboratory

Science means EXPERIMENT and PROOF that it can happen.

the inability to make L isomer proteins PRVOVES sCIENTIFICALLY that evolution is false.

If you disagree, simply go to the lab and make one
I dare you.

The far left of intelligence or "one card shy of a full deck" thin the grand canyon was made by an iceburg that travelec 500 miles uphill.

Sure, you want another best seller, you take an old rotten tree put it in a cave with 1 ton of dynamite and explode it, You will generate a best selling novel if you do it enough times.

Complete with color hard cover.

If you blow up a log a hundred times a day for a billion years, EVENTUALLY you willl suddenly create the taj mahal

Left wing idiots.

No matter how many times you explode a deep penetrator nuclear ordnance in a gravel pit, you are not going to end up with a complete pentagon building wired with fiber optic complete with pentium quad processor computers programmed with windows 8 which hasnt been released yet.

The single eukaryotic cell is far more complex than a pentagon building.

Ain't gonna happen, aint never happened and ain't never happened.

I see you updated the BS tornado in a junkyard analogy.

It's still bullshit though.

You make the mistake of acting as if a eukaryotic cell had to arise, in the state it is today, spontaneously and instantly. This is not the case and you're showing your ignorance (or adherence to ID pushers' arguments) if you think this is true.

See, the false premise is that ENERGY somehow empowers simple elements to get complex when this is a big lie.

You've never taken a chemistry lab, have you?

Energy DESTROYS fragile molecules. a lightning blast would destroy any possible amino acids.

In the immediate vicinity, probably. However, there would be a gradient of energy moving outward from the point of the strike. There's your zone of interest.

Besides, what's your obsession with the lightning strike shit anyway? It has nothing to do with evolution and is speculation to boot.

hopebobby

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2009/11/17
Visited 2009/11/17

How you feeling this morning Richard?

The far left of intelligence or "one card shy of a full deck" thin the grand canyon was made by an iceburg that travelec 500 miles uphill.

Not anywhere close to the real explanation-the Colorado River.

Or do you think a giant world-wide flood did it in 40 days?

Sure, you want another best seller, you take an old rotten tree put it in a cave with 1 ton of dynamite and explode it, You will generate a best selling novel if you do it enough times.

Complete with color hard cover.

#332 | Posted by hopebobby

If you blow up a log a hundred times a day for a billion years, EVENTUALLY you willl suddenly create the taj mahal

Left wing idiots.

#333 | Posted by hopebobby

What the fuck are you talking about?

Palin is still a boob.

Hegelian and Marxist theory stipulates that the dialectic nature of history will lead to the resolution, or synthesis, of its contradictions. Marx therefore postulated that history would "logically" make capitalism evolve into a socialist society where the means of production would equally serve the exploited and suffering class of society, thus resolving the prior contradiction between (a) and (b).

Marx was an idiot. Probably believed in evolution.

No resolution is spontaneous, things always just get worse naturally.

HI.

I'm an engineer with a masters degree.

And I believe in evolution.

I am also a sinner walking the face of the earth. As we all are.

But I don't understand for the life of me why evangelical baptists think that believing in the science of evolution will send me to hell.

Lets shift the argument here fellas. Turn it on its head.

Taki, Hopebobby, RichardRhine, why do you insist through your posts that to believe in a field of science is a sin?

Can one of you provide a complete coherent argument as to why that is?

And don't tell me it violates the book of genesis. That has been debunked a thousand times. The simple argument against that is that we don't know how long a day is to God-how could we possibly, and we don't know God's process. Genesis was an articulation of something far to massive to be completely understood with words-can you agree on that?

So again, I want to hear from one of you thumpers why it is sinful to believe in evolution. And if you can't put up then shut it.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.[1]

Evolution takes third law of thermodynamics that says complexity always decreases and agrees with that, then states all the animals in the world created themselves.

Orwellian doublethink.

And it needs to be out of scripture. Not from one of your preachermen.

Come on, man up little boys.

I don't want to hear crickets.

it is really HYPNOSIS

To believe what is not true (aka that you are a chicken)

is hypnosis.

evolution is nothing more than hypnosis.
False religion
Orwellian doublethink
Impossibility

crick
crick
crick

Prove me wrong
Go make a protein in the lab
cannot be done/

#339

I have an MBA and I work in the insurance industry.

