|
Barack Obama wins Iowa - Future President of the United States? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
(A bunch of stuff) |
You make a bunch of valid points, basically summing it up to, "You default to God, the scientific crowd defaults to unknown and theories. Both don't know for sure, as neither side has PROOF. You're an idiot for being so aggressive." I can accept that. I shouldn't have taken the higher ground, when I actually think that scoffing at creationists is no different from creationists scoffing at the scientific theories, neither group knows the answer, or have any PROOF to support their belief, so neither should be placing the other down (including myself). I was a tad bit heated while I typed that up.
As for the technological advances being held back by religious nutbars who take every word in the Bible literally, I agree. But the Bible isn't a technological handbook, it's a handbook for the soul. Just because it doesn't tell us how to make a lightbulb, or that it's even possible, doesn't mean there isn't a God. |
|
|
| basilisk |
| You're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe but creationism and ID are not on par with science. One is a rigorous and self-correcting methodology of assessing the nature of the universe and the other is ham-handed wishful thinking designed to fit preconceived notions of our origins. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by basilisk
Anyone who says "evolution is just a theory" is plainly ignorant. I'm not saying stupid, but yes--certainly ignorant of what a theory means in scientific terms. Not that it really matters much in a candidate anyway. |
No, you are plainly ignorant. Evolution is JUST that, a theory. It is not a law, but it's funny how people like you have swallowed the materialist dogma and dump on others who haven't. Expand your horizons a bit man - that closed mind is scary - no different than evangelicals using creationist dogma. There are middle grounds you do realize? Resting on theory as "law" is a complete failure of intellectual development - truly not on par with actual science - too bad it's what seems to be prevalent in our societal system today.
Ron Paul FTW! Anyone who votes against the War and the Patriot act is OK by me ;) He seems to be the best candidate to drive America into the future - unfortunately, he's being largely ignored by the media (on purpose). |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Final GTS
Give me a moderate republican, please. Smaller Government without the bible-thumping bull. |
Dig. |
|
|
| basilisk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
No, you are plainly ignorant. Evolution is JUST that, a theory. It is not a law, but it's funny how people like you have swallowed the materialist dogma and dump on others who haven't. Expand your horizons a bit man - that closed mind is scary - no different than evangelicals using creationist dogma. There are middle grounds you do realize? Resting on theory as "law" is a complete failure of intellectual development - truly not on par with actual science - too bad it's what seems to be prevalent in our societal system today. |
Nonsense. Did you even read my post? I said nothing about any "law." Scientific journals aren't hammered out on stone tablets. My point was that people have a poor understanding of the use of the word "theory" in different contexts (which your post clearly illustrates). Wikify yourself:
| quote: | In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis. |
Now do you get it? |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
As for the technological advances being held back by religious nutbars who take every word in the Bible literally, I agree. But the Bible isn't a technological handbook, it's a handbook for the soul. Just because it doesn't tell us how to make a lightbulb, or that it's even possible, doesn't mean there isn't a God. |
Well yes, but where do we draw the line at where we should search for answers and where we shouldn't? For example, the origin of life (i.e. the first cellular organism) right now is largely unexplained - the scientific theory is as good as the God theory. Should we just accept it as "God created the first organism", and close the book on that? But what if scientists were able to create cells out of nothing more than chemical reactions. Can you imagine the possibilities that could arise out of that?
P.S. I never said anything about the existence of God. ;)
Anyway, this is off-topic from the Osama discussion here, so I'll shut up now. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by basilisk
Nonsense. Did you even read my post? I said nothing about any "law." Scientific journals aren't hammered out on stone tablets. My point was that people have a poor understanding of the use of the word "theory" in different contexts (which your post clearly illustrates). Wikify yourself:
Now do you get it? |
To be completely honest with you, I have to admit that I misread your post within the context of this thread - the joys of internet versus face to face conversation - and perhaps was over-aggressive in my response to yours due to this. I apologize, and admit my error here. To be honest, my response had more to do with the fact that I'm having quite the bad day. I am just so sick and tired of listening to evolution-dogma spouted off consistently as if it were law. This type of flip-faced dogmatism has done so much to damage intellectual development its not even funny. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Republicans should be happy Canadians can't vote
Canadian Press
January 7, 2008 at 6:24 PM EST
OTTAWA — If you're asking Canadians, it doesn't seem to matter much who wins Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries.
A new poll suggests Canadians so massively favour the U.S. Democratic party that they'd back any of its leading candidates in a presidential race against a Republican.
The Harris-Decima survey suggests the Democrats would trounce the Republicans by a four-to-one margin if the voters were Canadian.
U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican party would get creamed even in a hypothetical election in which only Canadian Conservatives voted.
The survey, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, says 49 per cent of Canadians expressed a preference for Democrats while only 12 per cent did the same for Republicans.
Even self-described Conservatives — who are supposedly more ideologically in tune with the right-leaning Republicans — favoured the Democrats by a 47-23 margin.
Voters in New Hampshire will pick their preferred Democratic and Republican candidates in Tuesday's primary.
Although Democrat Barack Obama appears to have all the momentum entering the vote, Canadian respondents favoured Hillary Clinton by 34-23 margin over Mr. Obama's upstart candidacy.
Among Republican candidates, Canadian respondents favoured the most socially liberal one.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani had the support of 6 per cent of respondents, followed by John McCain at 3 per cent, Mike Huckabee at 2 per cent and Mitt Romney at 1 per cent.
In a hypothetical presidential election between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, respondents favoured Mr. Obama 49 per cent to 11. And if only Conservatives voted, Mr. Obama would still have won by a 50-17 margin.
The poll of 1,000 respondents was conducted Jan. 3-6, and has a plus or minus 3.1-percentage-point margin of error, 19 times out of 20.
link |
|
|
|
| EvilTree |
I don't even know why this is a leading story.
We already know for eons that most Canucks will vote democrat if they had a chance |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I don't even know why this is a leading story.
We already know for eons that most Canucks will vote democrat if they had a chance |
:stongue: (specifically at eons and Canucks)
it just made me laugh... but with pride!!!! |
|
|
| trancechaos |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
his father is from kenya....i would call the average kenyan black. |
umm just coz his dad is from there does not make him black, he is of mixed race. therefore he is not black. |
|
|
| thesauce23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancechaos
he is of mixed race. therefore he is not black. |
hahahhahahahahahhaahahahah
umm ahahhahahahhah |
|
|
|
|
