Pages

8/18/11

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/evolution_gop...

A vote for Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum is a vote against science and reason. Bachmann's quotes on the subject are pretty fucking remarkable for their stupidity.

For the GOP's sake, and the sake of America, I hope they nominate Paul, Huntsman, or even Romney. Given the media's obsession with Perry, I'm not sure that's going to happen.

Comments (181)

8/18/11

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

In reply to In The Flesh
8/18/11
In The Flesh:

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

+1

I dont understand what the problem is if they do not believe in Evolution. How is that going to effect any kind of policy? There are a lot of reasons to not vote for them. Not believing in evolution should not be one.

8/18/11

Actually, to me, this is the single most important part of their platform, and the main reason why I would not even look at the rest of their platform. Any candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, or that supports intelligent designed, is automatically dinged in my book.

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
8/18/11
Nobama88:
In The Flesh:

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

+1

I dont understand what the problem is if they do not believe in Evolution. How is that going to effect any kind of policy? There are a lot of reasons to not vote for them. Not believing in evolution should not be one.

These are the same people that would want to push faith based education in schools. These sort of positions matter enormously.

8/18/11

This sort of shit absolutely effects policy. i.e.) stem cell research, education policy, etc.

Beyond that, give me a fucking break. It reflects their inability to process facts and information that goes against something they previously believed in (regardless of it being true or not.) The whole, "I won't let facts get in the way of my beliefs" mentality is a problem.

Beyond that, it's just retarded. Gravity is a "theory" with some holes in it (blackhole singularities), does that mean these people are going to walk out of a window on the 20th floor of a building?

In reply to LIBOR
8/18/11

Actually, to me, this is the single most important part of their platform, and the main reason why I would not even look at the rest of their platform. Any candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, or that supports intelligent designed, is automatically dinged in my book.

At the risk of being pedantic, Romney's position is what Intelligent Design implies, using an outside force to explain the observed and proven fact of evolution. This would be equivalent to claiming an outside force causes gravity as opposed to gravitons as implied by current models of the universe. Huntsman, probably Newt and possibly Paul, depending on what they meant with their statements seem to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually implies, but the rest seem to be just denying facts.

In reply to awm55
8/18/11
awm55:
Nobama88:
In The Flesh:

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

+1

I dont understand what the problem is if they do not believe in Evolution. How is that going to effect any kind of policy? There are a lot of reasons to not vote for them. Not believing in evolution should not be one.

These are the same people that would want to push faith based education in schools. These sort of positions matter enormously.

Not necessarily. I think you'll find that the most common position is that both viewpoints should be taught so that thje kids can make up their own minds. That would be ideal, because both ideas would get heard, there wouldn't be any shrieking about brainwashing, and it would be removed as an electoral issue so we can get back to arguing with each other about more important things, like taxes. :)

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

8/18/11

This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

8/18/11

It begins....

OP why do you think there is no creator?

What started the big bang?

In reply to Michael Scarn
8/18/11
Michael Scarn:

This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

If god(s) do not exist then you must do so say or reveal logic to prove your beliefs. Until then I will continue to believe that there must be something that created everything, because there is no logical conclusion to draw from science to bring forth a counter proof to move my motivation of contemplation to a ratification.

In reply to TheKing
8/18/11
TheKing:

This sort of shit absolutely effects policy. i.e.) stem cell research, education policy, etc.

Last I checked, the President of the United States is not a dictator.

In reply to blastoise
8/18/11
blastoise:
Michael Scarn:

This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

If god(s) do not exist then you must do so say or reveal logic to prove your beliefs. Until then I will continue to believe that there must be something that created everything, because there is no logical conclusion to draw from science to bring forth a counter proof to move my motivation of contemplation to a ratification.

So let me get this straight. I have to PROVE to you with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that there is a god. Seems to me someone who desires PROOF and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE wouldn't necessarily be on the side of the 'almighty creator'

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to happypantsmcgee
8/18/11
happypantsmcgee:
blastoise:
Michael Scarn:

This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

If god(s) do not exist then you must do so say or reveal logic to prove your beliefs. Until then I will continue to believe that there must be something that created everything, because there is no logical conclusion to draw from science to bring forth a counter proof to move my motivation of contemplation to a ratification.

So let me get this straight. I have to PROVE to you with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that there is a god. Seems to me someone who desires PROOF and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE wouldn't necessarily be on the side of the 'almighty creator'

No, one must hence fourth reveal logic that disproves god(s) with on all reasonable doubt. Until then there is a God. For one does not need to prove a creator exists since he/she is around us for it your position that holds the stance of abolitionism of dissolution in this stance on all indefatigable entities from which we hence forth came.

8/18/11

Can God throw a football so far he can't catch it?

Yes.

God is omnipotent.

8/18/11

Some love to scream about how stupid and illogical people 'clinging to their bibles' are, but the only logical conclusion to ANY science out there is that something had to create everything.

Sooo...If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as something has to come from somewhere, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

8/18/11

A creator is not the default answer. It's your default answer. Check yo selves.

8/18/11
In reply to In The Flesh
8/18/11
In The Flesh:

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

Policy plans don't mean shit when it's some bread and circus shit meant to appease voters.

8/18/11

Wow, another religious hating post by TheKing.

1) Who gives a shit if they believe or not.

2) Who fucking cares if the government funds stem cell research. As long as they do not make it illegal private parties can fund it.

