Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum all do not believe in evolution
O
Tags:
(Senior Neanderthal, 5,141
Points)
on 8/18/11 at 5:21pm
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.





In the grand scheme of
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.
Head of Metal Website: www.headofmetal.com
https://twitter.com/headofmetal2012
In The Flesh wrote: In the
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.
Need to Land a Job? Click Here.
Actually, to me, this is the
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?
Nobama88 wrote: 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.
This sort of shit absolutely
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?
Check out my WSO Blog
LIBOR wrote: Actually, to me,
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.
awm55 wrote: Nobama88
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. :)
Head of Metal Website: www.headofmetal.com
https://twitter.com/headofmetal2012
This matters immensely,
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?
It begins.... OP why do you
It begins....
OP why do you think there is no creator?
What started the big bang?
Michael Scarn wrote: This
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.
TheKing wrote: This sort of
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.
Need to Land a Job? Click Here.
blastoise wrote: Michael
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
happypantsmcgee
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.
Can God throw a football so
Can God throw a football so far he can't catch it?
Yes.
God is omnipotent.
Some love to scream about how
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?
Need to Land a Job? Click Here.
A creator is not the default
come at me brah
In The Flesh wrote: In the
Wow, another religious hating
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
^^^ RE: #2. Uh, and you
God created the big bang,
YOU JUST GOT TROLLED
http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you...
Bush didn't make it illegal
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Agreed. I'm just afraid of
Neither are electable. They
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
For fucks sake who cares if
Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays
ANT wrote: 3) For everyone
Quote: I personally don't
It is immensely important in
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
ThaVanBurenBoyz wrote: ANT
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
streetwannabe wrote: It is
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Quote: I believe it takes a
Or it will put more people
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
ANT, I never said it was
How people can complain about
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Oh, and not all of us
I didn't mean the chortling
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
ANT wrote: How people can
ANT wrote: I didn't mean the
Wow, please FUCKING quote
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Yeah, because Bible thumping
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
ANT wrote: Yeah, because
ANT wrote: Wow, please
Public health? That is polio,
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
If you don't want the
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
ANT wrote: Public
Dude, you know that there are
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
awm55 wrote: The government
ANT wrote: Dude, you know
AWM 1) I 100% support
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
ANT wrote: AWM 1) I 100%