Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/25/07 03:27 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

you couldn't be further off.

Haha, dumbass.

At 5/25/07 02:48 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Only to those who don't understand the meanings of those words in a scientific context.

Haha, you come off as more of an idiot with every passing minute.

You fail at simple logic.

---

At 5/25/07 06:45 AM, Wikipedian wrote:

Yes, because of the other skills, or lack thereof, a literal Christian interpretation might reflect. I believe we've discussed this before.

Tell me. Does stupidity run through all of you hypocrites?

---

At 5/25/07 09:47 AM, Memorize wrote: Tell me. Does stupidity run through all of you hypocrites?

Well, there's no need for that. But if you can provide a counterargument to any of my points, I'd be glad to read it.

---

At 5/25/07 10:59 AM, Wikipedian wrote: Well, there's no need for that. But if you can provide a counterargument to any of my points, I'd be glad to read it.

Arguments are something that insecure people use to convince themselves that they're right while they usually aren't. Memorize on the other hand is such an awesome poster that he can easily debunk five arguments at the same time by using as little as three words. Derivatives of "haha", "stupid" and "dumb" are often among them. That's something that only great orators such as Pericles and Cicero could afford to do and Memorize would certainly be able to hold his ground in their company.

---

At 5/25/07 01:28 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/25/07 01:07 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Except Evolution isn't a faith-based "belief". It is a proven theory

proven theory?

Oxymoron anyone?

NO! i can PROVE the fundamental theory of algebra, I can PROVE Cauchy's residue theorem, if it can't be proven axiomatically it is a hypothesis, you don't understand the terminolgy.

---

At 5/25/07 12:12 AM, Ravariel wrote: By health I assume you mean health care and not actual personal health

Either one. I mean any type of area outside of science.

The point I'm getting at is that being a leader or the president doesnt usually deal with science, they deal with issues about common sense and justice, which is my question when I say do you think a christian lacks that?

But it IS indicative of my mental state, and the stability therein.

Look, we cant come to an agreement of what the belief of evolution effects your mind. We both agree that its pretty ignorant to not believe in evolution, but I dont believe that rules out the possibility to be a good president.

What does that have to do with Evolution?

Everything, the whole basis of christianity, judaism, and muslim (and probably others) is that god created the earth and the universe, he controls everything that happens. If you dont believe that god made things the way they are, then some might not believe in him.

There is nothing in the bible that contradicts Evolution unless you take it literally (i.e. earth 6000 years old, 7 days = 7 24-hour days).

Thats exactly it.

If I didn't believe in gravity, that would definitely effect my life.

How so? Would you jump off a bridge and think your going to live?
No, because its common sense your going to fall. With or without a belief in gravity.

Wrong! It's exactly the same. The scientific community is as one on the existence and explanations of radiation (quantum/string physics aside). It is the same with evolution.

Once again, you missed the point.
There is no opposition to radiation or gravity by the church because theres nothing in the bible about those two subjects that explains them.

Evolution on the other hand explains how things came to be, while the church says otherwise. Which is why some people dont believe in evolution.

Doesn't matter. The ONLY reason anyone can deny evolution is through deliberate ignorance or stupidity.

Your right, but its about ignorance on science. They may or may not be ignorant in general, only in the scientific area.

That's why they call it a metaphor. Again, belief vs belief isn't the argued point here, it's belief vs fact.

No, the argument is whether or not that person becomes less intelligent or less likely to be a good leader because of his beliefs.

"nope, no chair, I wonder why my head hurts".

Evolution isnt as obvious as that, which is why so many people dont believe in it.

Replace "science" with "fact" and maybe you'll understand.

Christians dont deny facts, they deny evolution or science.

If you show a literal christian a chart that says amusment park accidents have been increasing since 1985 they arent going to respond "no they arent".

Religon wouldn't factor into my decision at all.
Unless they took it literally, right?

Analytical skills, pattern recognition, a willingness to hear new ideas, an ability to change their mind when presented with new information,

Your right, which is why I wouldnt vote for a person where their lack of belief in evolution is the only thing I knew about him. But thats not the case, just because your ignorant to the science community does not mean your ignorant to everything.

And yet these three just did...

Which is why they arent going to be president.

I'm starting to wonder if you're just playing devil's advocate, here...

I'll tell you right now, I am. But that doesnt change my argument.

It's not a guarantee, no, but being a fan of pattern recognition, myself, it would make logical sense if they did not.

Theres your problem, your assuming they wont. You cant assume what someone will do unless you know more about them.

I mean, if I hit you in the face (with a chair, say), would you not flinch if I picked up a lamp and came towards you?

Are you saying a literal christian wouldnt?

Talking about presidents here, not soldiers.

The presidents rule the soldiers.

Huh?

There are many people who advise the president what to do, he has many people to tell him what to do. The person who you think the president should be, would be his advisor. Someone who knows facts and how to read them.

You say that as though it's a one-or-the-other kind of thing...

In old days they were.

But thats no the point now.

One already tried to amend our constitution to ban gay marriage...

And he failed, or atleast nationally he failed. Its still up the states to decide that.

I think you underestimate the power the president has in this day and age.

Your right, I believe the president doesnt have much power. Especially now, with a mostly democratic senate (or house, or both).

At 5/25/07 01:07 AM, Ravariel wrote: Except Evolution isn't a faith-based "belief". It is a proven theory with mountains of evidence to back it up.

Its a well though theory, but it isnt finished. Its the most likely scenario, but we dont know everything about evolution yet, which is why its still a theory.

Relativity gives us the ability to calculate with a great amount of precision solar and galactic motion, all of which completely contradict a 6000 year old earth/universe.

The findings go against religion, not the theory.

all of these are contradictions to the person who would take the bible literally enough to disbelieve the fact of evolution.

Once again, literal christians arent against the theory of the relativity. Only its findings.

"My 2000-year-old religious text says that's not true, so you must be wrong."

And how would that be brought up in a issue the president has to deal with?

At 5/25/07 06:45 AM, Wikipedian wrote: They might claim, for example, that god is telling them to go to war - I believe Bush did a few years back.

He still has to have congress's approval to go to war.
But Bush is known for being militaristic, whether or not hes christian or atheist has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, I think a potential president should have the ability to challenge their own beliefs.

So do I, we have to look at the idea that even though a president wouldnt change his mind about evolution he might change his mind about not going to war, or dealing out more money to education and public security.

Yes, and belief paired with faith are similar (though not synonymous) with, they might argue, a kind of 'believed knowledge',

You mean a strong belief.

The tangent we went on is relevant to the discussion.

Its hard for me to argue how not beleiving in evolution wont effect judgement, when I believe in evolution.
Its even harder to argue the plausibility of not believing in evolution.