3) For everyone that shits on religion, I am waiting to see evolution and atheism comfort someone who is dying or help a grieving family. If a "fairy tale" helps a wife who lost her husband or comforts someone who is going through a horrible time in their life, then it is without a doubt better than the "truth".

I love how liberals cry about the rights of all these poor, oppressed groups, but they cannot stop themselves from shitting on and wanting to oppress people who hold views unlike themselves.

8/18/11

^^^ RE: #2. Uh, and you don't think someone like Bachmann would move to make research illegal? I don't think it's that far of a stretch man.

8/18/11

God created the big bang, you're welcome. Next topic.

Get busy living

8/18/11

Bush didn't make it illegal and I think it is doubtful that it even could be made illegal. Either way Congress has the real power and this country is pretty evenly split when it comes to political parties.

8/18/11

Agreed. I'm just afraid of any sort of extremism from either party. Bush was a fucking moderate (at least as far as social issues) compared to the first two in the thread title.

8/18/11

Neither are electable.

They are just pandering to a small part of their party. Just like Obama was pretty far left when he started, all move to the center as time goes on.

I personally don't want the government funding any of this shit. Who says Stem Cells are the best thing to research? Ya know. I mean maybe something else is key, but people are ignoring it because government money is too lucrative.

Market distortions.

8/18/11

For fucks sake who cares if they believe in the boogey man or not. Quit being an asshat and trying to start political debates about things no one gives a fuck about.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

3) For everyone that shits on religion, I am waiting to see evolution and atheism comfort someone who is dying or help a grieving family. If a "fairy tale" helps a wife who lost her husband or comforts someone who is going through a horrible time in their life, then it is without a doubt better than the "truth".

Holy shit, people need to get comfortable with existential ambiguity. It's awfully weak-minded to hold religion above the pursuit of truth because it provides an intellectual prozac in times of emotional and mental vulnerability.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

8/18/11

I personally don't want the government funding any of this shit. Who says Stem Cells are the best thing to research? Ya know. I mean maybe something else is key, but people are ignoring it because government money is too lucrative.

^ You can't be serious. Stem-cell research is the future.

IMO, if the government should spend money on anything, it should be R&D (research and development). Innovations got America where it is today and they can restore its greatness in the future as well. Just imagine, if he have another internet-like breakthrough, the demand created would solve the recession in a matter of months.

That's why promoting STEM majors is so important as well - they lead to innovation. And America, again, badly needs someone to innovate right now.

8/18/11

It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to ThaVanBurenBoyz
8/18/11
ThaVanBurenBoyz:
ANT:

3) For everyone that shits on religion, I am waiting to see evolution and atheism comfort someone who is dying or help a grieving family. If a "fairy tale" helps a wife who lost her husband or comforts someone who is going through a horrible time in their life, then it is without a doubt better than the "truth".

Holy shit, people need to get comfortable with existential ambiguity. It's awfully weak-minded to hold religion above the pursuit of truth because it provides an intellectual prozac in times of emotional and mental vulnerability.

Weak minded huh? I believe it takes a strong mind to believe in something that cannot be proven, especially when there are insulting cunts out there who chortle because they think something is silly.

Why should the government fund stem cells and why are they better than other research areas? I didn't realize it was the government that should be making allocation decisions.
http://blog.bioethics.net/2007/08/whos-funding-ste...

The private sector is spending the most and they should be the ones deciding to spend it. My tax dollars should go to national defense and other ACTIUAL jobs of a federal government. Some people don't agree with using dead fetuses for research. Last time I checked we try and respect everyone's opinion and belief.

Oh and someone who believes in religion is unfit to be president? How wonderfully tolerant. Sorry that I disagree, I mean I support respecting everyone, including people who believe in God.

Oh that's right, humans know everything and we have never believed something to be scientifically true and then proven otherwise.

In reply to streetwannabe
8/18/11
streetwannabe:

It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

Guided by reason? This country is guided by the mother fucking constitution and bill of rights. Last time I checked people are allowed to have any religious beliefs. You don't want the President or government telling schools what they should teach? Well me either, hence my desire for a smaller government and more liberty.

8/18/11

I believe it takes a strong mind to believe in something that cannot be proven

I don't think strong is the appropriate word here...

Anyways, government does have a small role in boosting an economy. Increasing the minimum-wage today would spur consumption, for instance.

8/18/11

Or it will put more people out of work.

You don't think strong is the right word? Most of the people who believe in evolution know very little about it. They were taught the basics in science class and because it is science they roll with it.

If you think that the government setting wages is a good idea, you are nuts. People blow off minimum wage jobs all the time. Do you think they would even bother if wages dropped to 3 bucks an hour? Get real. Wages are set by people who are willing to do them.

The entire argument you hear from the left supporting illegal immigration is that they do jobs Americans wont. McDonalds would pay 7 bucks an hour with our without the government interfering.

8/18/11

ANT, I never said it was weak-minded to believe in the unproven. And I don't claim that there isn't a God, nor do I think anyone is less intelligent because they believe in a God.

You said that religion is better than the "truth" (or atheism and evolution), because it comforts those in times of death. I don't think I could come up with a better illustration of weak-mindedness. How could the pursuit of truth be less valuable than an emotional crutch? Just because one finds themselves in a vulnerable state? That's insulting as a human being.

8/18/11

How people can complain about the government forcing religion in schools, fighting wars in 3 countries and the patriot act, but at the same time want government to set prices, teach only evolution and fund stem cell research is beyond me.

