Christine O`Donnell Thinks Evolution is a Myth

Submitted by: madest 7 years ago in

She better agree to be on Bill Maher"s show soon. These weekly revelations will kill her politically.
There are 173 comments:
Female 1,101
0
Reply
Female 1,101
From Cornell University`s Law School.

first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Look it up.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Because I am right :-)
0
Reply
Male 15,832
You`re hopeless. I give up.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
So the state does not have the right to bypass the federal protection against the establishment of a government religion!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
ALSO the 14th Ammendment forbids states to, "abridge the privileges or immunities" and in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment`s Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments! FOR THE WIN! HA!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Then why did you initially say, "The conservatives would strike it down because it violates the constitution"? Either it is or it isn`t covered by the consitiution but you should make up your mind.

Also you are wrong. The ninth amendment reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This grants unnamed rights to the people, not to Congress. It says that Congress cannot limit the rights of people by using the bill of rights against them. It does not give Congress itself rights, like establishing a religion in the public school system. If people want to establish a religion congress cannot stop them, but congress does not have the power to establish a religion in the school system.

So it is covered. Thank you.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]This thread contains much drama![/quote]
This thread contains much ignorance!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"Is keeping creation theory out of the public school system covered by the constitution or not? First you said that it wasn`t and then you said, `It would never get past the Supreme Court.`"

This illustrates perfectly your total lack of understanding of the Constitution.

To answer your question, no, keeping creation theory out of the public school system is NOT covered by the constitution; THEREFORE the fed. govt. does NOT have the authority to legislate in this area. That power is reserved for the states (10th Amendment).

Liberals believe wrongly that the fed. govt. can do anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution. In fact, the federal government can ONLY do that which is permitted under its specifically enumerated powers (9th Amendment).

Many opposed the Bill of Rights because it prohibited the govt. from doing things it had no power to do in the first place, and it would confuse people like you. They were right.
0
Reply
Male 304
This thread contains much drama!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@OldOllie you are all assertian and arguement without support or evidence. Have a great life.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@OldOllie You`re seriously too stupid and pig headed to even have an intelligent debate with. Which is sad at your age.

You didn`t even answer my question. Is keeping creation theory out of the public school system covered by the constitution or not? First you said that it wasn`t and then you said, "It would never get past the Supreme Court. The conservatives would strike it down because it violates the constitution." So which is it? You saying that I don`t understand the constitution is a laugh.

If you want to make broad biased statements about liberals, here`s mine about conservatives. You preach limited government but have expanded it every chance you got, you spend just as badly as democrats, and your are so ashamed of human sexuality that you can`t even let gays marry or touch yourself. Your freedom oppressors. I may not agree with everything liberals do but they`re sure better than your side.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@CrackrJak
Wow, uhh... you clearly failed in your list of questions science "can`t answer".
Every single one of those can be proven through empirical observation and testing except "What is the objective purpose of human life" which is a leading question and all current scientific knowledge points to the fact that there is none.
Science doesn`t cause evil. Lack of science does. The genocides you are referring to were caused by people committing naturalistic fallacies with half-understood principles. They were as unscientific as it gets
You clearly do not understand the concept present in the link you gave for m-theory (understandable, since Michio Kaku is always misleading anyways). This is a better explanation of n-dimensional space as it applies to string theory.
For your consideration: Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deu
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@NotTHATbored, you obviously DON`T understand the Constitution; that`s why you are incapable of understanding an argument based on constitutional principles. What you are doing is PROJECTING your own perverse liberal philosophy of government onto conservatives.

Whenever you liberals get what you think is a good idea, the first thing you want to do is pass a federal law and shove it down everybody`s throats. (And if that doesn`t work, get the courts to do it for you.)

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the federal government should be limited to specifically enumerated powers. The coercive power of government should NOT be used by one group of people to force their ideas on everyone else, EVEN IF YOU THINK THEY ARE GOOD IDEAS!!!

That`s why O`Donnell`s positions on evolution or masturbation are completely irrelevant.

Her opponent, on the other hand, has described himself as a "bearded Marxist," and that is EXTREMELY relevant.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: When you falsely accuse the bible of advocating `Slavery, Rape, And Torture`, I have my doubts as to your sagacity. Either you are being specious or sophist, But certainly not truthful.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@OldOllie you keep changing your arguement. First you say that keeping religion out of the school system is not covered in the constitution, then you say that it is but it would never happen. Which is it?

That said, I do believe your right it will never happen, but only because half of us are sensible enough not to vote in right wing nuts like O`Donnell who can`t even masturbate without feeling guiltiy.

Also what about the other reasons I gave for not wanting her in office? You`re so stuck on Keynesian Economics, but you ignore the issure of same sex marriage.


0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]If Christine O`Donnell comes in to office and demands a law requiring public schools to teach creation theory or "intelligent design" that would be the government making an establishment of religion.[/quote]
1. She has never demanded such a law.
2. If she did, it would never get a majority in the Senate, let alone survive a filibuster.
3. If it did, it would never pass in the House.
4. If it did, it would never be signed by the president.
5. If it were, it would never get past the Supreme Court. (The conservatives would strike it down because it violates the constitution, and liberals would strike it down because it violates their policy preferences.)

Yet because of your totally irrational fear of a completely impossible occurrence, you would vote for a candidate who supports a pernicious and destructive policy like Keynesian economics that has failed every time it`s been tried and is failing again right before our eyes.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I don`t know what scared you into believing Christianity is the `Boogey Man`, But it had to be something bad.[/quote]

I read the Christian bible.

I learned about history.

That didn`t give a good impression.

But that`s irrelevant to the fact that my posts are nothing to do with Christianity being the bogeyman, which is something you`ve made up and falsely claimed is my position because you have no counter-argument and therefore must try to portray me as an irrational bigot instead.
0
Reply
Male 2,669
The woman is an idiot. Sadly, that hardly disqualifies her from Congress.
0
Reply
Male 833
"I don`t know what scared you into believing Christianity is the `Boogey Man`, But it had to be something bad."