I know how you feel.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them..that is evolution..To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, such as isomeric protein differentiation in random chemical reactions, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, (billions of years and the magical will happen) to deny the existence of objective reality (all animals are the same every time) and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies (all species are similar) all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[1]

Always changing the subject when proven impossible, nailing jello to the wall.

Sorry
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, man did not creat himself.

"It is God who has made us and not we ourselves." Psalms.

Evolutionary hypnosis was around in King Davids time.

Evolution takes third law of thermodynamics that says complexity always decreases and agrees with that, then states all the animals in the world created themselves.

Actually, it's the second law of thermodynamics and even Answers in Genesis says it's a bad argument.

Who are you taking your talking points from, Richard?

Prove me wrong
Go make a protein in the lab
cannot be done

What sort of twisted, convoluted logic are you using whereby evolution is disproved because we can't synthesize proteins in a lab?

Right back at you
Go make a protein in the lab, it cannot be done.
it certainly cannot ever happen randomly in an oxygen atmosphere.

Doublethink - calling the truth twisted and claiming to have logic when ignoring your illogic of the facts.

crick
crick
crick

#343 | Posted by hopebobby at 2009-11-17 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

How old do you think the earth is?

Do you think the first of all species just popped into existence as fully formed adults? Take for instance--the first elephant. Do you think the African plain was empty, and suddenly an elephant just appeared out of nowhere?

Dude,
Science is all about reproducing a chemical reactiono.
If it cannot be reproduced it is not scientific that is the definition

dont call evolution sccience unless you can reproduce ALL of its parts in the lab you cant even make ONE PROTEIN in the lab.

evolution is UNSCIENTIFIC until you can make a complete left isomeric protein either randomly or in the lab, and if you cannot do it under ideal conditions, it certainly is never going to happen in a mudpuddle.

Go make a protein in the lab, it cannot be done.

Again, what exactly is your point?

it certainly cannot ever happen randomly in an oxygen atmosphere.

It wouldn't happen in the atmosphere.

No, the first species were created in microseconds fully formed with blood running in ther veins.

Ever seen star trek?
Q seems to do it and the kids love it

but when God does it you dont like it.

stop being a hypocrite and turn of Star trek.

Look, God by definition is omnipotent, he created man a fully formed man, you acknowledge in the future some star trek person is going to be able to do it
but you wont let God do it?

very small of you.

If it wouldn't happen in an atmosphere, then after it was made it couldn't survive for oxygen is essentil within milliseconds to scavenge the radicals or the wall collapses

at what point in history does the atmosphere instantly turn on to oxygen?

cant have it both ways.

Science is all about reproducing a chemical reactiono.
If it cannot be reproduced it is not scientific that is the definition

Ok, so ignorant of evolution? Check. Ignorant of science in general? Check.

You know there's a saying about when you're in a hole...

dont call evolution sccience unless you can reproduce ALL of its parts in the lab you cant even make ONE PROTEIN in the lab.

The idiocy. It burns.

So nothing is considered "science" until our knowledge of the topic was complete?

By that definition there is no true science in existence.

evolution is UNSCIENTIFIC until you can make a complete left isomeric protein either randomly or in the lab, and if you cannot do it under ideal conditions, it certainly is never going to happen in a mudpuddle.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so the formation of proteins is irrelevant.

How old are you anyway?

Hopebobby,

You're not all there mentally, are you?

that isnt even the point.

Whether oxygen or not you CANNOT make a 100 Dalton protein of all left amino acids using any technology in the universe. it can't happen unless it was created fully formed by a technolgy that can instantly track precise positions of 600 miles per hour molecules and it must be able to differentiate LEFT and RIGHT isomers!

This is technologically impossible

solve a mvoing body equation in one dimension is possible
solving a moving body equation for two variables is achievable

solve an equation in real time for 100,000 bodies is impossible by even borg technology.

Hopebobby,
You're not all there mentally, are you?
#355 | Posted by jpw

JPW -
Hopebobby's definitely there, mentally. He's just not here, mentally.