Yes, because of the other skills, or lack thereof, a literal Christian interpretation might reflect.

Which is the main argument.

Look, theres no way we can argue this point. Because just because a literal christian doesnt believe in evolution doesnt mean they wont look at facts, theres no way to prove thats right or wrong.

I imagine a president would have a large influence on voters though.

Its the other way around. Because now candidates change their ideas so they get more votes.

Oh, and I would just like to point this out. Heres a poll taken by CBS in 2005, it shows that "51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. "

---

At 5/25/07 10:59 AM, Wikipedian wrote:

Well, there's no need for that.

There is if all of you hypocrites keep coming here.

Because your logic is as follows:

-Bill Clinton had an affair (ok, whatever)
-He lies under oath (impeachable offense)
-He "tampered with a witness"
-He goes through elaborate mesures to cover up his affair when he could have just said "yeah... sorry" and the public would have forgiven him from the start.

And yet somehow, his trying to cover up something so small with such elaborate schemes does not affect his presidency.

And yet, somehow, someone not believing in a certain something that will never even come up as an issue in his/her presidency does affect his/her handing of the presidency.

You people are fucking idiots!

At 5/25/07 12:08 PM, Tal-con wrote:

Web definition of Theory:

Haha, it amazes me how you people fail at simple logic.

Tell me then, why is it called a theory when it's fact?

What you're doing is stretching it to fit "truth" when you haven't filled in all of the holes yet. It doesn't even matter to me if evolution or whatever is true or not. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

But I do hate it when people like to stretch the "truth" or in this case a theory to fit the "truth".

---

At 5/25/07 06:13 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Which is the main argument.

Look, theres no way we can argue this point. Because just because a literal christian doesnt believe in evolution doesnt mean they wont look at facts, theres no way to prove thats right or wrong.

Then we will agree to disagree. Going by both my intuition and my logic, I don't see how not looking at facts in one situation wouldn't imply not looking at facts in another situation.

Its the other way around. Because now candidates change their ideas so they get more votes.

Oh, and I would just like to point this out. Heres a poll taken by CBS in 2005, it shows that "51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. "

Yeah, as others have said, I reckon they were just trying to appeal to the uneducated voters. But that, in my opinion, also makes them unideal potential leaders, because that's a bastardised thing to do. I suppose I should expect no different from politicians.

At 5/25/07 07:44 PM, Memorize wrote: You people are fucking idiots!

With all due respect, Memorize, do you have any idea what we're talking about?

Haha, it amazes me how you people fail at simple logic.

Tell me then, why is it called a theory when it's fact?

You are just a troll, aren't you? As I'm sure he made clear, the term "theory" is ambiguous and in terms of science refers to an explanatory model for naturalistic phenomena with a large body of experimental evidence in support of it. It's a bit of a "title of honour" in the natural sciences, rather than a guess or whim as it is in everyday usage.

---

At 5/25/07 09:06 PM, Tal-con wrote:

Can you make any argument without a personal attack? Oh my gosh, you're such a troll.

Then my posts wouldn't have as much... "pahzzaz".

Because theories are hypotheses backed up by evidence?

Yet is not "fact". Yet is not 100% "true". Hence why it is a still a theory. Why? Because it is the best we have and could change at any moment.

Thank you, goodnight.

Umm... durr?

<Cough>dumbass</Cough>

---

At 5/25/07 06:13 PM, fahrenheit wrote: The point I'm getting at is that being a leader or the president doesnt usually deal with science, they deal with issues about common sense and justice, which is my question when I say do you think a christian lacks that?

A literalist lacks common sense, yes. His sense of justice may also be skewed by the old testament.

Look, we cant come to an agreement of what the belief of evolution effects your mind. We both agree that its pretty ignorant to not believe in evolution, but I dont believe that rules out the possibility to be a good president.

You want an ignorant president? Okay. I don't. I believe that ignorance (especially as glaring as this) is a deal-breaker.

If I didn't believe in gravity, that would definitely effect my life.

How so? Would you jump off a bridge and think your going to live?

If I didn't believe in gravity, I might.

No, because its common sense your going to fall. With or without a belief in gravity.

Uh... k.

There is no opposition to radiation or gravity by the church because theres nothing in the bible about those two subjects that explains them.

Radiation is the basis for radiometric dating, Gravity is the force through which we can determine the age of the universe. BOTH contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. Perhaps more subtly, but it's still there.

Evolution on the other hand explains how things came to be, while the church says otherwise. Which is why some people dont believe in evolution.

The Catholic Church is behind both Evolution and the Big Bang universe (avoiding the No Boundary Proposal for the moment, lol). Only the most fundamentalist churches actively deny evolution.

Your right, but its about ignorance on science. They may or may not be ignorant in general, only in the scientific area.

You're naive if you think they'll only be ignorant about a single subject. I also would consider them unfit for the presidency if they were ignorant about the military, world affairs, economics, social sciences, infrasturcture, etc, etc, etc. But this is the only one they admitted on TV (later equivocation or not, which I don't believe for a second).

No, the argument is whether or not that person becomes less intelligent or less likely to be a good leader because of his beliefs.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The belief doesn't cause the intelligence (or lack thereof), the intelligence causes the belief.

Evolution isnt as obvious as that, which is why so many people dont believe in it.

It's as obvious as any other scientific field. Individual or public ignorance and stupidity notwithstanding.

Christians dont deny facts, they deny evolution or science.

Dot dot dot

If you show a literal christian a chart that says amusment park accidents have been increasing since 1985 they arent going to respond "no they arent".

Maybe not, but social sciences show that kids taught to protect themselves during sex are far less likely to get STDs, they deny doing that is good for their kids (ignoraing (root of ignorance) the fact that abstinecne-onry education doesn't lower underage sexual activity at all.

Fundamentalists are actively and deliberately ignorant of MANY things. This is not a quality of a person suitible for the presidency.

Religon wouldn't factor into my decision at all.
Unless they took it literally, right?

The qualities I list and a literalist stance are mutually exclusive.

Your right, which is why I wouldnt vote for a person where their lack of belief in evolution is the only thing I knew about him. But thats not the case, just because your ignorant to the science community does not mean your ignorant to everything.

Again, I think you're being naive. There's no telling what other important issues they will actively ignore or be unable to wrap their head around. Thinking this'll be the ONLY thing they're going to ignore is, quite frankly, stupid.

Which is why they arent going to be president.

And shouldn't be.

Theres your problem, your assuming they wont. You cant assume what someone will do unless you know more about them.

Knowing this is a BIG clue.

I mean, if I hit you in the face (with a chair, say), would you not flinch if I picked up a lamp and came towards you?

Are you saying a literal christian wouldnt?

Again, metaphor. We've hit them again and again and again with evolutionary proof, and yet they never flinch.