Yeah it was probably one of your priests trying to have his way with him as a child.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: Obviously your hopeless, You attribute to me what you are doing yourself. You`ve been on an Anti-Christian bent since your first comment here.

I don`t know what scared you into believing Christianity is the `Boogey Man`, But it had to be something bad.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Also, you can say states right all you want but she is running for Congress. Also seperation of church and state is a long standing legal precident. SO HA.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
sad because we all know you`re in no way involved in academia.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Old Ollie Seperation of church and state may not be in the constitution word for word but the first amendment does say this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If Christine O`Donnell comes in to office and demands a law requiring public schools to teach creation theory or "intelligent design" that would be the government making an establishment of religion. That said I never said anything about the constitution, what I said was that I don`t want that crap taught to my children in the future.

Also thank you I do have a general knowledge of what Keynesian economics are. I just don`t care to discuss your own personal theories about the economy with you, since no one can say with 100% certainty the outcome of any government fiscal policy. Suffice it to say that I believe that a healthy, insured, working population will bring more to the economy then it will cost.

Also patronizing people with "homework" is
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I had to throw your statements back at you to make you understand how absurd they were, Hopefully it worked.[/quote]

No, because it was and remains true that you`re making stuff up and attributing it to other people as a form of ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument and I`m not.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I believe that slavery, torture, and rape are evil, And the Bible does NOT advocate them.[/quote]

Yes, it does. You just choose to ignore bits of it that you don`t like. Which is what almost all Christians do and that`s usually a very good thing.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Volsunga and NotTHATbored
If either of you had even the slightest understanding of the Consitution, you would know that none of the issues you raised fall under the powers of the Congress. Of course, liberals have done everything possible to destroy completely the very concept of constitutional restraints on federal power in order to enact their socialist agenda, and now you`re afraid that`s going to come back and bite you. Well, if did, you would certainly deserve it, but don`t worry. You see, conservatives actually BELIEVE in the Constitution, and subsequently, they believe that all of these issues you mention are controlled by the states, not the feds.

Now, what was your response to my assertion that Keynesian economics is destroying the country? (Homework: Write 500-1000 word rebuttal. Hint: Google John Maynard Keynes.)
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: Well I can tell you this, I`ve never oppressed anyone with my religion. I believe that slavery, torture, and rape are evil, And the Bible does NOT advocate them. And those acts certainly don`t agree with "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Which Jesus said is the greatest commandment after Loving God.

I had to throw your statements back at you to make you understand how absurd they were, Hopefully it worked. I don`t believe you are my mirror, I put up a mirror to show reflect part of your own image.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Nice attempt to use my argument against me, CrakrJak, but there`s a crucial difference that you`re overlooking:

Just because you`re doing something, it doesn`t mean that I`m also doing it but in the opposite direction. I`m not you in a mirror.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Then what do you mean by "evolutionary science" CrakrJak?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Welp, It`s clear all of you just parse my words and misread them on purpose. If any of you had ever read Marx, You`d realize his idea of a proletariat rising up, Ridding itself of the elite, and creating a `classless` equal society based on people`s innate skills, Is definitely `evolutionary`.

It is different than the eugenics of Nazi Germany, I never said that they are exactly the same.

[quote]Science is a tool. People are responsible for any evil arising from its use.[/quote]

Well said, Same goes for the Bible as well.

Angilion: It`s clear that you`re experienced at making things up about religion, That you selectively take out of context or completely change the meaning of anything in the Bible.

You, for example, have an opinion that is anti-religion and you are determinedly ignorant of even the most basic concepts of Christianity.

That makes you utterly unable to make meaningful assessments of anything to do with Christians.
0
Reply
Female 83
I find that most people who don`t believe in the theory of evolution don`t actually no what it states.
0
Reply
Male 1,834
its a theory so fake
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Actually the last two books there both rejected the idea of evolution. The latter as "pseudoscience".
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@CrakrJak

No, the ideas behind communism have existed before the theory of evolution`s inception. Hell the ideas behind Stalinism and Maoism were not unprecedented. Stalin himself rejected evolution and genetics on ideological grounds. Hitler for another matter justified the Holocaust with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What does that book say on Evolution? None. How about the The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century or The Myth of the Twentieth Century (both attributed to Nazi Germany)? Again the former flat out rejected the idea the latter said very little.
0
Reply
Female 728
CrackrJak: Oh boy. The "science is responsible for evil" farse. Science is a tool. People are responsible for any evil arising from its use. And, no, evolution does not support eugenics. It is the misunderstanding of evolution and the application of teleological qualities to it that leads people to think that the purpose of evolution is to "better" the species, but, really, there is no purpose to evolution. All of those deaths that you just listed were the result of sick minds, not evolutionary theory.
0
Reply
Female 2,927
science explains how it was created, religion attempts to explain why it was created.
0
Reply
Male 203
Aww, none for me. Vid was pulled.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
She`s so stupid it makes me sad.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]The Bible`s main message is to show us the plan, purpose, and glory of our Creator, and not science or mathematics.[/quote]
-----------
2000year old scribblings from uneducated halfwits. So we`re supposed to believe people who didn`t know plumbing understood the secrets of the universe and creation of man? Takes someone exceedingly gullible to fall for such nonsense which is why I believe religious people are retarded.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
"Evolutionary science lent credence to the ideas of Eugenics and Communism, Both of which have killed many millions of people.

China under Mao: 58,000,000 killed
USSR under Stalin: 20,000,000 killed
Nazi Germany: 5,700,000 killed from 1933-1945
Khmer Rouge: 1,600,000 killed between 1975-1978 "

To attribute Social Darwinism to the Communist ideology only worsens your already wavering credibility.
0
Reply
Male 394
And how the hell has evolutionary science lent credence to communism? Are you being intentionally stupid?