More government means more good if you believe one thing or more bad if you believe another. How about we just live and let live and shrink this fucking beast so we wont have to complain about it interfering anymore.

8/18/11

Oh, and not all of us atheists (or agnostic atheists) are liberal. There are many secular conservatives in our generation, yours truly included.

8/18/11

I didn't mean the chortling cunt comment at you BTW.

Science is great. Finding the truth is great. I support and encourage it all. But to shit on religion or religious people, without seeing the good within it is awfully closed minded.

The theory of evolution will change and adapt as more information is uncovered. The majority of people who believe in it and look down on creationism couldn't explain evolution past "we came from monkeys". If you want to believe in evolution ,fine, but actually learn the details about it. Otherwise you are just believe what someone else tells you which is basically the same thing as believe in a creator.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

How people can complain about the government forcing religion in schools, fighting wars in 3 countries and the patriot act, but at the same time want government to set prices, teach only evolution and fund stem cell research is beyond me.

More government means more good if you believe one thing or more bad if you believe another. How about we just live and let live and shrink this fucking beast so we wont have to complain about it interfering anymore.

The government cannot force one religion in school, that is the problem. This is not Iran.

The beauty of science is that it is a universal language, and its not clouded by the scientists bias belief system. There is research and a background of evidence and fact to back-up scientific teachings, you want to incorporate intelligent design because it supports the religious beliefs that YOU were brought up to believe were the absolute truth. In addition, there is scientific evidence to support the usefulness of stem cell research.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

I didn't mean the chortling cunt comment at you BTW.

Science is great. Finding the truth is great. I support and encourage it all. But to shit on religion or religious people, without seeing the good within it is awfully closed minded.

The theory of evolution will change and adapt as more information is uncovered. The majority of people who believe in it and look down on creationism couldn't explain evolution past "we came from monkeys". If you want to believe in evolution ,fine, but actually learn the details about it. Otherwise you are just believe what someone else tells you which is basically the same thing as believe in a creator.

The only issue I have with religion is that you guys throw out or forget the hundreds of crazy things said in the bible and cherry pick the ideas that could still apply or be believable in a modern context. As society progresses, more and more of the shit said in the Bible is going out of fashion as civil liberties are expanded. You guys will fight tooth and nail to prevent that, and that is why many people hate bible humping religious conservatives.

8/18/11

Wow, please FUCKING quote where I said I want to to the following:

1) Teach Intelligent Design

2) Teach religion in school

I really want to see where I said either.

Yes, there is plenty of usefulness to support researching stem cells. I personally support it. I don't support the GOVERNMENT supporting it.

Let the private enterprise fund it, which they are already doing.

8/18/11

Yeah, because Bible thumping conservatives are any less fucking annoying as big government, liberals.

You all are the same, just forcing different beliefs down peoples throat.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

Yeah, because Bible thumping conservatives are any less fucking annoying as big government, liberals.

You all are the same, just forcing different beliefs down peoples throat.

yep yep yep

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

Wow, please FUCKING quote where I said I want to to the following:

1) Teach Intelligent Design

2) Teach religion in school

I really want to see where I said either.

Yes, there is plenty of usefulness to support researching stem cells. I personally support it. I don't support the GOVERNMENT supporting it.

Let the private enterprise fund it, which they are already doing.

The government has an interest in protecting public health. Most major medical research is at least partly funded by the government. You want profit driven companies to determine what medical research deserves funding? Why would a private company fund research for diseases that are not lucrative for the company to treat?

8/18/11

Public health?

That is polio, the flu, measles, etc.

Most major medical research is funded by universities and private companies. If something doesn't affect many people why should we focus on it?

Kind of like HIV research. How many more people die of illnesses that are not easily preventable. I mean a 25 cent condom and regular blood tests would reduce the spread of HIV, but we spend an enormous amount on it because of a vocal and highly affected group.

God forbid people wore condoms when they had sex. I mean too much to ask that someone practices safe sex.

8/18/11

If you don't want the government telling you who to marry, what to believe in and what to do you should want a smaller government.

But no. People just want a government that does what they want.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

Public health?

That is polio, the flu, measles, etc.

Most major medical research is funded by universities and private companies. If something doesn't affect many people why should we focus on it?

Kind of like HIV research. How many more people die of illnesses that are not easily preventable. I mean a 25 cent condom and regular blood tests would reduce the spread of HIV, but we spend an enormous amount on it because of a vocal and highly affected group.

God forbid people wore condoms when they had sex. I mean too much to ask that someone practices safe sex.

I agree HIV research funding could be spent better elsewhere.

"If something doesn't affect many people why should we focus on it?"

So those people should just wallow in the fact that they have a disease that is rare and not profitable for companies to research and treat?

8/18/11

Dude, you know that there are tons of biotech companies looking at all kinds of rare diseases.

The government funds populace crap, not real stuff.

C'mon man, you know government funding isn't going to anything but headline illnesses.

In reply to awm55
8/18/11
awm55:

The government has an interest in protecting public safety.

fixed

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

Dude, you know that there are tons of biotech companies looking at all kinds of rare diseases.

The government funds populace crap, not real stuff.

C'mon man, you know government funding isn't going to anything but headline illnesses.

Just looked at the numbers, the government funds 36% of medical research. It also funds about 20% of military research. Do you support the latter?

8/18/11

AWM

1) I 100% support military spending. It is the actual job of the Federal Government and something that the private sector cannot fund or manage.