The presidents rule the soldiers.

But he's not on the ground, and anyone can feign optimism in a speech, which is about the only interaction between him and the soldiers there ever is.

There are many people who advise the president what to do, he has many people to tell him what to do. The person who you think the president should be, would be his advisor. Someone who knows facts and how to read them.

I'm sorry, I'm not voting for a pretty face who does what other's tell him, or believes what others tell him. I'm voting for someone with the mental capacity to make all of those decisions. If his advisor is the one with those qualities, HE should be pres.

Your right, I believe the president doesnt have much power. Especially now, with a mostly democratic senate (or house, or both).

He's been a bit restrained now, yes... no more blank checks to do whatever he likes... he actually had to veto a second bill (zomg, the horror!). It's nice to see the checks and balances are back a little. However, the pres is still the single most powerful person on the planet.

Its a well though theory, but it isnt finished. Its the most likely scenario, but we dont know everything about evolution yet, which is why its still a theory.

Um, you're showing the same ignorance of what a theory is as Memorize. Theory is the highest level of truth a scientific idea can attain. It will always be a theory.

The findings go against religion, not the theory.

...

Tell me, what, exactly, is the difference between the theory and what the theory predicts?

Once again, literal christians arent against the theory of the relativity. Only its findings.

ok, that's just retarded. I'm sorry, but you can't say "That theory's ok, I believe in it... just not the evidence that confirms it."

wtf?

And how would that be brought up in a issue the president has to deal with?

Gay marriage, sex education, stem cell research, funding for science education, funding for scientific research... do I need to continue?

So do I, we have to look at the idea that even though a president wouldnt change his mind about evolution he might change his mind about not going to war, or dealing out more money to education and public security.

Why would he change his mind about one thing and not another? Why would you assume he would be completely reasonable about all other subjects? It's like expecting a different shape of object to fall up.

Look, theres no way we can argue this point. Because just because a literal christian doesnt believe in evolution doesnt mean they wont look at facts, theres no way to prove thats right or wrong.

Except we've already shown that they won't look at facts. We know they don't. They might look at facts on some other issues, but we can't be sure they'll do it for all other issues, or even most other issues.

Oh, and I would just like to point this out. Heres a poll taken by CBS in 2005, it shows that "51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. "

Then 51% of the American population is wrong. Apparently ignorance isn't just for the minority any more.

---

At 5/26/07 12:11 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Then 51% of the American population is wrong. Apparently ignorance isn't just for the minority any more.

Haha, you're one to talk about ignorance. You're a hypocrite, as well as having no intelligence in factual, political information at all.

Haha, you're worthless!

---

And you're reported for trolling... quit fagging up my thread.

---

At 5/26/07 12:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: And you're reported for trolling... quit fagging up my thread.

I'll quit "fagging up" your thread when you stop being an obvious hypocrite!

Do yourself a favor and do as your profile message suggests!

---

At 5/25/07 01:28 AM, Memorize wrote:
proven theory?

Oxymoron anyone?

Obviously You don't know what the fuck Theory means on a scientific basis.

A scientific theory is formed from both proven fact and observation to describe a Natural phenomena That cannot be otherwise outright proven. An example is Gravity We cannot oturight prove gravity exist But we can observe it's effects and make hypotheses as to how and why it happens.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Intelligent falling you creationist make me laugh.

---

At 5/26/07 12:28 AM, nukechicken wrote:

Intelligent falling you creationist make me laugh.

I'm not a creationist, dumbfuck.

Do you people read?

---

At 5/25/07 06:45 AM, Wikipedian wrote: but I think that a Christian should be aware that a literal and faithful interpretation of the Old Testament implies Judaism.

Er....we don't literally interpret the "Old Testament" (it's called the Torah, originally) either (considering it's where the Creation story comes from, and you must be a fucking idiot to think the world is only 6000 years old). And while the Old and New are very different books, Christians study and live by both, I think.

---

At 5/26/07 12:40 AM, Tal-con wrote:

No one did say anything about absolute truth, Ravariel said it was a proven theory, which is it. Nothing in science is "100% true".

Then that means everything can be proven. It's either fact or it is not, you can't have it both ways so you can pick and choose what arguement you want.

I'm willing to bet you don't know much about science.

Allow me to explain it to you by responding to this dumbass right here.

At 5/26/07 12:28 AM, nukechicken wrote:

Obviously You don't know what the fuck Theory means on a scientific basis.

Ok, lets take a look at your definition.

A scientific theory is formed from both proven fact and observation to describe a Natural phenomena That cannot be otherwise outright proven. An example is Gravity We cannot oturight prove gravity exist But we can observe it's effects and make hypotheses as to how and why it happens.

"both proven fact". What you're doing is taking fact and using it to create a hypothesis that has not yet been proven. We know, based on archeological discoveries, that micro-evolution is true. So you summarize that because small changed can happen, that a drastic change can happen over a long period of time (macro-evolution). However, you have yet to prove macro-evolution, which is what you are claiming is true despite having no real definitive proof of it.

Hence: "cannot outright be proven".

Hypothesis is an educated assumption based of factual information. Which is exactly what you're doing. You've stretched micro-evolution to bring up this idea that macro-evolution is true despite not proving macro-evolution to be true.

You people can't read worth a shit!

---

Don't know why I bother replying to this troll, I guess I'm just very bored.

At 5/26/07 12:48 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/26/07 12:40 AM, Tal-con wrote:

No one did say anything about absolute truth, Ravariel said it was a proven theory, which is it. Nothing in science is "100% true".

Then that means everything can be proven. It's either fact or it is not, you can't have it both ways so you can pick and choose what arguement you want.

You're trying to use proof in a context where it doesn't fit. IT's like the argument against omnipotence. "But lawl, can god do, that which he cannot do? LAWL NO HE CANT SO HE CANT BE OMNIPOTENT LAWLALWL". Proof in natural science is not the same as proof in mathematics... Same with the word "fact". There's no way to confirm absolute facts in anything other than an aximatic theory, which the real world is not. Demanding that something is an absolute 100% certain fact is useless, since nothing is.

I'm willing to bet you don't know much about science.

Allow me to explain it to you by responding to this dumbass right here.


"both proven fact". What you're doing is taking fact and using it to create a hypothesis that has not yet been proven. We know, based on archeological discoveries, that micro-evolution is true. So you summarize that because small changed can happen, that a drastic change can happen over a long period of time (macro-evolution). However, you have yet to prove macro-evolution, which is what you are claiming is true despite having no real definitive proof of it.

OOh, the micro and macro evolution thing. We know, based on counting on fingers, that micro-addition is true. So it is summarized that because small numbers can be counted together, doing that several times over and over again can lead to large numbers being added. However, you have yet to prove that you can add large numbers together!