Besides, those regimes you listed had a form of oppressive socialism, even if they were called communists.
0
Reply
Male 394
@Crakrjak "Angilion: It`s clear you blame religion for all the `evils` of the world, But that`s not true.

Evolutionary science lent credence to the ideas of Eugenics and Communism, Both of which have killed many millions of people.

China under Mao: 58,000,000 killed
USSR under Stalin: 20,000,000 killed
Nazi Germany: 5,700,000 killed from 1933-1945
Khmer Rouge: 1,600,000 killed between 1975-1978

Too name a few examples."


It was based on an intentional misinterpretation of evolutionary biology, namely racial biology, kind of like how Christians make stuff up about what the theory of evolution actually is, and then deny it based on that straw man.

And no one here has said that religion is the only evil, but two wrongs don`t make a right, so Hitler`s holocaust does not justify the Crusades or the Inquisition. Nor were any of the things you listed done in the name of atheism (which is logically impossible).
0
Reply
Male 12,365
CrakrJak, it`s clear that you`re experienced at making things up and claiming that they`re other people`s position, so that you can attack that made-up position in order to draw attention away from the fact that you can`t answer what those people have actually said. You must be experienced at it because you do it as a first choice and you do it well.

But you`re still just using ad hominem to draw attention away from what has actually been written.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]gorgack2000: You`re misreading me, I was refuting the belief that `Science can answer any question`.[/quote]

Science can answer any question that has any relevance to the real world. If it exists as matter or energy, it is within the scope of science.

Outside of that, pick any answer you like. Just don`t try to pretend it`s true in any meaningful sense or confuse it with science, e.g.

Teaching Christian creationism, under any name (note that `Intelligent Design` is Christian creationism), in science classes in schools.

Referring to anything religious as a theory comparable with scientific theory.

Offering religion as an alternative explanation for anything covered by science.

Offering religion, especially a specific religion, as the truth, or even as a better explanation than any other. A religion is just a baseless idea that some people like better than other baseless ideas.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: It`s clear you blame religion for all the `evils` of the world, But that`s not true.

Evolutionary science lent credence to the ideas of Eugenics and Communism, Both of which have killed many millions of people.

China under Mao: 58,000,000 killed
USSR under Stalin: 20,000,000 killed
Nazi Germany: 5,700,000 killed from 1933-1945
Khmer Rouge: 1,600,000 killed between 1975-1978

Too name a few examples.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]while evolution has been proved within species, it hasn`t been proved without species, it is a theory. a well believed and very well backed up theory but people are allowed their own opinions, just saying.[/quote]

Of course people are allowed their own opinions. That does not mean that everyone`s opinion is right.

You, for example, have an opinion that is provably wrong and you are determinedly ignorant of even the most basic concepts of science.

That makes you utterly unable to make meaningful assessments of anything to do with science, but you are indeed allowed to make your completely meaningless statements about things you have no understanding of.

I could have the opinion that my PC is the creator of all things, or that licking my mouse is the only meaningful way to pray. Anyone can have any opinion. That doesn`t make them all equally valid.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]As for the rest, Your talking of bronze age men trying to explain the visions God gave them. They explained it in the only words and terms they had at the time.[/quote]

Neat trick.

You can use that idea to selectively ignore or completely change the meaning of anything in your book.

As Christians have always done and continue to do.

Slavery, for example. Or torturing people to death for trivial things. Or rape. Or any of the evil clearly advocated by your book, often framed as a straightforward and direct order from your god. All explained away by this...well, actually it isn`t. But it gives you something to hide behind while saying it`s unfair prejudice for people to point out the truth about a religion.

Of course, the whole idea of bronze age men trying to explain things outside their experience somehow becomes invalid when used to argue that it makes their writing unreliable.
0
Reply
Male 394
Now you`re just randomly namedropping.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
gorgack2000: You`re misreading me, I was refuting the belief that `Science can answer any question`.

And many scientists disagree on the theory of Abiogenesis, and actually believe Panspermia is more reasonable, But it`s not likely that either will ever be proven.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
@CrakrJak- Your entire logic seems to be based on the fact that because science can`t answer logically-impossible questions, it must be wrong.

Come on, "The limit of human knowledge"? Do you expect someone to turn round and say "Oh certainly, it`s <number>"?! Half of those aren`t questions so much as subjective thought experiments, and the ones that aren`t have already been covered in various science books and websites (For instance, here`s how life began in the universe).
0
Reply
Female 3,001
while evolution has been proved within species, it hasn`t been proved without species, it is a theory. a well believed and very well backed up theory but people are allowed their own opinions, just saying.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
yarrrpirate: If you seen something literally pop out of thin air then disappear without a trace, Would you call that `supernatural` ?

I think most people would call something like that `supernatural` and some well respected scientific minded people have had experiences that science cannot explain.

0
Reply
Male 17,511
yarrrpirate: I`m not asking for `subjective` answers, I have my own.

I`m stating that objective science cannot answer them.

Subjectivity refers to the subject and their perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires. That is the opposite of objectivity, Which is the realm of science.
0
Reply
Male 394
They still obey laws that might have some differences from ours, but there`s still no such thing as "supernatural".
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Microchemist: Seeing as how you have a total 5 comments on IAB and not even one submission, Don`t you think it`s a bit audacious for you to tell me `GTFO` ?

Yes, I`ve heard about the `evolution` of bacteria, But they still do not have a process of adding any new information into their genome. They still remain bacteria, They don`t change into a higher life form do they ? Just because there is proof of adaptation, It does not prove evolution.

Otherwise we`d be bowing down to our new overlord bacteria masters within a thousand years, If such rapid addition of new genetic information was occurring as fast as you quoted.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
yarrrpirate: I don`t define them `like Hollywood`, They`ve been defined by scientists themselves.

