McCain chose woman VP (Palin)=win

[Sabz5150]

I do understand evolutionary theory.

No, you don't. And I will now prove this fact.

Look, I'm with you back til this point. This is the gap in the whole premise that weakens the structure of the theory. We are talking about evolution vs. creation. Creation explains the origin of matter and forward. If evolutionary theory does not involve God and is presented as an alternative explanation, it too should offer an explanation for the origin of matter. Otherwise, what is the answer? Even if you are correct, and these sub-atomic particles joined together under intense heat and pressure, where did those particles come from?

The added emphasis shows you do not understand evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory DOES NOT explain the origins of matter. That is not its purpose.

Evolutionary theory DOES NOT explain the origins of life. That is not its purpose

Even thinking this shows a fundamental lack of knowledge. Period. You seriously need to do your research before debating the topic. I'm not going to be soft about it, your knowledge is horribly flawed.

The reason we are discussing this is because B said that creation and evolution should be taught together in school. In schools, the Big Bang theory accompanies evolution and is taught as a precursor to, to explain the existence of the matter that evolved, without incorporating God or "intelligent design". That is why I mention origins.

FAIL. The Big Bang theory DOES NOT accompany evolution.

The Big Bang theory is in the field of cosmology, the study of the universe.

Evolutionary theory is in the field of biology, the study of life.

They are both science, but they do not "accompany" one another. This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of basic science. Either theory could be falsified this second and the other would move along as if nothing happened.

The two are NOT intertwined, combined, accompanied, or anything of the sort. There is also NO "evolution of matter" in reference to biological evolution. The two theories are in entirely separate fields.

I'm no physicist or mathematician but I do believe there is no beyond infinite, or were you speaking colloquially? Regardless, there has to be a beginning. Matter can not have created itself so where did it come from?

Again, you are asking a question that no person can properly answer. Not you, not me, not any scientist, not any theologian, NOBODY can give a concrete answer to the origins of matter. This is why the Big Bang does not try, just as Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life. Put simply, we do not know. If you want to see a hypothesis, look up "Abiogenesis".

Watch closely: Just as the Big Bang deals with matter the instant it hit the scene, Evolution deals with life the instant it hit the scene... NOT ONE SECOND BEFORE.

As far as equations, just because something can not be quantified, does not mean it is not real. There are physiological symptoms related to human emotion, but we all know it is more than that. No series of complex equations can quantify happiness. I'm not likening scientific theory to emotion, but rather, just trying to point out that some things are beyond measure and must be accepted as truth based on logic.

That's philosophy, not science.

I feel it necessary to point out that I am not some bible beater. I am not one of those, "the mountains are beautiful because God made them that way" type of people. That's childish. The premise of an omnipotent being in relation to the origin of our world is no more far fetched than the idea that sub atomic particles that came from nowhere fused together and all life originated from there. And, I hate to pull out something so cliche but, you treat evolution as if it is absolute irrefutable truth when in fact, it is only a theory. Extensively studied, documented, and quantified, but a theory nonetheless. None of us were there or even close enough to say that we have a good idea. It is what the scientific community has deemed to be the most likely explanation for a chain of events that is really far beyond our comprehension.

This shows you do not know the scientific definition of the word "Theory".

Allow me to educate you.

A scientific theory is a logical construct of all observable data (facts). That's right, theories are based 100% entirely on observable, empirical fact. This makes a theory much stronger than a single fact. It takes every bit of knowledge we have obtained to date on a subject and combines it into a structure that can be tested, measured, and most importantly, falsified. Therefore saying "only a theory" makes your lack of knowledge shine like no other. Saying "only a theory" is an insult.

You will also find (if you do the research) that NOWHERE, in ANY scientific text, will you find any reference to "something coming from nothing". Science does NOT say that. This is why the Big Bang deals with the universe the nanosecond AFTER the event happened, the moment after the Planck Epoch. This is why Evolutionary theory deals with life the nanosecond AFTER its origin. Nowhere will you find any reference to what you are saying.

I'm sorry, but you do not understand evolutionary theory. You do not understand the Big Bang. You do not understand the scientific method. Whereas your post might sound logical to the average reader, to someone who is knowledgeable about the subject, you're talking out of your ass.

 

[dacheat]

has no one seen this yet? watch to the end...