Truth is crazy to you?

so sad JPW

ignore me

go make a protein

you cannot do it. neither can evolution

Hey you claimed evolution could happen, I claim it could not ever no way ever happen.

I am right and you are not.
Where are you at mentally?
Watch a lot of TV do you?

Believe star trek is real?

Think talking animals in cartoons are real?

wouldn't doubt it.

Let Monsanto start from scratch and make an insulin protein.

That I gotta see.

HopeBobby/RichardRhine...

What degree do you have?

Hopebobby's definitely there, mentally. He's just not here, mentally.

Well I hope there never becomes here for me.

Okay so no ones biting.

Earlier someone asked how life began.

Pretty much everyone out there said we don't know.

But hoppybobby, richard rine are all jumping on that like that is the proof evolution can't happen.

Shut the fuck up, its apples and oranges. Science readily admits that it does not have the answer you dumbfucks!!!!!!!!!!

Still nothing on my question.

You guys suck as biblebelters.

No, the first species were created in microseconds fully formed with blood running in ther veins.

#352 | Posted by hopebobby at 2009-11-17 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok---so how old is the Earth?

BBob, make them answer my question,

why is it a sin for us to believe in evolution. they can't do it.

Whether oxygen or not you CANNOT make a 100 Dalton protein of all left amino acids using any technology in the universe.

No one can make a 100 dalton protein. The average molecular weight of amino acids is 135 daltons.

Also, I just realized you're dead wrong.

We can make peptides in the lab quite easily and it's done regularly for the production of antibodies for use in labs. I've done it a few times.

We know the peptides are correct not only because of the analysis done by the protein chemists who make them, but also because the accurately mimic the corresponding peptide found in the actual protein.

Now I'm sure you'll want us to make functional proteins.

let me put it this way.

making an insulin protein from scrath is like flipping a coin 51 times tails
each amino acid added will decrease the yield by 50% since some right will bond and ruin the molecule the lefts will be about 50% of each reaction

reactions are about 20 percent efficient.

so from origianal products of 100 pounds of pure amino acids you will yield
0.0000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000001%

which is LESS than ONE miolecule in a MOLE of molecules!

in fact it is
0.00000000000000000000001% of one molecule in a mole of molecules

in fact if you made 100 pounds of PURE racemic amino acids perfectly and reacted them once per day 53 times it would take ONE PENTILLION YEARS of daily reactions with pur molecules to finally make ONE PURE INSULIN PROTEIN!

and the WASTE of BAD PROTEINS would be heavier than the known universe in weight.

so this happened randomly in only a billion years not just for ONE molecule but for billions and trillions of cells and millions of animals and plants all over the world

left wing magical ignorant thinking.

Evolution = doublethink hypnosis for the ignorant.

crick
crick
crick

#343 | Posted by hopebobby at 2009-11-17 11:59 AM

Not to be picky, but don't you mean to say:

chirp
chirp
chirp

Thats IT!
REALITY HAS SPOKEN!

Give up star trek, it isn't real and Spock doesnt really exist.

My, it sure is quiet in this evolution free universe, isn't it?

"making an insulin protein from scrath is like flipping a coin 51 times tails"

Which can be done, as any statistician will tell you.

Now, Hopebobby...what's your educational background?

#367 | Posted by hopebobby

Full of the same lame ass misconceptions the IDers constantly make.

Clearly you have a little bit of information in your head (you know what a mole is in the context of chemistry), and yet you have so much other shit in there too.

You seem quite able to find the ID sites, use the same methods to find the sites that blow ID to pieces.

I gotta run.

hopebobby: again, your talking about the origin of LIFE. A different train of thought from evolution altogether.

Why are you arguing about the chance of an insulin molecule occuring randomly in the universe?

You are such a tool.

And of course, still no one on your side can give my a single scriputal reference as to why it is wrong to believe in evolution.

It's not wrong for Hindu's to believe that cows are reincarnated humans...

...it doesn't make that notion correct right however.

You can also rightly believe anything you desire, you can also, just as rightly, be wrong in your beliefs.

If believing in random spontaneous life-form creation (creator-less), makes you happy and fullfilled, then the scientific truth of that notion really doesn't matter...

...does it?