The 11th dimesnion and parallel universes
0
Reply
Male 394
Crakrjak, you are the one asking those questions. If I give you subjective answers, why would you believe the bible rather than believe me?

Science has answers for many of those questions. You`re the one not accepting them.
0
Reply
Male 15
CrakrJak: Your comments are rarely constructive. Please GTFO. Also, whoever said that the evolutionary processes of biology wasn`t set in place by an all knowing creator? If I was to create life, I would give it the ability to adapt to a changing environment. And btw, to those who argue it`s a myth... it is observable. Some bacteria have generation times in the minutes and evolution (defined as a change in allelic frequency in a population over time) can be observed in a matter of a week. This is a basic and common experiment in microbiology. Please, take the time to educate yourself before you decide what you believe.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
More questions science can`t answer.

What is the origin of life in the Universe?
What is consciousness, where does it come from?
What happens to human consciousness after death?
Is there an objective purpose to human life ?
What is the limit to human knowledge? Is there an intrinsic limit ?
What is the potential for human consciousness? What is love?
What will happen in the future, specifically?
0
Reply
Male 394
Crakrjak, mathematics cannot fail. Mathematical axioms hold for n dimensions. As mentioned, the extra dimensions are a tool to be able to describe string theory, and you shouldn`t just interpet it with the Hollywood definition of "diemnsion".

And as someone else said, the term "supernatural" is moot. Everything that exists can be described by science. If not now, then eventually, because science, unlike religion, is ever changing and adapting. Theories are discarded and replaced if a better one is found.

Finally, your question "Why are we here?" is asked by you yourself, and is not a universal truth. You can`t make up a question and expect there to be an answer every time.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
yarrrpirate: I don`t `implement it into science and mathematics`, I was demonstrating that there is room for things to exist beyond our senses, And those things might be considered `supernatural`.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Volsunga: Those other dimensions have to be more than just `virtual` or else it`s more than just the math that fails, The whole theory of general relativity fails (and others as well). Just because you can`t `understand on the macro level` those dimensions, Doesn`t make them any less `Real`. And if you believe that science solely depends on `Empirical observation` and `Natural order` You are dismissing a ton of astrophysics and quantum physics.

`The modern scientific method` is limited in it`s capacity to answer the deeper questions of life like, Why are we here? & What is life all about?
0
Reply
Male 394
"The Bible`s main message is to show us the plan, purpose, and glory of our Creator, and not science or mathematics."

Then why do you implement it into science and mathematics?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
green_batman: Apparently you have problems distinguishing between literal speech and figurative speech. The Psalms are poetry not science.

The Bible`s main message is to show us the plan, purpose, and glory of our Creator, and not science or mathematics.
0
Reply
Male 394
Crakrjak: "skaterboy17: Also, What college degree do you have ? I spent over 4 years getting mine and was on the deans and presidents lists each semester of my last two years.

I`m not saying that to brag, I know there are many different types of `Intelligence`, So I`m not going to act like an elitist snob. Just demonstrating that I`m well educated and knowledgeable. And what I don`t know, I have the intelligence to do research about."


Apparently not. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, please do not use it.

By that same logic, someone who has gotten a PhD in Christianity from one of those ultra-christian "universities" is right, too.
0
Reply
Male 394
"skaterboy17: There is scientific truth"


No.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
oh, now i am in fact, going to bed.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
britt566, thank you for your consideration and moving your comment. you are awesome for that.
0
Reply
Female 2,289
(didn`t mean to break into anyones 2 cents.)

i`ve been reading all of your arguments thoroughly (not really) and i honestly have to agree with Seth on this one.

0
Reply
Male 7,830
therefore whatever helps you survive stays with your offspring. that is evolution in a nutshell. that is why we have such huge cerebrums that allow us to think so and realize why we are the way we are. okay IAB, i hope you learned something, have a nice night, im going to bed.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
2)macro evolution: this is the evolution from species to species. this is the reason we exist as humans. there are so many fossils that have had their dna tested side by side and fit so well with cladistics (if you dont know, look it up) that its just so hard to argue with the logic. in fact, as of now, its impossible to argue with the logic. as soon as anyone can disprove this portion of evolution the rest of us will shut our mouths, but i wouldnt hold your breath on that one.

3) the third level is the creation of life. whether it be a happy accident or due to some devine intervention will never be known to living humans. i for one am hopeful of some devine intervention. but that would not disprove the first two arguments.

now, either way the third one goes, evolution as far as we know it has no teology. this means it does not move toward a goal. its just (as darwin stated), whatever works helps you survive. continued next post.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
im sorry, im actually in the mood to piss some people off. if you dont "believe" in evolution, you are in fact an idiot. ( i say believe because it is something some people still choose to deny). there is way too much evidence to support evolution to dismiss it as "just a theory", when a theory is as close to a law as you can get in science now.

science works because everything in it is a testable hypothesis. if it cannot be tested, it is not a scientific theory, and evolution has been tested continuously and is still been proven true.

there are three levels at which people deny evolution:
1)microevolution: most people agree with this one. this is evolution within a species. this is the reason why every year you need a new flu vaccine because the influenza virus has EVOLVED. this is because the few viruses that survived the vaccine were able to reproduce and continue their genome onto the next generation of vaccine immune viruses. conti
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@CrakrJak
I am quite familiar with string theory. What you forget to mention is that the dimensions beyond height, width, depth, and duration are considered virtual. That is, they aren`t "real" in a way we can understand on the macro level, but we need them for the equations to work. No, the physics of higher dimensions are fairly simple, you can learn them in any higher level calculus class.
The modern scientific method can explain literally anything you want it to, so long as you`re willing to go through the steps. Everything that exists must, by the definition of "exist", be found in the natural order and therefore is susceptible to empirical observation. "Supernatural" is a word devoid of meaning. You can`t evoke its use without eviscerating the word "exist".
On the matter of "faith", hoping for things doesn`t make them any more or less real.
0
Reply
Female 728
CrackrJak: I think that Bronze Age man would be able to express that the earth rotates around the sun if God passed down that knowledge. And, if you take the Bible literally, God apparently passed down the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. And are you seriously telling me that Bronze Age man has no way to differentiate mountains from edges? And what would the pillars that the earth sits on be? Considering that the earth travels through space in an orbit determined by gravity, I don`t think there is any possible way it could be compared to sitting on pillars. Oh, and I forgot to mention a quote that states that the earth stands still: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” The earth is clearly not immovable, yet God apparently told man that it is. Your handwaving really makes no sense.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
green_batman: Edges eh ? Ever see mountain cliffs ? They certainly look like `edges` to me.