YouTube - Matt Damon Rips Sarah Palin





edit: ok to be fair i had to let palin speak on her own behalf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGMn9GrJwc

and for the record i wanted to punch her every time she said 'charlie' because it reminded me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus

 

[TommyTheCat]

Palin reminds me of this mother from Donnie Darko:

YouTube - Sometimes I Doubt Your Commitment to Sparkle Motion

 

[cressidakiller]

slammed
Being sued for something doesn’t make it more legit.
all I’ve ever seen is info about the head librarian. Not the others. Got link?
FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin

that whole police thing,
she went after the chief for not firing her bro in law cop. her sis was divorcing a cop (wooten). the 10 yr old stopson is a punk, the kid threatened to kill him or something, the bro in law cop tasered the kid (said the kid wanted to be tased), shot a moose w/o a permit (his wife had permit but didn’t shoot it and he was there and grabbed the gun), boozed in his patrol car. (at first I thought it said shot a mouse and was picturing that, lol).

i didn't really like donnie darko, but they did make a seque w/ a funky name.

 

[eg6sir]

I'm sorry, but you do not understand evolutionary theory. You do not understand the Big Bang. You do not understand the scientific method. Whereas your post might sound logical to the average reader, to someone who is knowledgeable about the subject, you're talking out of your ass.

lmao:

 

[Korax]

dacheat, I'm not sure what the stupid (why should we give one fuck what Matt Damon thinks) celebrity opinion has to do with the lower video other than god was mentioned. I'm not a religious person, not by any means. But, that interview last night was taken way out of context, as well as your second video. If you see her speech that they are pulling from there was a lot more to it. Basically exactly how she answered the questions Charlie (yeah that was pretty annoying) had for her, you know.. the other part of that interview that was cut off at the end of the video. She explains were each side thinks they are fighting for god (or w/e you want to call and omniponent from any religion) she just hopes that is our side. If that is really what she thinks, who cares?

Secondly I don't understand why people are so afraid of religion. especially chiristianity (kinda is the majority of this nation...). Yeah, they think some really dumb unfounded things, but atleast they have a good moral backing. It could be alot worse.

 

[Sabz5150]

lmao:

I'm sorry, this is one of those topics that I cannot be soft about. It's similar to coming onto the 'Swap saying you know all about cars and have an 88 Civic that makes 500HP with just I/H/E bolt ons. This type of misinformation is what causes us to have to go through court cases like Kitzmiller v. Dover. I refuse to see 150 years of research that has become one of the strongest cornerstones in all of science jeopardized because the facts don't line up with somebody's religious text. Many also don't realize that when you bring something like that into question, you're dragging the rest of science along for the ride. The same scientific method that says you and modern apes/primates share a common ancestor is the same scientific method that has given you every single thing you take for granted today from clean water to the vehicles you drive, the computers you use and cellphone in your pocket. It's misinformation that causes the rifts that threaten modern science and with it the future of civilization. Our scientific knowledge and the theories that they build are mankind's greatest achievements, and to simply throw them aside is an insult to the people who for thousands of years have worked to advance our culture as a whole.

 

[K2e2vin]

There's a difference between being religious and using that as a moral backing vs. running a "Christian" government. In the context Charlie put it in; I believe he's referring to the crusades...holy wars.

No one really cares what Matt Damon thinks, but a lot of people just have the same feelings as him. If anything, people are just relating to him and are excited about someone who's of a higher status/class agrees with them.

I'm sorry but Palin is full of fail. Mccain would be better off with another VP.

 

[dacheat]

dacheat, I'm not sure what the stupid (why should we give one fuck what Matt Damon thinks) celebrity opinion has to do with the lower video other than god was mentioned.

well no one is shoving a microphone in my face and asking me what i think about palin, but when someone else happens to say what's on my mind, i'm definitely giving one fuck, i don't care if it is matt damon or just some schmoe on some street. however, damon happens to be pretty up on his politics. i don't care about his celibritism. does it help that he's not some youtube greaseball, that he's recognized by many, and that he is eloquent? sure!

There's a difference between being religious and using that as a moral backing vs. running a "Christian" government. In the context Charlie put it in; I believe he's referring to the crusades...holy wars.

No one really cares what Matt Damon thinks, but a lot of people just have the same feelings as him. If anything, people are just relating to him and are excited about someone who's of a higher status/class agrees with them.

