"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Matt,

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
St. Helens


Care to point us to a source?

Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth. There
is simply NO debate about that in the scientific community. I'll admit
there is a debate about it well outside the scientific community, but
pretty much exclusively in the US.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bob,

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

I can't see how it isn't.

Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
too?


It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
least if they're supposed to be good ones.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Matt,

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
St. Helens


Care to point us to a source?

Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth. There
is simply NO debate about that in the scientific community. I'll admit
there is a debate about it well outside the scientific community, but
pretty much exclusively in the US.


Well, there is plenty of debate,but only as to the mechanism at the moment.
They happily entertianed some of the ID stuff when it came around but it
did not stand up to scrutiny and so far that evidence has been dismissed.
Most rational scientists are glad to look at anything that comes along and
they do, but most of it is easily dismissed and this ****es off the pseudo
scientists that hang their hats on it.

the bacterial flagellum thing is a classic example of this.

Bertie

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:23:04 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in :

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.

Do those unnamed "scientific" studies also call into question carbon
dating?


Unlike religion, science employs independently verifiable and
independently reproducible methods upon which to base its conclusions.


I have no quarrel with organized religion as a civilizing force that
fosters brotherhood and community among its followers, but when it
embraces the likes of evangelical preacher and outted hypocrite Ted
Haggard, criminals like Jim Baker, Jim Jones, and countless Catholic
pedophile priests as its spokesmen, and openly fosters
magical-thinking instead of objective reasoning, the truth is so
evident as to be undeniable.



--

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." --The intellectual
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
for watching fox news just to **** myself laughing at it.



Yep, Bill Orally & Faux News, a match made in heaven...

"ManhattanMan" wrote in news:R_6gj.43316$1C4.6411
@newsfe10.phx:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
for watching fox news just to **** myself laughing at it.



Yep, Bill Orally & Faux News, a match made in heaven...




Yeah, the daily show is kind of redundant when you have fox.

Bertie

I would tend to excuse much of what the candidates claim to believe or not
believe. They are doing a selling job. In much of the US the republicans
appear to believe their core support comes from uneducated bible belters and
they are careful to cater directly to their core beliefs. I'm not sure they
are right, but I'm not an American. I was astounded that Iowa would accept
Obama as a candidate who happened to be black, instead of as a black
candidate. Perhaps the US does believe it can evolve. I don't think you need
another Clinton in the white house. Time for big changes.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge


That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Andreus schrieb:
I was astounded that Iowa would accept
Obama as a candidate who happened to be black, instead of as a black
candidate. Perhaps the US does believe it can evolve.

as media outlets brought it: the more voters the better the chances for him.

I don't think you need
another Clinton in the white house. Time for big changes.

well, as she is a women this would also be a big change.


Being a foreigner and abroad almost every candidate seems to be weired
(Huckabee won't make it anywhere in Europe with his program), but it's
up to the American people to vote the best person for the job. And if
they believe that McCain (bomb-bomb-bomb-iran) is the best or any other
person: well, so be it.

#m

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote in news:5ucg73F1dq52pU1
@mid.uni-berlin.de:

..

Incidentally evolution is not a theory, it's an observable fact.

Actually, it's both. Theory doesn't mean what it is popularly regarded
to mean. Lift is alos a theory but we also know it to be fact, for
instance ( there are similarly asinine debates going on there as well)
The fact that it is a theory, and called a theory is taken by the
creationists and other twits with agendas to mean that there are major
questions as to it's veracity, which of course, at this moment in time,
there are not.

Several theories exist that attempt to explain why it happens, the
most
convincing of which is being taught in schools. Like all theories, it
may one day be refuted and replaced by a more convincing one, or maybe
not. The anti-evolution religious bigots are not part of this process
and most of them probably don't understand it, it's taking place in
the
scientific community. The fact that evolution is taking place will not
be refuted, because it is being observed beyond any doubt.

*) Christianity and evolution aren't actually in conflict, except from
a very naive interpretation of christianity which is an insult for all
mature believers.

And islam is even worse, though only marginally.

There's a turkish writer name Harun Yahya ( sp?) who has been hammering
evolution from a "moderate" muslim viewpoint.
Bizarrely, he calls people like Stephen Gould pawns of the christian
fundalmentalist crusaders, and he himself (Yahya) is considered by the
more conservative elements of islam to be an agent of satan because of
his perceived sympathetic view of evolution!



Just fjukcing weird.


Bertie

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote in -
berlin.de:

Incidentally evolution is not a theory, it's an observable fact.


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

Right up front. First paragraph


Bertie