As for the rest, Your talking of bronze age men trying to explain the visions God gave them. They explained it in the only words and terms they had at the time. When Indians first seen locomotives they called them `iron horses`, Because they didn`t have words to explain them any other way. Does that mean the Indians actually seen horses made of metal ? No.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Volsunga: You need to read up on the latest `String theory` science. 11 dimensions, Only 4 of which we can perceive. Each have physics so wild even scientists have a hard time wrapping their minds around it. They are way more than axes, Do some research on it.

I have no cognitive separation. My belief is not dependent on science alone because science cannot even begin to explain everything, And never will.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, The evidence of things not seen.
0
Reply
Male 313
That we all evolved from monkeys or jack asses, this place is living proof! Just read our replies.
0
Reply
Female 728
Also, scientific truth is anything having to do with physical reality. Pretty much every aspect of reality has some form of science tied to it. Further, the only things that we can experience are things that are tied in with physical reality. How do you know that your "spiritual truths" are true, when you have no frame of reference for sorting out false spiritual claims? How do you know that you`re not supposed to be Hindu if you want to have a good afterlife? How do you know that there`s an afterlife at all?

There is little to nothing that we can be absolutely positive in knowing. Even a sane, educated adult can still perceive things the wrong way and draw flawed conclusions. Science minimizes this error by pulling together the experiences of many more individuals and by repeating experiments in order to determine that things follow consistent laws. What little uncertainty is present in science, is present simply due to the flaws in human perception, not in science.
0
Reply
Female 728
CrackrJak: Actually:

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"

This seems to state that the earth is flat, as it has edges.

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world."

This states that the earth sits on top of pillars, which it does not.

"Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.""

This shows a geocentric view, in which the sun and moon rotate around the earth.

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night"

This seems rather similar to the Greek interpretation of the cosmos, in which the earth is surrounded by celestial spheres. Surprise, surprise, the Bible was written in a time when this was the dominant view of cosmology.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@rakoonhat
I find it hard to believe your education was so poor that you never had a basic biology course.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@rakoonhat well the truth is I don`t want both taught in the class room. If I ever have kids I want the school to teach just evolution and leave the spiritual stuff out of it, that`s for me to decide.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@CrakrJak
No, there is only truth, defined as what actually is. Dividing it into two categories is a really poor way to alleviate your cognitive dissonance. You do not have even the slightest conception of the term "dimension". You appear to have bought into the New Age Hippie nonsense that defines "dimension" as being a sort of alternate reality. When scientists talk about dimensions, they mean nothing but axes upon which to measure data. A completely separate concept.

Belief is not a function of the will, it is a function of your reason and intellect. Pretending otherwise is doing nothing but lying to yourself and others.
0
Reply
Female 654
niether is taught in the classroom..and you will never get one or the other like that. the only time i ever heard evolution was in a an antro class while in undergrad. i never heard anything that couldnt actualy co-exist, but that could have been the way he taught it. my general belief was that people thought they evolved from monkeys, which isnt what evolution or charles darwin said. they are both two intresting sides of the tale. no harm in belieing in one or the other, or both.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
oh, looking for this?
I`ll just leave this here for you.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@OldOllie it makes a hudge difference. I wouldn`t want someone in office who might advocate creation theory or "intelligent design" being taught at schools to children.

Also, isn`t she the one who made the anti-masturbation commercial when she was younger? To me her belief in creation theory and anti-masturbation propoganda suggest that she is potential oppressor of civil liberties.

I really don`t see her defending Roe vs Wade or supporting same sex marriage, so yes her religious beliefs would effect my decision to whether to vote for her or her.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
skaterboy17: Also, What college degree do you have ? I spent over 4 years getting mine and was on the deans and presidents lists each semester of my last two years.

I`m not saying that to brag, I know there are many different types of `Intelligence`, So I`m not going to act like an elitist snob. Just demonstrating that I`m well educated and knowledgeable. And what I don`t know, I have the intelligence to do research about.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@OldOllie
Actually, they can pass policy to support Creationism. They can require that Creation/Intelligent Design/"The Controversy" (All the exact same thing) be taught alongside Evolution in the classroom, which they did in a few states a while ago. Science is science and creationism, no matter what they want to call it these days is the lack thereof.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
skaterboy17: There is spiritual truth and scientific truth, The bible never says that the earth is the center of the universe, It also doesn`t say that heaven is located in the sky or clouds or that hell is located in the mantle of the earth. Those were all assumptions made by early theologians. But now we know there are many dimensions, That we can not perceive. Heaven or Hell could be just a dimension or two away and we wouldn`t even know it. I could be wrong, But there is certainly room enough for them with that theory.
0
Reply
Female 404
tired of youtube with all these "claims"
0
Reply
Female 654
this is coming from the guy with a voldemort avatar..i love it
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The real question is, what difference does it make whether a senator believes in evolution or creation? It`s not like it`s coming up for a vote now, is it? Listen to her positions on issues that actually matter and then decide if you agree or not.

I`d much rather have a senator who believes in Biblical creation than one who believes in Keynesian economics. While both of those ideas have been pretty well discredited, one is mostly harmless, while the other is completely destroying our county.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]yarrrpirate So your saying all science cannot be proved? It`s all just hypothesis and theories? Things start off as those until proven.[/quote]

Damn, you are ignorant.