2) I am doing some due diligence on government medical spending. Give me 5 minutes.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

AWM

1) I 100% support military spending. It is the actual job of the Federal Government and something that the private sector cannot fund or manage.

2) I am doing some due diligence on government medical spending. Give me 5 minutes.

I think most citizens of the USA would prefer the government to support medical research and not research in the most efficient ways to kill people.

8/18/11

Clinical Research 6.81%
Genetics 6.37%
Biotechnology 5.32%
Prevention 3.75%
Cancer 3.55%
Neurosciences 3.51%
Bioengineering 3.36%
Brain Disorders 2.74%
Behavioral/Social Science 2.67%
Human Genome 2.64%
Infectious Diseases 2.51%
Pediatric 2.12%
Women's Health 5/ 1.99%
Aging 1.96%
Cardiovascular 1.76%
Clinical Trials 1.57%
Health Disparities 5/ 1.55%

This is the top ~55% of the NIH funding for 2010. None of this is really focusing on those small illnesses youre talking about. Most of it is simply funding universities, etc.

So the government funds this crap and it gets sold to Pharma companies that end up profiting from it? How is this anything but a kick back to the biotech companies?

C'mon, this is big government giving kick backs, not some altruistic endeavor.

FYI - HIV/AIDS research is not on this list, but next year and all the years prior as well as going forward, it is 14th on the list of most funding.

When you consider that HIV/AIDS is one disease and all the other funding goes to general areas that encompass a lot of illnesses, you really see how one sided the government spending really is.

Distortions in the market.

8/18/11

People's unfailing capacity to believe what they prefer to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible astounds me. Faced with significant evidence to the contrary, we still pin all hope on the slimmest doubt or weakest argument.

"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
"These people have not been able to find a job during the last 18 months on welfare. Therefore, we need to extend welfare so that they may have more time to find a job."

Regardless, whoever wrote that article and the op are needlessly exacerbating the issue. The president will not be able to mandate what schools teach, he will not shut down universities that accept evolution, nor will he have the power to decide if evolution or creationism is taught. Quit rattling the sabres.

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol

8/18/11

I'm going to point out that X% to 'Brain disorders could mean that .5% of that goes to some super rare whatever the fuck disease. I know this happens in genetics all the time.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to awm55
8/18/11
awm55:
ANT:

AWM

1) I 100% support military spending. It is the actual job of the Federal Government and something that the private sector cannot fund or manage.

2) I am doing some due diligence on government medical spending. Give me 5 minutes.

I think most citizens of the USA would prefer the government to support medical research and not research in the most efficient ways to kill people.

I think most Americans would support the government handing out ice cream cones to children, doesn't mean that their opinions mean dick.

National defense is a true job of government. Most of the budget goes to maintaining a ready military as well as military research, which has benefited all of us.

Internet

GPS

Space Program

Nuclear Energy

I mean this is just off the top of my head.

8/18/11

Religion is the opiate of the masses

People who say they believe in religion are:

1. Ignorant/stupid people (and actually believe the bible literally)
2. Trying to use religion to control ignorant/stupid people (it works, when was the last time you met a devout Christian democrat)
3. Contrarians (I would think most people on here saying they believe in God fall into this category because there is no way an intelligent person (someone smart enough to possibly work on Wall Street) could believe in something as dumb as a man in the sky creating humans

8/18/11

Yes, because working on wall street is indicative of intelligence.

I can deal with TheKing and AWM because they are at least intelligent, but this clown shit above is too much.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11

ANT:
I didn't mean the chortling cunt comment at you BTW.

The theory of evolution will change and adapt as more information is uncovered. The majority of people who believe in it and look down on creationism couldn't explain evolution past "we came from monkeys". If you want to believe in evolution ,fine, but actually learn the details about it. Otherwise you are just believe what someone else tells you which is basically the same thing as believe in a creator.


That's right. And we didn't come from monkeys, but we do share a common ancestor. And for your and everyone else's enjoyment, a partial explanation...from a theist, no less! Don't mind the video's title...
In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:
streetwannabe:

It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

Guided by reason? This country is guided by the mother fucking constitution and bill of rights. Last time I checked people are allowed to have any religious beliefs. You don't want the President or government telling schools what they should teach? Well me either, hence my desire for a smaller government and more liberty.

The Bill of Rights? Come on, that was written over 200 years ago. I hate when people interpret it as an unwavering document to guide our country. It is a living document, meaning it should change with the times. Should not be so rigidly viewed. And who would tell them otherwise? FYI, PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. Are you saying that people who don't have the money, shouldn't be able to send their kids to school? Because that is what you're saying if you think schools should be their own entities. You can send your kids to Catholic school if you want, but for the people going to public schools, it is very much part of the government.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/18/11

Why religious people even try and argue with creationists is beyond me. Religion is a faith based concept and will not stand up to scientific rigor. It is not supposed, nor does it benefit you. if you can't believe without proof you shouldn't bother with religion.

And this guy can comfortably says he believes in evolution. 95% of the people who say they believe in evolution couldn't get past the monkey shit. They blindly believe in evolution just like religious people blindly believe in god.

In reply to awm55
8/18/11
awm55:
ANT:

AWM

1) I 100% support military spending. It is the actual job of the Federal Government and something that the private sector cannot fund or manage.

2) I am doing some due diligence on government medical spending. Give me 5 minutes.

I think most citizens of the USA would prefer the government to support medical research and not research in the most efficient ways to kill people.

That is not the role of the government. You can't cherrypick bud.

