Yes We can

[Feba]

Re: Yes We can

You can't blindingly think.

Sure you can. Haven't you ever tried to talk to a creationist?

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

They aren't thinking.

[Feba]

Re: Yes We can

Touche.

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

Sure you can. Haven't you ever tried to talk to a creationist?

Oh you don't know how long I've wanted to have this conversation.
If you want, I can show you how evolution doesn't hold water w/o ever mentioning God or religion.

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

What does that have to do with Creationists?

[Neomage]

Re: Yes We can

Kerry tried and lost >.>p

Kerry won the popular vote, he only lost the electorial. One more reason the college needs to go.

Although I don't exactly think Kerry was much better then Bush... His whole campaign was based on "I was shot three times"

Now Gore, thats the person I would have liked as president. And he won the popular also.

[Malacite]

Re: Yes We can

And he would have erased the national debt in 2 years -. -

Just think of where the USA would be right now, with zero debt and racking in thirteen trillion dollars a year. At the very least you'd be able to tell China to go screw itself >_>b

Also, I suppose I didn't really word that properly Feba. I didn't mean anyone should vote for Romney simply because he's a Mormon; just that (from what I've read anyway) they tend to be trustworthy people and that should be taken into consideration along with his credentials. Either way I don't care, I wouldn't vote for him anyway, I just think he's the Republican Party's best bet.

[jwalton]

Re: Yes We can

Kerry won the popular vote, he only lost the electorial. One more reason the college needs to go.

And I argue that the electoral college is important to American politics. The intent behind it was to put more representation across the nation, and not high-population cities. While it isn't flawless and you have candidates who like to focus on "swing states", the system does its job fairly well.

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

What does that have to do with Creationists?

Evolution and Creationism are the two debated theories of where we come from. Feba implied that believing in creation, as opposed to evolution, lacked thought.

EDIT: And Kerry won the popular vote? The numbers would beg to differ.
United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bush: 62,040,610 50.73%
Kerry: 59,028,444 48.27%

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

Evolution and Creationism are the two debated theories of where we come from.

I'm aware.

Feba implied that believing in creation, as opposed to evolution, lacked thought.

No. Feba said that talking to a Creationist will make your brain hurt. He didn't imply anything about Evolution.

You're the one who claims that you can easily prove that Evolution doesn't hold water. You, some random guy on the internet. Who totally has a PhD in Biology/Genetics/Anything (thus providing you with more information that the man on the street - an inside track if you will). You can (easily) prove that a theory that has been tossed around since the 6th century BC by individuals who have devoted their lives to the study of this subject is completely invalid.

That's pretty awesome.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Yes We can

Are we really steering this towards evolution? As for it within itself, micro evolution is pretty self evident, we see it in everything from bacteria to the breeds of dogs. However, macro evolution (monkey to human, dinosaur to bird, fish to every species on the planet) has yet to find a well founded link. The only thing that I can honestly think of that we've been taught so far about macro evolution is supported by the likeness of features across species (such as vestigial arm bones in some snakes) and how some types of certain animals have evolved farther from each other than sexual genetic combination allows despite that they are not to far off, such as the failure of a swallow and canary to produce viable offspring. While evidence does support evolution and we see micro evolution in everyday life, we have yet to truly witness macro evolution and the many different stages that would lead one species to become another, but then again have our scientific abilities been around long enough to truly record a change on a mass scale? Of course not, those sort of things takes thousands of years, and the best thing we have to display such a change is fossil records and random identical codes of DNA that exist in completely different animals. Does that however mean that evolution does not happen? Of course it doesn't, evolution itself exists and is completely supported and the only thing you might call into question is macro evolution. However, even then, as stated macro evolution still has a very immense body of evidence, but at the same time, it is not directly observed and recorded, so while I am an advocate of convincing people to believe in evolution whole heartedly, at the same time there is nothing inherently detrimental to not believing in macro evolution, nor is it completely without a doubt founded.

For all we know, "god" caused monkeys to evolve in humans and dinosaurs into birds. Nothing about evolution makes you stop having faith. (and no offense but the texts haven't been completely accurate about things. 7 Days~ how long the earth has been around, etc.... how certain Egyptian pharaohs died...)

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

Hey, I'm not the one who brought it up and claimed to be able to easily prove that it's an invalid theory.

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

Yes, I totally understand and believe in microevolution. But, like you said, macroevolution leading to speciation is a horse of another color. There are simply too many biochemical impossibilities in macroevolution.
Murphie, no, I don't have a PhD, but I've read the books of those who do have PhDs and have spent their lives finding the countless holes in current evolutionary theory.
As for why I brought it up to begin with: I took offense to Feba's blanket comment that talking to people who believed in creation would make your head hurt and that they "blindingly think". I figured if he was arguing against creation then he was most likely make a subtle or less than subtle hint that evolution was the obvious answer. And like I said I took offense to it and stated that their is a lot of scientific evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory.

Diesel: I've heard the theory of God using evolution to create man, etc. and personally I don't have a real problem with it. However, the truest definition of evolution, and the one most people believe in, is that there is no outside force to direct it, its random genetic mutations and leaps forward in a species to be better suited for survival in its surroundings.
Either way, I don't really care, it doesn't affect my faith one way or the other.
I didn't intend to steer this thread towards evolution, if ya'll want to discuss it, make a new thread. Sorry for bringing it up at all.

As for this thread. If I had to choose between Hillary or Barack, I'd probably pick Barack. I'd like Hillary to lose the primary so that there's no chance she could become president, but I think Barack has a higher chance of winning the presidential race than she does.

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

I'll be sure to vote for Obama when the Ohio Primary rolls around (still a month off). I'll be interested to see what the results of the Ohio primary are.

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

March 4th for Texas. I'll be incredibly surprised if the primary even means anything at that point. In many ways I'd still like to see one day for everyone's primaries, as it is now the previous winners carry a lot more momentum and get lots of votes by default.
When was the last time the primaries went this far without it being clear who was going to be the parties' candidates?