The only thing that is *proven* is the correctness of a mathematical equation and even then its application to anything real is not proven.

Hypotheses do not get upgraded to theories.

Theories do not get proven.

Outside of science, the level of evidence required for a theory to last would be more than enough to be considered proof.

Inside of science, there is no higher level of explanation than theory. If a million people test a theory a million different ways and it passes every test every time, it is still a theory.

Do you agree that bacteria and viruses can cause some diseases? That`s the germ theory of disease.

You trust your life to scientific theories every day without a thought.

You have no clue.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]People it`s called the theory of evolution KEY WORD THEORY...THEORY = EDUCATED GUESS not fact.[/quote]

I said before that people who deny evolution don`t know what evolution is. Some, like mrpuddle here, take their deliberate ignorance a stage further and refuse to have any idea what any aspect of science is.

I say it`s deliberate because if you can get past 18 and have absolutely no idea what a theory is, you must be that ignorant deliberately.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
I think that Santa and his elves made every creature on earth and every now and then they throw a new one out which explains why we keep finding them.... what...?
0
Reply
Male 39,893
Who needs science when you can belive in Magic instead!
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Doh! (face palm)
0
Reply
Male 582
This was posted just to make you all squirm. And you all did. LOLOL

God I love this site.
0
Reply
Male 296
Also, Duffytoler, don`t worry.

I`m not going to think you`re in the same uneducated boat as CrakrJak.
0
Reply
Male 540
The religious understanding of the word "purity" is curiously naive. It`s a narrative concept. It makes sense within the boundaries of stories, but it doesn`t encroach upon the real world.

Science is not pure, and the theories it provides are not taken as such.
In the event of any shred of reasonable doubt, a revision is necessary, but it`s these doubts and the subsequent revisions which constitute the main strength of science.

"Tossing out some science, While keeping other science is" the most sensible recourse one can take when presented with the universe.

It`s not pure, but those explanations which raise the fewest reasonable doubts are as close as anything is ever likely to get.
0
Reply
Male 296
Also, if someone wants to debate my argument, do so, but please don`t as immature as to be a spelling Nazi, typos happen.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Oh great, the highly vocal and depressingly stupid religious people are embarrassing us in front of the rest of the world. Again.
0
Reply
Male 296
(cont.) evidence is found, then the theory adapts, which is the whole point of the scientific model. Christianity is based on a book. Well, it`s based on the currently accepted translation of said book. Even Christians know that translations have been lost over time. Hell, whole books of the bible have been lost or *ahem* misplaced so as to morph Christianity the way that the present leaders at the time wanted it to be morphed. Christianity doesn`t listen to reason, it doesn`t listen to evidence, it listens to a book that is supposedly the word of your Christian God, and nothing else, and that seems pretty ass-backwards. If scientific advancement and discovery stopped at "Everything revolves around the earth lol" then you wouldn`t be sitting on your computer using the internet to debate with people you`ve never met who live on the other side of the world from you.
0
Reply
Male 2,085
Why would any conservative go on Bill Maher. His format is always the same, invite a republican and get four or five liberals to antagonize them.
0
Reply
Male 296
CrakrJak, the whole point behind science is a search for answers, and that search will never really be over. If, be experiments and testing and the likes, a particular scientific theory is proven to be flawed, and a better one takes it`s place, that`s perfect. That`s the hole point behind science. It doesn`t just stop at some point and say, "Well, I think we`ve done enough." Thousands of years ago, nobody knew that the Earth rotated around the sun. The Earth was thought to be the center of the universe, of everything. By experiments and testing, it was determined that that wasn`t the case. So the theory changed. It developed, and became more correct. If there is enough evidence to support a particular theory, then the idea is that that theory is accepted by most people and until evidence comes along that disproves that theory, then it is believed to be correct. From the evidence that has been collected thus far, the theory of evolution is considered to be correct. If further
0
Reply
Male 17,511
madest: I don`t get how anyone could `Morph Science`, Unless you are claiming science is somehow flawed. But if you claimed science is flawed then that puts doubt on evolution doesn`t it ?

You can`t have it both ways, Either science is pure and you have to accept that it`s results are the truth no matter the result or it`s flawed and that`s allows doubt into all science.

Tossing out some science, While keeping other science is as hypocritical as you claim religion is.
0
Reply
Male 385
yarrrpirate So your saying all science cannot be proved? It`s all just hypothesis and theories? Things start off as those until proven.
0
Reply
Male 385
Hammersley19
I never said it was fact...it is a faith and belief I choose to believe in. You can believe in what you like but don`t pass it off as fact. Never put words in my mouth.
0
Reply
Male 367
So what show had Dee Snider on it talking about evolution?
0
Reply
Male 703
A scientific theory is an argument which is generally accepted by a large body of scientists (tick) which has not to this point been disproved (tick) and has strong supporting evidence (tick). So it is not absolute fact, but until disproven, generally accepted truth.
0
Reply
Male 703
There`s not even any concrete religious basis for not believing in evolution, at least not that I have seen growing up in a Christian school. The literal interpretation of the bible which results in creationism is fundamentally flawed. I could go on, but there`s been more than enough of that on iab lately.
0
Reply
Male 633
You are the myth Christine.
0
Reply
Male 12
No mrpuddle is right! His logic is flawless.

Because evolution is a theory it must be a random guess, which is wrong.

Because religion is not a theory it must be an undeniable fact.
0
Reply
Male 64
*wonders if mrpuddle will respond...
0
Reply
Male 394
"yarrrpirate look it up kid.

dictionary.reference.com

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

contemplation or speculation.

guess or conjecture."


I guess you jumped to the third choice right away, "kid" (thank you for the extraordinarily weak attempt at condescension).