In reply to dwight schrute
8/18/11
dwight schrute:

People's unfailing capacity to believe what they prefer to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible astounds me. Faced with significant evidence to the contrary, we still pin all hope on the slimmest doubt or weakest argument.

"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
"These people have not been able to find a job during the last 18 months on welfare. Therefore, we need to extend welfare so that they may have more time to find a job."

Regardless, whoever wrote that article and the op are needlessly exacerbating the issue. The president will not be able to mandate what schools teach, he will not shut down universities that accept evolution, nor will he have the power to decide if evolution or creationism is taught. Quit rattling the sabres.

Uhh, pretty sure GW signed No Child Left Behind. Kind of affects the way teaching is done and is actually a really stupid bill.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to streetwannabe
8/18/11
streetwannabe:
ANT:
streetwannabe:

It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

Guided by reason? This country is guided by the mother fucking constitution and bill of rights. Last time I checked people are allowed to have any religious beliefs. You don't want the President or government telling schools what they should teach? Well me either, hence my desire for a smaller government and more liberty.

The Bill of Rights? Come on, that was written over 200 years ago. I hate when people interpret it as an unwavering document to guide our country. It is a living document, meaning it should change with the times. Should not be so rigidly viewed. And who would tell them otherwise? FYI, PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. Are you saying that people who don't have the money, shouldn't be able to send their kids to school? Because that is what you're saying if you think schools should be their own entities. You can send your kids to Catholic school if you want, but for the people going to public schools, it is very much part of the government.

1) Schools are funded at the state and local level, primarily through property taxes.

2) No where did I say I want to end public school. I want to end the Federal government interfering with what is largely a local issue.

3) I am against unionized teachers. We all work in a non unionized environment and as long as you do your job, you will be fine. Unions distort things and hurt education.

4) The Bill of Rights does not change. The Constituion is "living and breathing". The Bill of Rights are unalienable rights.

This is why the USA is fucked up. People think the Bill of Rights changes with time. No fucking way dude.

In reply to streetwannabe
8/18/11
streetwannabe:
dwight schrute:

People's unfailing capacity to believe what they prefer to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible astounds me. Faced with significant evidence to the contrary, we still pin all hope on the slimmest doubt or weakest argument.

"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
"These people have not been able to find a job during the last 18 months on welfare. Therefore, we need to extend welfare so that they may have more time to find a job."

Regardless, whoever wrote that article and the op are needlessly exacerbating the issue. The president will not be able to mandate what schools teach, he will not shut down universities that accept evolution, nor will he have the power to decide if evolution or creationism is taught. Quit rattling the sabres.

Uhh, pretty sure GW signed No Child Left Behind. Kind of affects the way teaching is done and is actually a really stupid bill.

NCLB was passed with overwhelming CONGRESSIONAL support. The President doesn't do shit unless Congress says so (except in matters of foreign affairs, etc).

"NCLB supports standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state"

It did not institute curriculum. It was about accountability and standardized testing.

This is the bullshit that big government gives you.

In reply to streetwannabe
8/18/11
streetwannabe:
ANT:
streetwannabe:

It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

Guided by reason? This country is guided by the mother fucking constitution and bill of rights. Last time I checked people are allowed to have any religious beliefs. You don't want the President or government telling schools what they should teach? Well me either, hence my desire for a smaller government and more liberty.

The Bill of Rights? Come on, that was written over 200 years ago. I hate when people interpret it as an unwavering document to guide our country. It is a living document, meaning it should change with the times. Should not be so rigidly viewed. And who would tell them otherwise? FYI, PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. Are you saying that people who don't have the money, shouldn't be able to send their kids to school? Because that is what you're saying if you think schools should be their own entities. You can send your kids to Catholic school if you want, but for the people going to public schools, it is very much part of the government.

The Department of Education is another wasteful and broken government program. Nowhere did he say what you said.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:
streetwannabe:
ANT:
streetwannabe:

It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

Guided by reason? This country is guided by the mother fucking constitution and bill of rights. Last time I checked people are allowed to have any religious beliefs. You don't want the President or government telling schools what they should teach? Well me either, hence my desire for a smaller government and more liberty.

The Bill of Rights? Come on, that was written over 200 years ago. I hate when people interpret it as an unwavering document to guide our country. It is a living document, meaning it should change with the times. Should not be so rigidly viewed. And who would tell them otherwise? FYI, PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. Are you saying that people who don't have the money, shouldn't be able to send their kids to school? Because that is what you're saying if you think schools should be their own entities. You can send your kids to Catholic school if you want, but for the people going to public schools, it is very much part of the government.

1) Schools are funded at the state and local level, primarily through property taxes.

2) No where did I say I want to end public school. I want to end the Federal government interfering with what is largely a local issue.

3) I am against unionized teachers. We all work in a non unionized environment and as long as you do your job, you will be fine. Unions distort things and hurt education.

4) The Bill of Rights does not change. The Constituion is "living and breathing". The Bill of Rights are unalienable rights.

This is why the USA is fucked up. People think the Bill of Rights changes with time. No fucking way dude.

Granted it is on a local level, but it is still an arm of the government. Different places have different taxes/laws etc. but they are still guided by the government on a federal level.

Also, the Bill of Rights is living in my opinion. The Right to Bear Arms I think is a little ridiculous, but of course here in America, its one our greatest past times.