1+1=2 (har, I can count that on my fingers!)
10000 + 10000? EH LAWL? THAT'S MACRO-ADDITION, THEORY NOT FACT!!! SO IT MUST BE 7, GOD'S HOLY NUMBER!!

Hypothesis is an educated assumption based of factual information. Which is exactly what you're doing. You've stretched micro-evolution to bring up this idea that macro-evolution is true despite not proving macro-evolution to be true.

No wai? Could that be because there's no such thing as micro and macro evolution? Could it be that there's just evolution? Every second you become a bit older, your hair grows a few femtometers. Can we conclude that within a couple of months your hair will have grown a couple of centimeters? NO!! THAT'S MACRO HAIR GROWING, IT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN!! *foams at the mouth*

You people can't read worth a shit!

AN INSULT? FROM MEMORIZE???! Dear Lord, what is this world coming to? IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE?! No more certainties in life. To think, Memorize using insults...

Now to stop feeding the troll before it goes rabid.

A person that holds the literal interpretation of his religion over common sense and the advice of the knowledgeble folk in the field, is not fit to govern. Not because it means that he'll do the same on other issues (though things like abortion and gay marriage come to mind, as Ravariel said). However, it's a clear indication that something is very wrong with his analytical skills.
I wouldn't want someone that holds an argument of authority higher than logic, common sense, and overhwelming evidence. The only reason we ever got further than the Ancient Greeks is that people started questioning the authority of their writings. Whatever Aristotle might have been right on, eventually it becomes impossible to ignore that the Earth in fact orbits the Sun, and not the other way around.
The leader of a country has to be able to think for himself and make correct decisions, based on the wealth of information around him. Many people surrounding him will vouch for many different things, but in the end he has to make the decision. I wouldn't trust someone that out of the wealth of arguments, evidence and opinions chooses the argument of authority, of a 2000 year old book, no less. People like that belong in the Middle Ages, not as leader of a country in the 21st century.

---

At 5/26/07 12:36 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Er....we don't literally interpret the "Old Testament" (it's called the Torah, originally) either (considering it's where the Creation story comes from, and you must be a fucking idiot to think the world is only 6000 years old). And while the Old and New are very different books, Christians study and live by both, I think.

Yes, I know, but in general Jews follow the laws given in the Torah more than Christians do because of Jesus' sacrifice. That was unclear from my post, and I apologise.

---

At 5/26/07 12:48 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/26/07 12:40 AM, Tal-con wrote:

No one did say anything about absolute truth, Ravariel said it was a proven theory, which is it. Nothing in science is "100% true".

Then that means everything can be proven. It's either fact or it is not, you can't have it both ways so you can pick and choose what arguement you want.

Dude, into a scientific discussion you're introducing the concept of absolute facts, that is not how the scientific and logical method works. You start from axioms you believe to be true ie. Newton's Laws of Motion, these may not be true but no thinking, rational individual can take issue with them (ignoring relativist effects ;P) then you look at the concequences of these axioms and physical phenomenon and preduce hypotheses based on observation and what we belive to be true. Then we test the hypothesis and come up with what we call a THEORY ie quantum THOERY. Then we test it experimentally and either accept it and keep on testing it or reject it and look for alternate thoeries. The important thing is quantum theory is different from fact because the only things we would call facts are the glarinly obvious and although quantum theory is rediculously accurate (akin to getting the distance from LA to NY wrong by less than the bredth of a human hair to cite a famous illustration) it is still a theory and so still being tested. As with quantum theory the exact way evolution happens may not be as the theory states, however all data points to it and so for a layman to dismiss it based on a hunch when you are no an expert in the field is just ignorant.

---

At 5/26/07 12:11 AM, Ravariel wrote: A literalist lacks common sense, yes. His sense of justice may also be skewed by the old testament.

What about the new testament? Does that skew a persons beliefs also?

You want an ignorant president?

Since when did
ignorance of science = ignorance of everything?

BOTH contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. Perhaps more subtly, but it's still there.

Their findings contradict it.
Just like using tools to find dinasour bones, christians arent against the tools only the findings.

The Catholic Church is behind both Evolution and the Big Bang universe

You know what I mean, by the catholic church I mean all they believe in. And only a select few in the church believe that, its not their position on things.

Only the most fundamentalist churches actively deny evolution.

Not according to that study.

You're naive if you think they'll only be ignorant about a single subject.

And why would they be ignorant on things a president has to deal with? Why would they be ignorant on a cure for cancer, a genocide in Africa, a nuclear threat in Korea, a rising crime problem in America?

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The belief doesn't cause the intelligence (or lack thereof), the intelligence causes the belief.

If you honestly believe that, then theres no argument. Because neither one of us is convincing the other.

It's as obvious as any other scientific field. Individual or public ignorance and stupidity notwithstanding.

People can see gravity, they cant see evolution.

Again, I think you're being naive. There's no telling what other important issues they will actively ignore or be unable to wrap their head around.

Which is why you should know who you are and arent voting for. Just believing that they lack intelligence because they believe literally in the bible is ignorant in itself.

Again, metaphor.

You need a better one.

I'm sorry, I'm not voting for a pretty face who does what other's tell him,

Then I guess you wont be voting, because thats what presidents do.
They get elected for promises, having a good smile, and being a good speaker. But guess what, they would be an idiot not to listen to their advisors, which is exactly what they do.

However, the pres is still the single most powerful person on the planet.

No, he couldnt launch a nuclear missle if he wanted to. Kim Jong Il could, if he wanted to.

Um, you're showing the same ignorance of what a theory is as Memorize.

It will always be a theory.

Tell me, what, exactly, is the difference between the theory and what the theory predicts?

The same reason as the tool isnt offensive, its what is caused.
Why do you think Christians would be against the theory of relativity?

Why do you think they would be against some of its findings?

ok, that's just retarded. I'm sorry, but you can't say "That theory's ok, I believe in it... just not the evidence that confirms it."

If you dont understand, then dont try to understand.

Gay marriage,

Tried to ban it, failed.

sex education,

The president doesnt deal with that.

stem cell research,

This is the only thing I can see him affecting.

funding for science education, funding for scientific research...

Once again, unless hes directly financing the research he doesnt deal with it.

do I need to continue?

Only if you have good examples.

Why would he change his mind about one thing and not another?

Because people think?

Why would you assume he would be completely reasonable about all other subjects?

YOU SHOULDNT, what have I been saying this whole time?
Look at him, know who he is, what he believes in, if hes ignorant then dont vote for him. But if hes the next JFK dont rule him out because he doesnt believe in evolution.

You say its all about patterns, but its more than that. Humans arent machines, you have to ask why would someone do that. Why, what, who when, all of those will give you a good idea about someone. But not voting for them over one issue is just as ignorant as voting for someone over one issue.