Might I inform you that all of science is built on theory, and that you cannot fully prove anything without an underlying assumption or principle (which is found by observation)? In the same basket, you find gravity along with Newton`s laws of motion, the laws of Thermodynamics, and so on.

Your stupidity would amuse me, if I knew you and those who "think" like you weren`t a scourge upon our species.
0
Reply
Male 64
A Scientific theory is a proven hypothesis.

A Hypothesis is a scientific term for a thought on what a scientist/person believes should happen.

Therefore, a "theory" such as the theory of evolution, by the simple use of the corect english in this case, is by the very definition of the term "scientific theory" proven beyond reasonable boubt.
0
Reply
Male 385
But I do love how your trying to change what a word means to fit your needs.
0
Reply
Male 64
"monkeys dont evolve into humans. hell, apes dont evolve into humans. we just share a common ancestor with other apes. the ancestor we evolved froThe most intelligent thing that has been written here. Thanks Cobrakiller
0
Reply
Male 385
yarrrpirate look it up kid.

dictionary.reference.com

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

contemplation or speculation.

guess or conjecture.
0
Reply
Male 9
It`s not much of a theory anymore since evolution has been observed and confirmed many times over.
As well as each day, new fossils and new species are discovered which contributes to the evolution.
You could say it`s a confirmed theory.
0
Reply
Male 1,455
"People it`s called the theory of evolution KEY WORD THEORY...THEORY = EDUCATED GUESS not fact."

Along with nuclear theory, germ theory, heliocentrism, and gravity.

In short, the evidence for evolution is about on par with the evidence for nuclear reactions.

The people who say it`s `only a theory` have no idea what they`re talking about.
0
Reply
Male 394
"People it`s called the theory of evolution KEY WORD THEORY...THEORY = EDUCATED GUESS not fact."

In a scientific context, that is not what it means. Go back to the drawing board before presenting your thoughts, please.
0
Reply
Male 385
People it`s called the theory of evolution KEY WORD THEORY...THEORY = EDUCATED GUESS not fact.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I have a question for the evolution deniers:

Why is your god such a nasty bastard? It`s beyond malicious to fake so much evidence and fake more evidence every day and force so many people to hallucinate (evolution can be observed, so you must believe it`s all a halluciniation) and to mess with people`s heads like that just for the purpose of punishing them for believing the utterly convincing evidence and hallucinations.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I`m going to thank tatripp for providing yet another example of something that is always true:

People who think evolution doesn`t exist have no idea what evolution is. They just make up some stuff that`s wrong and claim that`s what evolution is.

It`s like saying that I don`t believe baseball exists because there`s no way you could get a penguin and a snake to co-operate that closely.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]I believe in adaptation bud i`m not so sure everything came from one single celled organism that somehow came into existence. All attempts at creating life (without sex) have been miserable failures.
The problem with evolution is that it tries to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Also what is a fact? evolution uses completely inductive reasoning and cannot be proven. That doesn`t mean it isn`t possible though.
Evolutionists believe that all life came from a single celled organism and only appeared in the only place in our gigantic galaxy where life is possible. that seems far more miraculous than any miracle.[/quote]
Are you f*cking kiddine me, tatripp? You are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly stupid.
0
Reply
Male 658
tatripp, that`s not what people who `believe` in evolution think happened. At all.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Oh lawd.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Ugh. How embarrassing. This is one time I *wish* it would come up: "VIDEO NOT AVAILABLE IN YOUR COUNTRY" when Europeans clicked on it.
0
Reply
Male 582
Funny how all they can do is dig up some stuff from when this chick was a teenager. I mean sure she may not have thought everything out all that thoroughly at that point but she was a kid.

Now you have some pseudo intellectual has=been like Bill Maher trying to wring some attention for himself out of a teenage girl from the 80s. Frankly the guy must be pretty desperate to resort to this stuff. But hey, it makes him a buck and gets him noticed again. He is the mirror opposite of Dennis Miller. A flagging career and no real talent to build on so tear into someone that is actually doing something and hope people will notice you again.

Pretty sad.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
That was short and pointless without any arguement!
0
Reply
Male 1,196
to be fair they didn`t even give her a chance to speak. I believe in adaptation bud i`m not so sure everything came from one single celled organism that somehow came into existence. All attempts at creating life (without sex) have been miserable failures.
The problem with evolution is that it tries to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Also what is a fact? evolution uses completely inductive reasoning and cannot be proven. That doesn`t mean it isn`t possible though.
Evolutionists believe that all life came from a single celled organism and only appeared in the only place in our gigantic galaxy where life is possible. that seems far more miraculous than any miracle.
0
Reply
Female 1,236
I have found that folks who adamantly deny the possibility of evolution don`t really know what is theorized. A friend`s mother once told me that if she read up on it & was convinced it would only mean that the Devil (capital D) had gotten his hooks into her. *Sigh. Evil knowledge, go stoke your infernos elsewhere.
0
Reply
Male 2,688
@Altaru
[sarcasm]

Maybe the people in Delaware are just as sharp minded as she is.

[/sarcasm]
0
Reply
Male 7,830
whats really sad is that only about 40% of americans do not deny evolution. this is just dumb considering all of the proof of evolution we have. its fear that makes people keep themselves ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
monkeys dont evolve into humans. hell, apes dont evolve into humans. we just share a common ancestor with other apes. the ancestor we evolved from doesnt exist anymore because, well, they evolved.
0
Reply
Male 736
Ah, Republicans. Please lead us to Armageddon - the one thing you DO believe in.
0
Reply
Male 197
`Why aren`t monkeys still evolving into humans?`

Because the purpose of being a primate isn`t to become human you twit!
0
Reply
Male 1,931
You can have an opinion, but you can`t have opinion of facts. drat.
0
Reply
Female 536
She is entitled to her opinion. And we are entitled to think she`s stupid and fling poo at her. CHOICE!

Seriously though, it scares me that someone somewhere actually voted for her, and that enough of those someones voted for her to make her win the Delaware primary. Are you outta your damn mind?!
0
Reply
Male 394
They end up with people like Crakrjak running out of arguments, despite managing to change the subject multiple times, and then give up while retaining their ridiculous flat-earth beliefs.
0
Reply
Female 243
does anyone know how these flame wars end up? ive never actually stuck around long enough to see it end. anyway- no more IAB...no more.
0
Reply
Male 3,330
Science: Thoughts we think to be correct because we have facts to prove them correct, however we acknowledge that future knowledge may change our thoughts, and scientific "fact" may change.

Religion: Thoughts we know to be correct because our religious text, which in the case of Christianity, has been translated from translations, often to fit a specific person or groups needs, tells us they are correct. We are not open to change, as our Gods words are final.
0
Reply
Male 1,764
OK Crackr, no. There are documented, scientifically proven ways in which a species can add new genetic information into their genome. I don`t know where you got that conclusion but it simply is wrong and that is not subjective. I suggest you do a quick google search about it. Any way I don`t wish to participate in the typical IAB evolution vs. creationism debate so I wont reply anymore, just dropped by to let you know that that argument is flawed.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
You have said that you are a Christian and that`s what Christians believe. As a result you have found a way to morph science to fit your views. You deny any scientific advancement or knowledge so long as it fits into your religiously right world.
0
Reply
Male 113
yarrrpirate -- No I don`t consider it to be brave to muder thousands of unarmed innocent people. These are the same cowards that plant bombs and then go hide in caves instead of actually fighting. They are the same pathetic people who cannot handle seeing a woman`s face or allowing their people to have freedom of thought. That is not what we consider brave behavior in America.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
madest: I can`t ever remember arguing science with bible quotes, Because I don`t.

I argue science with science, What my personal beliefs are have nothing to do with valid scientific arguments.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
tasuret: That`s duplication, Not new information.

Besides Down`s Syndrome is not beneficial is it ? Neither are any of the other duplication errors, They are all birth defects.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
CrakrJak believes that an invisible man in the sky sent his son here to save us all from sin. What he thinks about science is irrelevant.
0
Reply
Male 719
Sorry, left out that while mutation commonly equates to "deformity," in scientific terms it is simply a variation in DNA - usually not including mixing the genetic information of the parent(s).
0
Reply
Male 43
" But there has been no observable process where information has been added."

Diseases becoming immune to Penicillin might not be to our benefit but it is to the bacteria concerned and can be viewed as evidence that not only is evolution observable but humans have guided it in that case. Another case in point, dogs. We have guided their evolution through selective breeding for generations. Chihahua vs. great dane is a good example of the biodiversity and mutations dogs are capable of
0
Reply
Male 719
@Crackr: What do you mean by "information," and what do you mean by "adding information"?

In fact, most mutations are neutral and minuscule. The word mutation is commonly used to mean a large changes in phenotype - ie deformities. It should be obvious why large scale changes would be harmful (such as having ), while smaller changes wouldn`t be that harmful (ectrodactyly), if not beneficial (increased brain mass).

In fact, all organisms contain minor, insignificant mutations. Remember: Mutation != Carnival Sideshow Performer.
0
Reply
Male 533
I blame the education system.
0
Reply
Male 3
CrakrJak: There is a very well known method of `adding` information to the genome. It`s called replication. Down`s syndrome is linked to a triplicate copy of Chromosome 21.
0
Reply
Male 394
"Maher considers the 9/11 terrorists to be brave."

It takes cojones to hijack an airplane of 300 or so people and fly it into a building, killing yourself in the process.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
This isn`t about her religious views it`s about her sanity. Here you have what seems to be a lucid human being who thinks that deliberate ignorance of science is somehow acceptable for someone who`s college educated. This revelation is after her admission that she dabbled in witchcraft. I applaud Bill Maher. He`s saving Delaware from a nutjob.
0
Reply
Male 113
And Obama thinks there are 57 states... Maher considers the 9/11 terrorists to be brave.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
Why are people with the last name "O`Donnel" so stupid?
(No offense to anyone here)
0
Reply
Male 17,511
deadlysporks: There is no known process that adds information to the DNA genome. It can be missing and It can even be In error, Which causes mutations that are almost always to the detriment of the creature. But there has been no observable process where information has been added.
0
Reply
Male 3,076
Seth MacFarlane is a prof that there is no god,
because he wouldn`t let him create family guy!
0
Reply
Male 21
@ auburnjunky as much as I wish separation were practiced they aren`t. Therefore religious views should be taken into consideration. Not to mention the fact that evolution is a proven fact, not necessarily that we are evolved from monkeys, but minor changes to adapt to the changing world to survive. I am sure that is not the sum of her thinking on the matter, but that was a rather unintelligent remark.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Maher is an idiot, He`s uttered far worse tripe.
0
Reply
Male 394
DERP ERP DERP... DURRRP MERP DERP!
0
Reply
Male 768
Lol, Seth is so retarded.
0
Reply
Male 955
lol, seth epic response.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Christine O`Donnell is a nutjub and this is one of the least nuttiest of things she has said. She thinks condoms don`t prevent the spread of STDs, that she can stop everyone from having sex, that masturbation is bad, and more.
0
Reply
Male 774
Luniz82,
It`s because you`re supposed to be close minded.
It`s in the bible... somewhere.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@luniz:

She didn`t get the nomination based on her religious views.

Nor should she have. It shouldn`t be a factor. Separation remember?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
LOL Seth wants to drat it.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
understanding science fail.
0
Reply
Male 587
LOL and people voted for her? Religious people seem to be the most closed minded people in the world.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: Christine O`Donnell Thinks Evolution is a Myth [Rate Link] - She better agree to be on Bill Maher`s show soon. These weekly revelations will kill her politically.
0
Reply