And I don't mind teachers unionizing as they are paid through the government. But that is besides the point.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:
streetwannabe:
dwight schrute:

People's unfailing capacity to believe what they prefer to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible astounds me. Faced with significant evidence to the contrary, we still pin all hope on the slimmest doubt or weakest argument.

"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
"These people have not been able to find a job during the last 18 months on welfare. Therefore, we need to extend welfare so that they may have more time to find a job."

Regardless, whoever wrote that article and the op are needlessly exacerbating the issue. The president will not be able to mandate what schools teach, he will not shut down universities that accept evolution, nor will he have the power to decide if evolution or creationism is taught. Quit rattling the sabres.

Uhh, pretty sure GW signed No Child Left Behind. Kind of affects the way teaching is done and is actually a really stupid bill.

NCLB was passed with overwhelming CONGRESSIONAL support. The President doesn't do shit unless Congress says so (except in matters of foreign affairs, etc).

"NCLB supports standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state"

It did not institute curriculum. It was about accountability and standardized testing.

This is the bullshit that big government gives you.

The president did sign the bill into affect. Of course he will do what his Republican led Congress would like, but it is a stupid bill and holds teachers accountable for their students testing.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/18/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Departm...

70 Billion wasted on this crock of shit.

about 170MM people in this country pay federal taxes.

that is about 400.00 per person, per year, that could be saved. How many Americans could use $400 bucks.

Suppose you means tested that shit and only gave it to people earning less that 100K

that might be well over 1K per person

Yup, libertarians helping the common man. You're welcome.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:
streetwannabe:
dwight schrute:

People's unfailing capacity to believe what they prefer to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible astounds me. Faced with significant evidence to the contrary, we still pin all hope on the slimmest doubt or weakest argument.

"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
"These people have not been able to find a job during the last 18 months on welfare. Therefore, we need to extend welfare so that they may have more time to find a job."

Regardless, whoever wrote that article and the op are needlessly exacerbating the issue. The president will not be able to mandate what schools teach, he will not shut down universities that accept evolution, nor will he have the power to decide if evolution or creationism is taught. Quit rattling the sabres.

Uhh, pretty sure GW signed No Child Left Behind. Kind of affects the way teaching is done and is actually a really stupid bill.

NCLB was passed with overwhelming CONGRESSIONAL support. The President doesn't do shit unless Congress says so (except in matters of foreign affairs, etc).

"NCLB supports standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state"

It did not institute curriculum. It was about accountability and standardized testing.

This is the bullshit that big government gives you.

Beat me to it.
street, the state government creates and institutes the education and deems if the student is proficient. dubya, obama, and the 2012 winner have no authority over the subject matter

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol

8/18/11

Teachers being paid by the government is exactly why they shouldn't be able to unionize. We as taxpayers are getting fucked. All government employees should be barred from unionizing. It's unethical and downright stupid.

You be sure to post in your front yard that you think the 2A is ridiculous so the thieves know who won't put up a fight.

In reply to streetwannabe
8/18/11
streetwannabe:
ANT:
streetwannabe:
ANT:
streetwannabe:

It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

Guided by reason? This country is guided by the mother fucking constitution and bill of rights. Last time I checked people are allowed to have any religious beliefs. You don't want the President or government telling schools what they should teach? Well me either, hence my desire for a smaller government and more liberty.

The Bill of Rights? Come on, that was written over 200 years ago. I hate when people interpret it as an unwavering document to guide our country. It is a living document, meaning it should change with the times. Should not be so rigidly viewed. And who would tell them otherwise? FYI, PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. Are you saying that people who don't have the money, shouldn't be able to send their kids to school? Because that is what you're saying if you think schools should be their own entities. You can send your kids to Catholic school if you want, but for the people going to public schools, it is very much part of the government.

1) Schools are funded at the state and local level, primarily through property taxes.

2) No where did I say I want to end public school. I want to end the Federal government interfering with what is largely a local issue.

3) I am against unionized teachers. We all work in a non unionized environment and as long as you do your job, you will be fine. Unions distort things and hurt education.

4) The Bill of Rights does not change. The Constituion is "living and breathing". The Bill of Rights are unalienable rights.

This is why the USA is fucked up. People think the Bill of Rights changes with time. No fucking way dude.

Granted it is on a local level, but it is still an arm of the government. Different places have different taxes/laws etc. but they are still guided by the government on a federal level.

Also, the Bill of Rights is living in my opinion. The Right to Bear Arms I think is a little ridiculous, but of course here in America, its one our greatest past times.

And I don't mind teachers unionizing as they are paid through the government. But that is besides the point.

OMG, dude, listen. Go learn something and then come back and debate.

1) NCLB was passed with an overwhelming, bipartisan support. Both parties supported it

2) Being a libertarian means supporting states rights. The state government has different duties than the Federal government. The local level is very different than the Federal.

The DOE should be shut down and the FEDERAL government should be shrunk.

3) Good thing your opinion isn't the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is unalienable and natural rights. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of the press, etc. These are not up for discussion or what you think.

Paid through the government? How do you think the government gets fucking money dude? WE PAY FOR TEACHERS.

Holy shit, is this really the conversation I am having right now. People don't know how the government gets paid. They don't know what the Bill of Rights are. No wonder our freedoms and liberties are being trampled. People don't even know what hey are.

8/18/11
8/18/11

The reason it is an issue is because isn't so much because of stem cell research or teaching intelligent design (although, at least to me, this is a big issue and I think its terribly wrong to teach intelligent design in public school) is because these politicians blatantly ignore scientific evidence, opting instead to pander to religious interests. The fact is, it is wrong, and shows that they will bring this wrong sort of judgment to the Oval Office if elected.