Except we've already shown that they won't look at facts.

You know scientists do more than look at evidence, they anaylze it. Which is what you need to do.

---

At 5/26/07 12:11 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/25/07 06:13 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

Radiation is the basis for radiometric dating, Gravity is the force through which we can determine the age of the universe. BOTH contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. Perhaps more subtly, but it's still there.

I'm sorry but no. no offense but i would just figure that everyone is aware of this argument. when god created adam did he create a fedis? obviously not, he created adam with age already "built in" why couldn't he do the same for the earth. are you saying that he could only create a brand spank'n new earth still molted and gooey.

Evolution on the other hand explains how things came to be, while the church says otherwise. Which is why some people dont believe in evolution.

there is also evidence that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth with one another. i cant quote this evidence right now but if you give me an hour then i'll get right on that

The Catholic Church is behind both Evolution and the Big Bang universe (avoiding the No Boundary Proposal for the moment, lol). Only the most fundamentalist churches actively deny evolution.

from my experience going to church i'd really have to say that most don't believe in evolution. my word trumps yours because i go to church.

Your right, but its about ignorance on science. They may or may not be ignorant in general, only in the scientific area.

it is not ignorance. by chance do you do what an S-curve graph is. it' one of the most basic concepts in biology to graph the growth of a population. when some one makes one of these humans they typically do so to find a carying capacity. but i know two scientists who used it to graph an approximate start of humans. the got about 5,000 B.C. this just about what the bible says.

You're naive if you think they'll only be ignorant about a single subject. I also would consider them unfit for the presidency if they were ignorant about the military, world affairs, economics, social sciences, infrasturcture, etc, etc, etc. But this is the only one they admitted on TV (later equivocation or not, which I don't believe for a second).

No, the argument is whether or not that person becomes less intelligent or less likely to be a good leader because of his beliefs.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The belief doesn't cause the intelligence (or lack thereof), the intelligence causes the belief.

Evolution isnt as obvious as that, which is why so many people dont believe in it.

It's as obvious as any other scientific field. Individual or public ignorance and stupidity notwithstanding.

how on earth could you make such an idiodic statement there is plenty of evidence against evolution.

Christians dont deny facts, they deny evolution or science.

we deny evolution not science. the bible has a lot of interesting things in it about science.
for instance:

Job states, in speaking of God, that "He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). That, of course, is a well-known fact today. The earth is literally "hanging upon nothing." But we must remember that this was not the concept of Job's day. Men in Job's time felt the earth was possibly suspended on the backs of four elephants, which stood on the back of a giant turtle! Or, they felt that the earth was suspended upon the shoulders of a supernaturally strong man!

Dot dot dot

If you show a literal christian a chart that says amusment park accidents have been increasing since 1985 they arent going to respond "no they arent".

Maybe not, but social sciences show that kids taught to protect themselves during sex are far less likely to get STDs, they deny doing that is good for their kids (ignoraing (root of ignorance) the fact that abstinecne-onry education doesn't lower underage sexual activity at all.

it would be hard to find a christian who says unprotected sex is better than protected. all they say is that waiting 'till marriage is safer and all around better. that isn't ignorance that is just a different and justified oppinion.

Fundamentalists are actively and deliberately ignorant of MANY things. This is not a quality of a person suitible for the presidency.

again that is a completely unfair oppinion.

The qualities I list and a literalist stance are mutually exclusive.

Your right, which is why I wouldnt vote for a person where their lack of belief in evolution is the only thing I knew about him. But thats not the case, just because your ignorant to the science community does not mean your ignorant to everything.

i must sound like a broken record but lack of beleif in evolution is not ignorance.

Thinking this'll be the ONLY thing they're going to ignore is, quite frankly, stupid.

ignore what? arguments can be made on either side of evolution.
i personaly know many scintists who do not accept.

I mean, if I hit you in the face (with a chair, say), would you not flinch if I picked up a lamp and came towards you?

Are you saying a literal christian wouldnt?

that analagy was entertining but unfortunately it doesn't aply. people think that if you follow the bible exactly you'll end up trying to purge non believers. the bible actually says you should not do that.

Again, metaphor. We've hit them again and again and again with evolutionary proof, and yet they never flinch.

argh... if you put me through anymore stress i will start coughing up blood. arguments can be made either way. it really sounds like you got information off one extreemly one-sided web site

Its a well though theory, but it isnt finished. Its the most likely scenario, but we dont know everything about evolution yet, which is why its still a theory.

thank you. oh my god finally a voice of reason

Um, you're showing the same ignorance of what a theory is as Memorize. Theory is the highest level of truth a scientific idea can attain. It will always be a theory.

The findings go against religion, not the theory.

there are still major unknowns in the theory of evolution.

...

Tell me, what, exactly, is the difference between the theory and what the theory predicts?

Once again, literal christians arent against the theory of the relativity. Only its findings.

care to elaborate

Gay marriage, sex education, stem cell research, funding for science education, funding for scientific research... do I need to continue?

in theory you should care about a leaders standings on those topics not his religion
his religion may effect his standings however it also may not. so you should just care how hes stands on specific issues.

So do I, we have to look at the idea that even though a president wouldnt change his mind about evolution he might change his mind about not going to war, or dealing out more money to education and public security.

Why would he change his mind about one thing and not another? Why would you assume he would be completely reasonable about all other subjects? It's like expecting a different shape of object to fall up.

why would you assume that because he does not believe in what you beleive in that he would be completely incompetant

Oh, and I would just like to point this out. Heres a poll taken by CBS in 2005, it shows that "51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. "

Then 51% of the American population is wrong. Apparently ignorance isn't just for the minority any more.

are you happy now! when i read your retarted statement i jammed my fist into the monitor. i had to buy a new one. i expect you to pay for the damages. oh plus the medical bill.

your logic in this situation is basically since you know everthing anyone who dissagrees with you is wrong...
how could i have been so naive?

---

At 5/26/07 01:53 PM, fahrenheit wrote: What about the new testament? Does that skew a persons beliefs also?

Probably, but in a less destructive-to-intellect way. The New Testament doesn't really touch too much on how the world works, but rather how people should behave... much of which is very good advice. Even believing in the literal miracles of Jesus is fine, because they do not go against anything in science.

Since when did
ignorance of science = ignorance of everything?

Never, but ignorance in one area is indicative of a deeper character flaw that will most likely produce ignorance in other areas as well.

Their findings contradict it.
Just like using tools to find dinasour bones, christians arent against the tools only the findings.