I'm sorry but Palin is full of fail. Mccain would be better off with another VP.

MF

 

[DarkHand]

tldr, but the topic is moving toward creationism so here's a recent post I made on Digg about that:

Anyone is free to decry science, but to do so while talking on a cell phone and driving home in a computer controlled SUV to your plastic house and your plasma TV just makes you look silly. You can't reap the benefits of science while fighting it at the same time and expect to be taken seriously. A truly orthodox Amish person on the other hand would garner a bit more respect with their arguments, but even they use and accept science in addition to their religious beliefs.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

truth about pail photos

snopes.com: Sarah Palin Photos

here's my question

If someone "uncovered" some photos of Obama meeting with Bin Laden from years and years ago, and they were proven to be photoshops, wouldn't it be national news? Yet photos of a republican which were fabricated don't seem to get media attention at all. in fact, i had to hunt this info down.

hmmm, is anybody good with photoshop?

 

[Sabz5150]

truth about pail photos

snopes.com: Sarah Palin Photos

here's my question

If someone "uncovered" some photos of Obama meeting with Bin Laden from years and years ago, and they were proven to be photoshops, wouldn't it be national news? Yet photos of a republican which were fabricated don't seem to get media attention at all. in fact, i had to hunt this info down.

hmmm, is anybody good with photoshop?

Well, the pictures of him in Kenyan dress did get national news.

As for the 'chops... well nobody's pulling their pud over pics of Bam and Binny, and if they are... well, I don't want that on the news either.

EDIT: It took you THIS LONG to hear about/find the chops of Palindrome? What's the address of the rock you live under and I will send them to you.

 

[Sabz5150]

palin fake - Google Image Search

Turn you SafeSearch off and click. Second image.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

what am I looking for? It's just a picture of her family

 

[TurboMirage]

 

[Sabz5150]

what am I looking for? It's just a picture of her family

Did you nix the SafeSearch?

Google Image Result for http://www.theimproper.com/Images/Art/sarah%20palin%20bikini%20photo%201.jpg

Try that mile long link.

 

[Sabz5150]

Photoshop time!!!

 

[Capt. Orygun]

Did you nix the SafeSearch?

Google Image Result for http://www.theimproper.com/Images/Art/sarah%20palin%20bikini%20photo%201.jpg

Try that mile long link.

Oh yeah, I know you can find it on the internet, that isn't my point.

When photos of Obama in traditional African garb surfaced the media exploded into damage control mode, attacking those who tried to use it against him and warning Americans not to take it out of context. Even Bill O'Riely called out those trying to use the photo against Obama.

Where's the CNN story debunking these photos? What about MSNBC? Yet if by the end of the week a faked photo came out making Obama look bad wouldn't you expect to see it in the news?

Other then the fact that one's a Dem and one's a GOP, why the difference in how the situations are handled? The only conclusion you're left with is that left "left wing media" isn't interested in playing fairly. By and large the most media criticism falls to Fox News, yet they defended Obama.

 

[Sabz5150]

Oh yeah, I know you can find it on the internet, that isn't my point.

When photos of Obama in traditional African garb surfaced the media exploded into damage control mode, attacking those who tried to use it against him and warning Americans not to take it out of context. Even Bill O'Riely called out those trying to use the photo against Obama.

Where's the CNN story debunking these photos? What about MSNBC? Yet if by the end of the week a faked photo came out making Obama look bad wouldn't you expect to see it in the news?

Other then the fact that one's a Dem and one's a GOP, why the difference in how the situations are handled? The only conclusion you're left with is that left "left wing media" isn't interested in playing fairly. By and large the most media criticism falls to Fox News, yet they defended Obama.

Let's look at your apple and orange. First we have a picture which was used to make ties between Obama and terrorists. In contrast, we have a picture which is used to rally support for Palin. What guy wouldn't vote for the hottie with the gun?

If you want to bring up the MSM ignoring fakes, how about that Obama "sex-tape"... the one that trojans your computer?

 

[Capt. Orygun]

hmm? there's an Obama sex tape virus? Hadn't heard

The Palin bikini/rifle photos are great for GOP voters. But for undecideds who don't want more gun toting brainless politicians the photo is very negative.

There is no "apple and orange" in both instances photographs are being inappropriately used to spread fear about candidates. The only real difference is the Palin photo's aren't real.