Everyone sees that the sky is blue. How many people know that its caused by Rayleigh Scattering? If the Bible said something like "The sky is blue because it was the color of Jesus' eyes", they would force this to be taught in public schools. Its not wrong to have a religion. It is wrong to force the beliefs and dogmas of that religion onto the general populace.

BTW, the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster. This should be taught in public schools as well.

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
In reply to txjustin
8/18/11
txjustin:

Teachers being paid by the government is exactly why they shouldn't be able to unionize. We as taxpayers are getting fucked. All government employees should be barred from unionizing. It's unethical and downright stupid.

You be sure to post in your front yard that you think the 2A is ridiculous so the thieves know who won't put up a fight.

This. It places an unfair burden on future taxpayers who have no option but to pay increasing taxes in order to fund raises or benefit increases.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo88/speezack/G...

Just for you TX

Dude that is fucking awesome!! Thanks for the laugh.

8/18/11

Why do teachers need unions, but most other white collar workers do not?

Unions came into being because people were being forced to work inhumane hours and in horrible conditions. Eventually these things stopped and unions had to find another way to stay in power. So now they spread to other fields of work that have no business being unionized.

I love it. Look at non unionized auto workers in the south. They make like $15-20 bucks an hour with great benefits and do their job. Meanwhile the union guys in Michigan are dying a slow death.

If teachers were not unionized the good ones would make a ton of money and the shitty ones would probably just never get a raise. If shitty workers can keep their jobs in every industry under the sun, shitty teachers would still find work.

8/18/11

Ant, you didn't have to do Street like that man. He's prolly crying behind his liberal computer screen right now.

In reply to LIBOR
8/18/11

The reason it is an issue is because isn't so much because of stem cell research or teaching intelligent design (although, at least to me, this is a big issue and I think its terribly wrong to teach intelligent design in public school) is because these politicians blatantly ignore scientific evidence, opting instead to pander to religious interests. The fact is, it is wrong, and shows that they will bring this wrong sort of judgment to the Oval Office if elected.

Everyone sees that the sky is blue. How many people know that its caused by Rayleigh Scattering? If the Bible said something like "The sky is blue because it was the color of Jesus' eyes", they would force this to be taught in public schools. Its not wrong to have a religion. It is wrong to force the beliefs and dogmas of that religion onto the general populace.

BTW, the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster. This should be taught in public schools as well.

LIBOR

I 100% agree with you. I think anyone who ignores OVERWHELMING scientific evidence and does something counter to this should never be President.

In fact, someone who does this should be impeached.

Kind of like people who smoke even though all the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE points to it killing you.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/obama_smokes.jpg

See what I did there? You single out religion, but people ignore shit all the time. We are not vulcans, we don't always do what science says.

I've taken maybe 3 biology classes my whole life. Doesn't really hinder me. Believing in God and not believe in evolution doesn't mean shit. It is a personal opinion and has zero bearing on being President.

I still love ya bro, just pointing some stuff out.

In reply to txjustin
8/18/11
txjustin:

Teachers being paid by the government is exactly why they shouldn't be able to unionize. We as taxpayers are getting fucked. All government employees should be barred from unionizing. It's unethical and downright stupid.

You be sure to post in your front yard that you think the 2A is ridiculous so the thieves know who won't put up a fight.

Teachers signed a contract when they took that job that promised them X salary, X benefits, and X pension. The government cannot break those promises, they are contractually bound. I believe Christie tried to do that in NJ, its unethical and exactly the reason many people think Unions are necessary.

In reply to awm55
8/18/11
awm55:
txjustin:

Teachers being paid by the government is exactly why they shouldn't be able to unionize. We as taxpayers are getting fucked. All government employees should be barred from unionizing. It's unethical and downright stupid.

You be sure to post in your front yard that you think the 2A is ridiculous so the thieves know who won't put up a fight.

Teachers signed a contract when they took that job that promised them X salary, X benefits, and X pension. The government cannot break those promises, they are contractually bound. I believe Christie tried to do that in NJ, its unethical and exactly the reason many people think Unions are necessary.

I agree, contracts should not be broken. But they can also end and not be renewed. Let the union contract end and then tell people unions are done with. Real simple. Life will go on, people will get paid and not much will change.

In reply to awm55
8/18/11
awm55:
txjustin:

Teachers being paid by the government is exactly why they shouldn't be able to unionize. We as taxpayers are getting fucked. All government employees should be barred from unionizing. It's unethical and downright stupid.

You be sure to post in your front yard that you think the 2A is ridiculous so the thieves know who won't put up a fight.

Teachers signed a contract when they took that job that promised them X salary, X benefits, and X pension. The government cannot break those promises, they are contractually bound. I believe Christie tried to do that in NJ, its unethical and exactly the reason many people think Unions are necessary.

what does that have to do with unions

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

The reason it is an issue is because isn't so much because of stem cell research or teaching intelligent design (although, at least to me, this is a big issue and I think its terribly wrong to teach intelligent design in public school) is because these politicians blatantly ignore scientific evidence, opting instead to pander to religious interests. The fact is, it is wrong, and shows that they will bring this wrong sort of judgment to the Oval Office if elected.