Flawed analogy. Relativity isn't a tool (per se) with which to find out stuff (though we can use it for that), but rather an explanation and a refinement of findings already found. Relativity predicts that going faster will make time slow down. You can't believe in relativity and then deny that time slows down at higher velocities. It's not logical, rational, or even self-consistant with one's own beliefs.

You know what I mean, by the catholic church I mean all they believe in. And only a select few in the church believe that, its not their position on things.

Tell that to the Pope.

Not according to that study.

Individuals who attend church are not a Church (capitalization important here). A catholic is not the Catholic Church.

And why would they be ignorant on things a president has to deal with? Why would they be ignorant on a cure for cancer, a genocide in Africa, a nuclear threat in Korea, a rising crime problem in America?

Sigh... how many times tdo I need to say this: ignorance of such a fact is indicative of a deeper character flaw that will most likely result in other ignorances as well. Can you for certain say that they WON'T be ignorant of those things or that they WON'T deny the advice of those more knowledgeable than them about it?

You can't, not without literally knowing how they think... which in itself is impossible, but going on what we know, the inclination for denial and ignorance is already there. You might be willing to take the risk, but I am not.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The belief doesn't cause the intelligence (or lack thereof), the intelligence causes the belief.

If you honestly believe that, then theres no argument. Because neither one of us is convincing the other.

Why do you think the belief is the primary cause? Think about it logically, how can what one thinks change how well one thinks? Now ask yourself, can how well one thinks effect what one thinks?

People can see gravity, they cant see evolution.

Yes they can.

They choose not to. That is, by definition deliberate ignorance.

Which is why you should know who you are and arent voting for. Just believing that they lack intelligence because they believe literally in the bible is ignorant in itself.

As I am not a mind reader, and I can only go by what they say (and what they've done), this glaring fault is enough, with or without other factors, to make it clear to me that they aren't fit. Even IF they are perfect in all other areas (which is as close to a statistical impossibility as I can fathom)... like I said, it's a deal-breaker.

Then I guess you wont be voting, because thats what presidents do.
They get elected for promises, having a good smile, and being a good speaker. But guess what, they would be an idiot not to listen to their advisors, which is exactly what they do.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have advisors, I'm saying they need to be intelligent enough to listen to advisers with several different viewpoints, weigh the facts and the repercussions of each suggestion and make an informed decision from there. Someone who actively denies a scientific fact is obviously not inclined to such action.

No, he couldnt launch a nuclear missle if he wanted to. Kim Jong Il could, if he wanted to.

If that were all that constituted power than you'd be correct.

The same reason as the tool isnt offensive, its what is caused.
Why do you think Christians would be against the theory of relativity?

Because it proves the literal interpretation of the bible wrong.

Why do you think they would be against some of its findings?

Because they prove the literal interpretation of the bible wrong.

If you dont understand, then dont try to understand.

Read: I don't actually believe this, nor can I explain it so nevermind.

Gotcha.

Tried to ban it, failed.

Once. No reason it can't be tried again.

sex education,

The president doesnt deal with that.

Not directly, but you better believe he could have an immense amount of influence on it if he so desired.

funding for science education, funding for scientific research...

Once again, unless hes directly financing the research he doesnt deal with it.

Who do you think signs the bills for federal grants that fund the research?

Why would he change his mind about one thing and not another?

Because people think?

Obviously not, or he would have changed his mind about evolution.

YOU SHOULDNT, what have I been saying this whole time?
Look at him, know who he is, what he believes in, if hes ignorant then dont vote for him. But if hes the next JFK dont rule him out because he doesnt believe in evolution.

JFK wasn't all that, really. He's been placed on a pedestal because of what happened to him, but remember he did do some stupid stuff. And I'm afraid this would rule him out. Because what he claims to be for or against is irrelevant. Without literally knowing what is in his mind there is no way I could be confident he would listen to reason about anything, after knowing he won't on this.

You say its all about patterns, but its more than that. Humans arent machines, you have to ask why would someone do that. Why, what, who when, all of those will give you a good idea about someone. But not voting for them over one issue is just as ignorant as voting for someone over one issue.

Would you vote for the perfect candidate if his only flaw were pedofilia? I realize that's an extreme comparison, but the parallel exists. There would be no way you could know if the sickness that caused the pedofilia wouldn't cause him tomake some other terrible decision, or effect his judgement in other ways. Even if his campaign promised perfection in all other things, there is no way you could ever be sure he actually could or would be such.

Except we've already shown that they won't look at facts.

You know scientists do more than look at evidence, they anaylze it. Which is what you need to do.

I am: Subject shows an inability to look at science as reality, an inability to change when presented with new information, and a distinct lack of analytical skills. Expecting otherwise in other situations is illogical.

Betting on the slim possibility that they'll be reasonable in all (or even most) other situations is. Not. Rational.

---

At 5/26/07 10:18 PM, jonjon123 wrote: I'm sorry but no. no offense but i would just figure that everyone is aware of this argument. when god created adam did he create a fedis? obviously not, he created adam with age already "built in" why couldn't he do the same for the earth.

by fedis, i assume you meant "fetus". there is no mention of God creating man as a fully grown adult.

there is also evidence that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth with one another. i cant quote this evidence right now but if you give me an hour then i'll get right on that

i believe you are referring to the Paluxy tracks .

from my experience going to church i'd really have to say that most don't believe in evolution. my word trumps yours because i go to church.

"my word trumps yours because i go to church", forgive us all knowing and divine one.

it is not ignorance. by chance do you do what an S-curve graph is. it' one of the most basic concepts in biology to graph the growth of a population. when some one makes one of these humans they typically do so to find a carying capacity. but i know two scientists who used it to graph an approximate start of humans. the got about 5,000 B.C. this just about what the bible says.

the problem with using population growth as proof is that creationists seem to forget that population over time is not always constant (famines, disease, war, etc...). second, if one were to use the given measures creationists use it would contradict with the populations described in the Bible.
for example: by the time Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, the creationist's graph tells us he had, at most, a few hundred followers while the Bible states he has several thousand.

No, the argument is whether or not that person becomes less intelligent or less likely to be a good leader because of his beliefs.

a leaders religion is irrelevant unless it affects his/her country and people.

Evolution isnt as obvious as that, which is why so many people dont believe in it.

it wasn't long ago we thought the world was flat, a lot of people believed this, were they right?
argument from popularity.

how on earth could you make such an idiodic statement there is plenty of evidence against evolution.

evidence against evolution itself or evidence against other irrelevant things such as the big-bang, abiogenesis and whatnot? (by the way, there is little actual evidence against those other two i just mentioned)

we deny evolution not science. the bible has a lot of interesting things in it about science.
for instance:

Job states, in speaking of God, that "He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). That, of course, is a well-known fact today. The earth is literally "hanging upon nothing." But we must remember that this was not the concept of Job's day. Men in Job's time felt the earth was possibly suspended on the backs of four elephants, which stood on the back of a giant turtle! Or, they felt that the earth was suspended upon the shoulders of a supernaturally strong man!

the Greeks believed the earth was created in the void and that the earth was round and rotated around the sun. why do we not use mythology as science?

it would be hard to find a christian who says unprotected sex is better than protected. all they say is that waiting 'till marriage is safer and all around better. that isn't ignorance that is just a different and justified oppinion.

and most people, religious or not, know that no sex equals no STDs and the like, but that doesn't stop people from having sex now does it?

ignore what? arguments can be made on either side of evolution.
i personaly know many scintists who do not accept.

a scientist in a relevant field of studies?

argh... if you put me through anymore stress i will start coughing up blood. arguments can be made either way. it really sounds like you got information off one extreemly one-sided web site

arguments could be made for absolutley anything, arguments on their own don't make something true.

Its a well though theory, but it isnt finished. Its the most likely scenario, but we dont know everything about evolution yet, which is why its still a theory.

thank you. oh my god finally a voice of reason

why does no one know what a "theory" is.

The findings go against religion, not the theory.

the findings go against a book that is intended to tell you about God and man's relation to God, it is not a science handbook. science and evolution are not against religion.

there are still major unknowns in the theory of evolution.

argument from ignorance

---

At 5/26/07 10:18 PM, jonjon123 wrote: there is also evidence that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth with one another.

No, there isn't, because they didn't. Not only is it common knowledge that the two did not exist at the same time, but the explosion of Mammalian development happened because the Dinosaurs all died. Humans came a lot later after that explosion of development, so there really is no possibility of them coexisting with dinosaurs according to all known evidence.

it is not ignorance. by chance do you do what an S-curve graph is. it' one of the most basic concepts in biology to graph the growth of a population. when some one makes one of these humans they typically do so to find a carying capacity. but i know two scientists who used it to graph an approximate start of humans. the got about 5,000 B.C. this just about what the bible says.

Do you realize how absurdly wrong even the basic concept of apply an S-curve to humans is? There's a little thing called technology that shoots it all to hell because it introduces unpredictable, long-term variables with sudden, massive effects. No logistic curve can accurately map human population changes to the degree of "defeating" actual evidence.

how on earth could you make such an idiodic statement there is plenty of evidence against evolution.

No, no there is not. The only "evidence" against evolution is imaginary proofs that can't withstand any scrutiny, and the pile of evidence support evolution is vast, solid, and continuously increasing. Anti-Evolution people always try to jump on potential exceptions/unusual cases to "disprove" evolution, but they don't have any actual facts.

ignore what? arguments can be made on either side of evolution.
i personaly know many scintists who do not accept.

I highly doubt that.

argh... if you put me through anymore stress i will start coughing up blood. arguments can be made either way. it really sounds like you got information off one extreemly one-sided web site

Did you actually research any information? Ever?

there are still major unknowns in the theory of evolution.

Only in the sense of areas we have not fill in the details for, not fundamental flaws or gaps.

your logic in this situation is basically since you know everthing anyone who dissagrees with you is wrong...
how could i have been so naive?

Opinion polls are cosistantly demonstrated as wrong in common experience, as far as I am concerned. Simply because a CBS poll says about 50% of the people who responded said something doens't mean it actually applies to the whole nation.

---

double kill?

---

Well, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I guess once you say the evil atheist word "evolution" it can't be avoided...

At 5/26/07 10:18 PM, jonjon123 wrote: I'm sorry but no. no offense but i would just figure that everyone is aware of this argument. when god created adam did he create a fedis? obviously not,

Why not? I don't remember the bible saying what age Adam appeared to be when he was created.

he created adam with age already "built in" why couldn't he do the same for the earth. are you saying that he could only create a brand spank'n new earth still molted and gooey.

No, I'm saying that "creating the light en-route" (your real argument here, once we strip away the metaphor) is... less elegant (for lack of a better term). Why bother to make everything at once, all motion and everything already prepared to make it LOOK like the universe is WAY older than it is... when you can simply set the rules and make a bang and it'll happen anyway?

Also, why would God need (or want) to resort to such trickery? Why put fossils in the ground, why make them appear to be millions of years old, why create stars and light that make the universe seem billions of years old, why make the universe expand at all (nevermind accelerate), when he could have just done things like they appear to have been done?

Cut it with Occam's Razor.

there is also evidence that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth with one another. i cant quote this evidence right now but if you give me an hour then i'll get right on that

That evidence has been proven to be bogus.

from my experience going to church i'd really have to say that most don't believe in evolution. my word trumps yours because i go to church.

Well, the Pope disagrees, but I suppose your word trumps his, too.

it is not ignorance. by chance do you do what an S-curve graph is. it' one of the most basic concepts in biology to graph the growth of a population. when some one makes one of these humans they typically do so to find a carying capacity. but i know two scientists who used it to graph an approximate start of humans. the got about 5,000 B.C. this just about what the bible says.

And yet I know of several scientists who have calculated Mitochondrial Eve as having lived 140,000 years ago, as well as human musical instruments over 9000 years old.

I could name a thousand scientists whose findings directly contradict your's use of a statistical graph for determining population. Do I need to?

how on earth could you make such an idiodic statement there is plenty of evidence against evolution.

Give me one I can't debunk with multiple sources. I dare you.

we deny evolution not science. the bible has a lot of interesting things in it about science.

You want interesting science in a holy book? Wel the Quran has you beat hands down. I mean, since their divinely inspired book is more detailed about things they had no way of observing, it's obviously more correct than yours, no?

it would be hard to find a christian who says unprotected sex is better than protected. all they say is that waiting 'till marriage is safer and all around better. that isn't ignorance that is just a different and justified oppinion.

It is. However, using that opinion to actively shut down education that teaches kids how to be safe about their sexual activity when they decide they're ready is NOT justified.

again that is a completely unfair oppinion.

How?

i must sound like a broken record but lack of beleif in evolution is not ignorance.

ig·no·rance
n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Yes it is.

ignore what? arguments can be made on either side of evolution.

So make them. I, again, dare you.

i personaly know many scintists who do not accept.

Sure you do.

argh... if you put me through anymore stress i will start coughing up blood. arguments can be made either way. it really sounds like you got information off one extreemly one-sided web site

No they can't. There has never been a single verifiable instance of evidence contradicting evolution. Ever.

there are still major unknowns in the theory of evolution.

Sigh... grow up, get a degree in a science, then come back here and talk to me about knowns and unknowns making a difference.

why would you assume that because he does not believe in what you beleive in that he would be completely incompetant

I wouldn't assume complete incompetence, merely partial incompetence. Unfortunately the President of the United States should be among the most competent people alive. Even partial incompetence is a fatal (figuratively speaking) flaw.

your logic in this situation is basically since you know everthing anyone who dissagrees with you is wrong...

No. My argument is that anyone who disagrees with verifiable data, observation and fact is wrong.

how could i have been so naive?

By believing without question what you are told instead of looking at things objectively and reaching your own conclusions.

---

At 5/26/07 11:54 PM, SolInvictus wrote: double kill?

lol, triple it would seem.

---

At 5/26/07 11:49 PM, Ravariel wrote: because they do not go against anything in science.

This speaks volumes for your argument.

Never, but ignorance in one area is indicative of a deeper character

We arent dogs, one flaw in one area doesnt always mean a flaw in another.

Flawed analogy. Relativity isn't a tool (per se) with which to find out stuff (though we can use it for that), but rather an explanation and a refinement of findings already found.

Does the theory of relativity specifically state that the universe is so and so old, or is that by applying the theory of relativity to modern use we are able to find out how old the universe is?

Tell that to the Pope.

Care to back that up with a source?

Individuals who attend church are not a Church (capitalization important here).

Why would so many believe that if they werent following church? Did they all decide to presume it despite both the scientific community and the church saying otherwise?

I've heard about the catholic church adopting the belief, but only because it offers a creation point of view.

Sigh... how many times tdo I need to say this: ignorance of such a fact is indicative of a deeper character flaw that will most likely result in other ignorances as well.

So your saying for certain that a person who doesnt believe in evolution, and is a die hard christian literalist, is beneath you intellectually?

Might want to step down from that high horse of yours.

Can you for certain say that they WON'T be ignorant of those things or that they WON'T deny the advice of those more knowledgeable than them about it?

Can you say for certain they will?

You might be willing to take the risk, but I am not.

I've said multiple times, that if the only thing I knew about was his belief on evolution, then I wouldnt vote for him.

Maybe if you actually understood what I said then I wouldnt have to remind you of this.

Now ask yourself, can how well one thinks effect what one thinks?

Absolutely.

Yes they can.

You can see a ball drop.
You cant see your dog evolve.

As I am not a mind reader, and I can only go by what they say (and what they've done),

Since when do presidents do one thing, say one thing. If the only thing you know about a candidate is their stance on evolution then your not a very politically aware voter.

Someone who actively denies a scientific fact is obviously not inclined to such action.

You base that on no credible reason, you only assume it.

Because it proves the literal interpretation of the bible wrong.

So does a chisel and a shovel when it digs up a dinosaur.

Read: I don't actually believe this, nor can I explain it so nevermind.
Gotcha.

Now whos acting like Memorize?

Once. No reason it can't be tried again.

And it will be denied again.

Our constitution protects things like this, and we dont exactly live in the ignorant days of the early to mid 20th century where people avoid blacks and gays.

Not directly, but you better believe he could have an immense amount of influence on it if he so desired.

And what could he do?

Who do you think signs the bills for federal grants that fund the research?

Private companies.

Obviously not, or he would have changed his mind about evolution.

Did you just tell me literal christians dont think?

Now whos the ignorant one?

JFK wasn't all that, really.

JFK, a good president, its only an example.

Would you vote for the perfect candidate if his only flaw were pedofilia?

If I thought he was the best candidate, then yes.
But obviously if he was a practicing pedophiliac then he wouldnt be able to run for president.

there is no way you could ever be sure he actually could or would be such.

No, but if he was the perfect candidate then he would be able to control himself.

I am:

No, your not. Scientists dont assume things, which is what your doing.

Betting on the slim possibility that they'll be reasonable in all (or even most) other situations is. Not. Rational.

Look, if your not going to even realize what I'm saying then just say so and we can stop.

---

At 5/26/07 01:53 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 5/26/07 12:11 AM, Ravariel wrote: A literalist lacks common sense, yes. His sense of justice may also be skewed by the old testament.

What about the new testament? Does that skew a persons beliefs also?

If one interprets it literally, you bet it does.

You want an ignorant president?

Since when did
ignorance of science = ignorance of everything?

That's not the point. It's that in this situation, ignorance after all this evidence is laid out shows a clear inability to make good, informed decisions.

BOTH contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. Perhaps more subtly, but it's still there.

Their findings contradict it.
Just like using tools to find dinasour bones, christians arent against the tools only the findings.

Who the fuck cares about what anyone thinks about the tools? It's only the findings that are important here!

You're naive if you think they'll only be ignorant about a single subject.

And why would they be ignorant on things a president has to deal with? Why would they be ignorant on a cure for cancer, a genocide in Africa, a nuclear threat in Korea, a rising crime problem in America?

Because it shows that they're willing to ignore common sense, shut out reality, and be willfully ignorant of anything that contradicts what they think.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The belief doesn't cause the intelligence (or lack thereof), the intelligence causes the belief.

If you honestly believe that, then theres no argument. Because neither one of us is convincing the other.

Well, that's too bad for you because he's right.

It's as obvious as any other scientific field. Individual or public ignorance and stupidity notwithstanding.

People can see gravity, they cant see evolution.

If you can see gravity, you're a very special person.

But seriously, just as with gravity, the evidence is all around you. They're called fossils, heard of 'em? Also, anyone can clearly see our physical similarities with apes.

Also, how can anything but evolution explain that the embryos of chickens and turtles look almost exactly the same?

Again, I think you're being naive. There's no telling what other important issues they will actively ignore or be unable to wrap their head around.

Which is why you should know who you are and arent voting for. Just believing that they lack intelligence because they believe literally in the bible is ignorant in itself.

Not really, because every bit of logical evidence points against literal interpretation. When you completely ignore all the evidence around you because of blind faith, yes, you lack intelligence.

Again, metaphor.

You need a better one.

I'm sorry, I'm not voting for a pretty face who does what other's tell him,

Then I guess you wont be voting, because thats what presidents do.
They get elected for promises, having a good smile, and being a good speaker. But guess what, they would be an idiot not to listen to their advisors, which is exactly what they do.

True dat, unfortunately. Don't forget about teeth shiny-ness and how well-coiffed they are, though!

However, the pres is still the single most powerful person on the planet.

No, he couldnt launch a nuclear missle if he wanted to. Kim Jong Il could, if he wanted to.

Actually, the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so he CAN launch a nuclear missile whenever we're at war. He doesn't because it would be unbelievably reckless and stupid.

sex education,

The president doesnt deal with that.

The president absolutely deals with that. Secretary of Education, ever heard of it?

stem cell research,

This is the only thing I can see him affecting.

And it's not like what could be a gigantic and life-saving medical breakthrough is important or anything...

funding for science education, funding for scientific research...

Once again, unless hes directly financing the research he doesnt deal with it.

Oh yes he does. Just look at the one above this.