Yes We can

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

No idea. Of course, this particular race has been in the spotlight a lot longer than some of our more recent ones. Not that we don't generally follow along with the primaries, but we were talking about the candidates long before them this time around.

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

No kidding, I think people knew Hillary was going to run for president somewhere in Bill's second term.

[bikkebakke]

Re: Yes We can

Bill had a second term? I thought that was Hillary running shit back then?

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

He took the oath and she kept his balls in a jar on her nightstand.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Yes We can

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

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

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

The thing is, those are not impossibilities. Given enough time for random mutation and natural selection to take its place, it is entirely possible for one creature to ascend to the next. It is just a rather immensely long process that we have no direct documentation of. Alright, for example, human beings like to organize themselves into different races; African, Caucasian, Asian, etc.... which is entirely untrue, we are all inherently the same race: homosapian, however, given that each ethnicity LOVES to stay within their own ethnicity it is entirely possible that after hundreds, thousands of years, we in fact will not be able to procreate with the other gene pools given that genetic differences have grown too vast for it to be overcome, thus forming different races. After that split the genetic divide becomes larger and larger as mutation occurs, as natural selection (if you believe human beings follow natural selection) adds to it and also as viral and bacterial DNA (yes, once you contract most illnesses, part of that illness's genetic coding in fact becomes adding to your own unique code) become part of the transmitted genetic coding, after such things it is entirely possible for the two diverging races to evolve farther and farther apart, shedding off likenesses to their former brethren. Its honestly not that much of a stretch to believe given the fossil and biological evidence that currently keeps piling up. However, so long as an individual believes in micro evolution, or that species in fact change over the years, I'm happy and honestly until we have it completely documented and researched I am not at peace with forcing the macro evolutionary view upon people, however, I advise that even as a spectator you familiarize yourself with AND understand the view. Sometimes things are incorrect yet hold a trickle of truth, and that truth can be enough to progress mankind to a farther level of understanding, should the thought be completely rejected, then we stagnate and we falter. (In life, learn all you can about everything, and never truly reserve yourself 100% to a notion, it will ease life with us all) (I also HIGHLY support that everyone, whether for or against religious texts, in fact read them simply to understand people) (wooottzzzz bio major)

[Feba]

Re: Yes We can

If you want, I can show you how evolution doesn't hold water w/o ever mentioning God or religion.

Alright. Explain:

A- What part of evolution you disagree with ( for examples, see http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3...utionisss6.jpg )
B- Why so many predictions made by evolution ( Is Evolution Science? for some examples ) are correct.
C- Why evolution has not been disproved despite nearly 150 of controversy (see How to Disprove Evolution? - The Panda's Thumb and Disproving the theory of evolution )


And for bonus points, explain what alternatives can be inferred through observing facts. (Books are not facts.) Also explain why creationism is the only possible alternative to evolution, and which of the hundreds of creation myths is correct.

I've read the books of those who do have PhDs and have spent their lives finding the countless holes in current evolutionary theory.

Like Depleted Cranium Blog Archive Creationist “University” ? What kind of PhDs? The ones that have their degrees in completely unrelated fields, or the ones that didn't really have to earn one? Also, you do realize that any scientist working in a field relating to evolution (which is a crapload of fields) is working on finding holes, right? That's kinda how science works. Even most of the scientists who think there are flaws in evolution theory as it is believe that evolution is mostly correct.

And like I said I took offense to it and stated that their is a lot of scientific evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory.

I'd really like to see you back that up; because so far thousands of people more learned than you haven't been able to.

Keep in mind, while you talk about scientific evidence, that creationism has absolutely none. You can bring up some minor flaws in evolutionary discoveries, however there is absolutely no way to even begin to show creationism is true. Creationism is not science; it makes no predictions, and has no method by which it can be disproved- creationism is taking myths and finding facts that fit into place; science is observing facts and seeing what is the best explanation for why they are.



As to earlier in the thread, I just want to make the comment that a lot of people see Iraq not only as a military failure, but also a huge economic drain. I think a lot of people want out because they'd rather see the money going to things in their own country than one half a world away.

[Malacite]

Re: Yes We can

Please keep the Evolution vs Creationism to another thread.

On topic, Hilary got pwnt. Obama took the majority of states (and still managed a good chunk out of California). Meanwhile, she's had to write her campaign a personal cheque for 5 Mil, and is now begging her supporters to raise another 3 while Obama's already raised something like 40 million over night?

He also picked up yet another endorsement, this time from Tim Walz. Can't stop the O-Train baby!

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

Well, Romney bowed out today. So basically McCain has won now, I'm not sure Huckabee can win at all.

Clinton's staffers are all going w/o pay, now.

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

I was very excited to hear that Romney was bowing out. Though I suspect it's a bid to get the second spot with McCain. Still, I don't like him, so this is good news for me.

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

I saw the headline, but couldn't findit when I went back to read it, how can Hillary give her campaign $5m? I thought candidates weren't supposed to donate to their own campaign.

[Malacite]

Re: Yes We can

Well, the poor guy's spent over 35M of his own money on this, so it's a damn shame in that respect. Especially since Mc Cain will be the downfall of the party >. > but too bad for them.


Let's just hope the DNC isn't retarded and elects Obama because guess what's gonna happen to all the new voters that he has brought out this year if HRC gets the nomination?

[jwalton]

Re: Yes We can

History in the making, that's for certain. Obama's momentum has surprised me so far, because I didn't think America had come far enough just yet. I would definitely enjoy being completely wrong with my initial thoughts weeks ago on his chances. If he becomes the next president, it will certainly change the nature of the political game. After all, Hillary is running a by-the-book campaign and it's slowly being overtaken.

[Caspian]

Re: Yes We can

Thing about Hillary is she is very polarizing. I don't think I've talked to anyone that doesn't have strong feelings about her either way. Pretty much everyone either loves her or hates her. Not real common for someone who has never officially held the office of president.

[Malacite]

Re: Yes We can

I was just watching "A Daily Show" and OMG did they ever have a good bit on Romney tonight... I highly recommend you catch it as soon as you can. Was so good I won't even hint at it ^^b

They did show a clip of him though making his concession speech, and WOW what an asshole to basically say that voting for a Democrat = giving in to terrorism. That's nice, real unifying. So all Democrats are terrorists? John Stewart's response was classic

And didn't I tell ya not to discredit Obama? The guy practically bleeds Charisma. Now he just needs to really stay focused on the issues. Also, anyone else noticing just how much less a certain ex-president has been on the scene lately? Looks like HRC finally wisened up and reigned him in.

[Murphie]

Re: Yes We can

I don't love or hate Hillary. And most of the people I know don't either. There was a discussion on the whole "polarizing figure" thing a couple of weeks ago on Real Time with Bill Maher. People say "Oh, she's so polarizing," but they can't back it up with anything but a vague anecdotal example. (Which I did the opposite of in the first sentence of this post). I found it kind of interesting.

Trying to track down a video of it if I can.