Everyone sees that the sky is blue. How many people know that its caused by Rayleigh Scattering? If the Bible said something like "The sky is blue because it was the color of Jesus' eyes", they would force this to be taught in public schools. Its not wrong to have a religion. It is wrong to force the beliefs and dogmas of that religion onto the general populace.

BTW, the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster. This should be taught in public schools as well.

LIBOR

I 100% agree with you. I think anyone who ignores OVERWHELMING scientific evidence and does something counter to this should never be President.

In fact, someone who does this should be impeached.

Kind of like people who smoke even though all the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE points to it killing you.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/obama_smokes.jpg

See what I did there? You single out religion, but people ignore shit all the time. We are not vulcans, we don't always do what science says.

I've taken maybe 3 biology classes my whole life. Doesn't really hinder me. Believing in God and not believe in evolution doesn't mean shit. It is a personal opinion and has zero bearing on being President.

I still love ya bro, just pointing some stuff out.

But Obama is not espousing smoking and forcing people to do it. In fact he raised taxes on cigarettes.

Pushing creationism in school is a slippery slope. As I said before, science is a universal language, religion isn't.

8/18/11

To the OP, I won't vote for a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution because it shows they are illogical and biased by their faith, which will wreak havoc over all of their decision making skills.

Just curious, were any of you Biology, Chemistry, or Physics majors? If not, you should shut the fuck up.

In reply to whatwhatwhat
8/18/11
whatwhatwhat:
awm55:
txjustin:

Teachers being paid by the government is exactly why they shouldn't be able to unionize. We as taxpayers are getting fucked. All government employees should be barred from unionizing. It's unethical and downright stupid.

You be sure to post in your front yard that you think the 2A is ridiculous so the thieves know who won't put up a fight.

Teachers signed a contract when they took that job that promised them X salary, X benefits, and X pension. The government cannot break those promises, they are contractually bound. I believe Christie tried to do that in NJ, its unethical and exactly the reason many people think Unions are necessary.

what does that have to do with unions

X2, patiently waiting.

8/18/11

Please tell me what President is pushing creationism?

The Federal government has jack shit power or right to push anything on the schools.

Let science classes teach whatever they want. Evolution is sciences theory of creation. It is going to be updated and change as time goes on. We keep getting closer or finding new information.

In reply to Jose.Rey
8/18/11
Jose.Rey:

To the OP, I won't vote for a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution because it shows they are illogical and biased by their faith, which will wreak havoc over all of their decision making skills.

Just curious, were any of you Biology, Chemistry, or Physics majors? If not, you should shut the fuck up.

Exactly what I have been saying. Too many people believe science without knowing the the research that supports it.

8/18/11

It's getting frothy in here. I am going for a run. Hopefully some more misinformation will be posted while I am gone.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11

ANT:
Evolution is sciences theory of creation.

Let's be careful about how we use the word "theory" in the context of science. It's much more meaningful than used in it's common form.
http://notjustatheory.com/
In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

It's getting frothy in here. I am going for a run. Hopefully some more misinformation will be posted while I am gone.

Running at midnight in Philly? At least we'll know how you died.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

8/18/11

Evolution is still filling in the gaps, still uncovering missing pieces, still refining the story. It is a theory and a work in progress.

Anyone who says they don't believe in evolution because it is a theory is a retard. You can't shit on something without at least having a reason.

In reply to TNA
8/18/11
ANT:

The reason it is an issue is because isn't so much because of stem cell research or teaching intelligent design (although, at least to me, this is a big issue and I think its terribly wrong to teach intelligent design in public school) is because these politicians blatantly ignore scientific evidence, opting instead to pander to religious interests. The fact is, it is wrong, and shows that they will bring this wrong sort of judgment to the Oval Office if elected.

Everyone sees that the sky is blue. How many people know that its caused by Rayleigh Scattering? If the Bible said something like "The sky is blue because it was the color of Jesus' eyes", they would force this to be taught in public schools. Its not wrong to have a religion. It is wrong to force the beliefs and dogmas of that religion onto the general populace.

BTW, the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster. This should be taught in public schools as well.

LIBOR

I 100% agree with you. I think anyone who ignores OVERWHELMING scientific evidence and does something counter to this should never be President.

In fact, someone who does this should be impeached.

Kind of like people who smoke even though all the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE points to it killing you.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/obama_smokes.jpg

See what I did there? You single out religion, but people ignore shit all the time. We are not vulcans, we don't always do what science says.

I've taken maybe 3 biology classes my whole life. Doesn't really hinder me. Believing in God and not believe in evolution doesn't mean shit. It is a personal opinion and has zero bearing on being President.

I still love ya bro, just pointing some stuff out.

I guess, to me personally, I find it to be an important issue. Its not that they are religious... every president is (at least, publicly) religious, so I don't have any problems with that. In fact, I can't name a single atheist politician.

To me, there is a difference between being religious and reasonable, and being religious to the extent where you not only ignore overwhelming evidence supporting a scientific theory, but to demand that our public institutions also teach an 'alternative' to this theory(intelligent design), an alternative which has no scientific backing or academic credibility. Its one thing to ignore evolution, or to not accept it as scientific fact. It is another thing to demand that our government also endorses a religious alternative, despite the lack of credibility for intelligent design.

Candidates that do so, at least to me, demonstrate that they might also do the same sort of thing for other policy issues while in office. Thus, a candidate who supports intelligent design might choose to ignore the facts of a situation, and instead endorse a particular policy without any credibility, since it complies with their own personal beliefs.

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?

Pages

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling