Obamanation In South Carolina

[Jesus H Christ 0]

14? Jesus H. Christ!

You rang?

[BenSavage 0]

You rang?

Hey man, how's it hanging?Did you ever bang that crazy chick, Mary Magdalene? Do you vote Republican, Jesus? Or do you actually care about people?

[Jesus H Christ 0]

Hey man, how's it hanging?Did you ever bang that crazy chick, Mary Magdalene? Do you vote Republican, Jesus? Or do you actually care about people?

1. long and strong.2. fuckin A right. 3. I wouldnt vote. What a waste of my time.

[Balloon guy 158]

yesstill to be determined, need more evidencetruthread a book, study some biologyif that happens it will be the biggest surprise in the history of the world

Bigger than this?Bigger surprise than republican win

[BenSavage 0]

Bigger than this?Bigger surprise than republican win

I know the National Enquirer is a bastion of good journalism, but I prefer to get my news from the "fair and balanced" Fox News. Thinking is for idiots, I want to be told what to think. It's easier that way.

[Balloon guy 158]

I know the National Enquirer is a bastion of good journalism, but I prefer to get my news from the "fair and balanced" Fox News. Thinking is for idiots, I want to be told what to think. It's easier that way.

Then you should listen to Rush Limbaugh.He save me tons of time by making it so I don't have to read any newspapers or watch any political news shows. He watches for me and then tells me what to think about them.I am serious too. Like 40% serious on this. I have not read anything but the funnys or watched a Sunday morning news show in years.

[ilovejulie 0]

And I was re-reading the link in my previous post, the poll that I mentioned where 53% of Americans did not believe in evolution is in that article as well. That particular poll was taken in 2005.

And 78% of Americans can't explain why we have seasons. Stupid does not make right. There is no God.That is all.

[freak2304 0]

I just caught back up on everything since I left last night. Looks like everyone except Guapo basically glazed over my last question, but that's fine. It's always funny to me when people get into a somewhat hateful argument about these topics. Obviously, it mostly comes from the fanatics on both sides who don't REALLY know what's going on. Anywho...carry on.

[herokid7 0]

And 78% of Americans can't explain why we have seasons. Stupid does not make right. There is no God.That is all.

Hey, I was just quoting the polls, because some guy thought the majority of people believed in evolution, and he had been using a lot of polls, so I just pointed out to him he was incorrect, using polls, which he liked.There is a God. And He loves you.That is all.

[herokid7 0]

Not really. Evolution stands strong because of the fact that no one has refuted it. If a YEC seriously came up with an issue in the theory of evolution, scientists would be all over it (evolution) immediately tearing down the theory and putting everything they have into getting it right. The only problem for you is that scientists have been refining the theory of evolution since its inception and have just been more and more right.The one thing you don't understand about science is that the people MOST critical on things like this ARE scientists. That is the whole point of the scientific method. It's like my candy bar example. The first bite ever taken was discovered to be chocolate. So you keep taking more and more and more bites and each time, it turns out to be chocolate. Only this candy bar is mile wide. The theory of Evolution has been refined and detailed so much that it's like eating the entire mile long chocolate bar and only having a few bites left. Before the "Theory" is final, we have to eat those bites and see what they are. "Seeing what they are" is the scientifically correct way to say it. The obvious human reality thing to say is that they are obviously still going to be ****ing chocolate ;)But we haven't ate those bites yet and that is what gives the YEC people some hope. It gives them time to completely warp what actual evolution is in the minds of the average person. It's not "just a theory" and the human race shouldn't have to fight people like the YEC. They are lucky that this is a free country and that they can spout whatever crap they want.

And trust me, it's not just one YouTube video that points out the BS from the YEC people. YEC theories are just as reliable as the 9/11 Truthers. /thread

Did I ever say I was a YEC???? No, I did not. I don't know how old the earth is and I don't think you do, you weren't there at the beginning, and neither was I. The bottomline is I believe in God because I've seen His work in my life and in other people's and that is why I reject evolution. Is there a possibilty that God my have used evolution in the created process, maybe but I doubt it. And when you say scientists have been refining evolution that pretty much means, they've been changing it to match the evidence. So, scientists wouldn't be all over it if creationists came up with concrete evidence to denounce evolution, they would just "refine" evolution to make it work with the new evidence.

[herokid7 0]

Oh, and you don't have to tell me Kent Hovind is a deceiver. While I think some of his theories are interesting, you do know that he is currently in federal prison serving a 10 year sentence for tax evasion right? That's about as deceiving as you can get. He is not a credible source for the creationists arguments if you ask me, even Ken Hamm and Answers in Genesis don't like him that much.

[jmkiser 0]

Did I ever say I was a YEC???? No, I did not. I don't know how old the earth is and I don't think you do, you weren't there at the beginning, and neither was I. The bottomline is I believe in God because I've seen His work in my life and in other people's and that is why I reject evolution. Is there a possibilty that God my have used evolution in the created process, maybe but I doubt it. And when you say scientists have been refining evolution that pretty much means, they've been changing it to match the evidence. So, scientists wouldn't be all over it if creationists came up with concrete evidence to denounce evolution, they would just "refine" evolution to make it work with the new evidence.

The earth is 4-5 billion years old.I don't need to be there at the beginning just as much as I don't need to be in China to know that it's a communist government. That argument is weak.I don't understand how you're believing god and "seeing his work" negates evolution. No, when I say refining, I mean refining. Not changing. BIG difference. I know you know the english language, man. You can't twist my words like every other creationist out there. I don't want people listening to this garbage and thinking that there is a shred of possibility that what you're saying is true. Creationists haven't come up with concrete evidence to denounce evolution and they've been using bogus claims for a LONG time in saying that it is.Seriously, quit twisting my words. I guarantee that you're breaking some law in the Bible right now by lying to all these fine people who are reading this thread.If you saw a computer, you know it's a computer. But it could just be a box full of crap. So you take off the cover and you look inside and see the motherboard with all the parts. Wait, it could still just be an random engineered board. So you find the ram, the graphics card, the processor, etc. You look at the outputs to a monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. You find the power button, the hard drives, the usb ports, etc. At this point, it's a ****ing computer. THAT is refining evolution. Not changing a damn thing.

[jmkiser 0]

Oh, and you don't have to tell me Kent Hovind is a deceiver. While I think some of his theories are interesting, you do know that he is currently in federal prison serving a 10 year sentence for tax evasion right? That's about as deceiving as you can get. He is not a credible source for the creationists arguments if you ask me, even Ken Hamm and Answers in Genesis don't like him that much

The tax evasion stuff is in the videos. Ken Hamm is a lunatic, too. Answers in Genesis uses flawed science and does the same bat shit crazy stuff that Kent Hovind tries to pass off. Kirk Cameron has lost his mind. Ray Comfort, etc etc etc. These people will twist logic and sometimes just flat out lie.15 Answers to Creationists - Scientific AmericanThe list goes on and on.I know that you're ignoring all of the links that I'm posting so I guess I'll just post more links. If I can't show you how crazy this stuff is, then maybe I can help some people on this website to kick the bad habit of wrong science.

[herokid7 0]

The earth is 4-5 billion years old.I don't need to be there at the beginning just as much as I don't need to be in China to know that it's a communist government. That argument is weak.I don't understand how you're believing god and "seeing his work" negates evolution. No, when I say refining, I mean refining. Not changing. BIG difference. I know you know the english language, man. You can't twist my words like every other creationist out there. I don't want people listening to this garbage and thinking that there is a shred of possibility that what you're saying is true. Creationists haven't come up with concrete evidence to denounce evolution and they've been using bogus claims for a LONG time in saying that it is.Seriously, quit twisting my words. I guarantee that you're breaking some law in the Bible right now by lying to all these fine people who are reading this thread.If you saw a computer, you know it's a computer. But it could just be a box full of crap. So you take off the cover and you look inside and see the motherboard with all the parts. Wait, it could still just be an random engineered board. So you find the ram, the graphics card, the processor, etc. You look at the outputs to a monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. You find the power button, the hard drives, the usb ports, etc. At this point, it's a ****ing computer. THAT is refining evolution. Not changing a damn thing.

Actually, if I saw a computer, but wasn't sure if it was a big box full of crap, I wouldn't do all that stuff. I would try and find the guy that built it, and say, "hey is this a computer, what do you want me do with it" if I couldn't find the guy, I would then read the manual he wrote about it. You didn't give me any counterarguments. All you said was "Nuh-uh, nuh-uh!" And now all I'm going to say is "Uh-huh, uh-huh!" I do so hate it when these debates get childish, and they normally do...sigh. lol.

[jmkiser 0]

you weren't there at the beginning, and neither was I.

Denouncing bat shit crazy creationists.... first myth they like to spew1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain

[herokid7 0]

The tax evasion stuff is in the videos. Ken Hamm is a lunatic, too. Answers in Genesis uses flawed science and does the same bat shit crazy stuff that Kent Hovind tries to pass off. Kirk Cameron has lost his mind. Ray Comfort, etc etc etc. These people will twist logic and sometimes just flat out lie.15 Answers to Creationists - Scientific AmericanThe list goes on and on.I know that you're ignoring all of the links that I'm posting so I guess I'll just post more links. If I can't show you how crazy this stuff is, then maybe I can help some people on this website to kick the bad habit of wrong science.

I'm not a fan or Kirk, Ray, or Todd, either...I think they can be too judgemental. I did take a peek at those videos, but I didn't want to sit through 25 mins because I got other things to do today, I will check them out when I get more time though. I can promise you it won't change my mind though. I'm as dead set in what I believe as you are.

[jmkiser 0]

Actually, if I saw a computer, but wasn't sure if it was a big box full of crap, I wouldn't do all that stuff. I would try and find the guy that built it, and say, "hey is this a computer, what do you want me do with it" if I couldn't find the guy, I would then read the manual he wrote about it. You didn't give me any counterarguments. All you said was "Nuh-uh, nuh-uh!" And now all I'm going to say is "Uh-huh, uh-huh!" I do so hate it when these debates get childish, and they normally do...sigh. lol.

This is the lying crap that I'm talking about. I can't stand this. I gave you plenty of information AND counter-arguments. Shit you can't possibly just ignore unless you're so biased to ignore it.Your claim is that refining is changing. No, it wasn't. You clearly expressed the fact that you didn't know what refining was. I used an analogy for you to understand it more simply.wooooooooowcmon manAnd no one who saw a computer case, would try to locate the creator. That is one of the most ridiculous lies that I've ever heard.:: runs into a Dell computer case ::"Oh, wtf is this? Let me go call Dell. :: ring ring ::Oh hi, yes, Dell? Hi, I have this metal box here with your name on it and I was wondering what it was. Oh you want me to open it up? Oh ok. Yeah, um, there is a processor, a graphics card, a ... what? NO, I'm not crazy. No, I'm not prank calling you. It's a computer? Oh thank you. HEY, that wasn't a very nice thing to say about me":: click ::

[herokid7 0]

Denouncing bat shit crazy creationists.... first myth they like to spew1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.Sorry, I've never seen an ape turn into a monkey, an alligator turn into a bird, or a spoon turn into a spork, which then turns into a fork. To me the evidence of God is clear, unambiguos and compelling. Because I have seen people change when they accept Christ, I have seen healings happen, and I have experienced the Holy Spirit speaking to me. These are DIRECT evidence, which are unambiguos and compelling. All finding fossil records prove is that an animal died.All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain

[jmkiser 0]

I'm not a fan or Kirk, Ray, or Todd, either...I think they can be too judgemental. I did take a peek at those videos, but I didn't want to sit through 25 mins because I got other things to do today, I will check them out when I get more time though. I can promise you it won't change my mind though. I'm as dead set in what I believe as you are.

I understand how dead set you are. Trust me, I've talked to plenty of fundies.Just don't lie and be unrealistic. That's one of the things that conservatives are supposed to be good on.When a pinko commie goes all crazy and spews crap out his mouth, the conservative is supposed to be the one stepping up and being like"Hey! You're ****ing crazy."

[jmkiser 0]

Thank you for quoting what I posted to you.Did you read it? Yes, the parts that were bolded... I was the one who bolded them.So you would pay attention to them. Maybe so you can understand that you don't have to be standing next to something to know that it's true. Or else I could say that the Holocaust never happened. And then I could say that you can't tell me it did because you weren't there! :D :D

[herokid7 0]

This is the lying crap that I'm talking about. I can't stand this. I gave you plenty of information AND counter-arguments. Shit you can't possibly just ignore unless you're so biased to ignore it.Your claim is that refining is changing. No, it wasn't. You clearly expressed the fact that you didn't know what refining was. I used an analogy for you to understand it more simply.wooooooooowcmon manAnd no one who saw a computer case, would try to locate the creator. That is one of the most ridiculous lies that I've ever heard.:: runs into a Dell computer case ::"Oh, wtf is this? Let me go call Dell. :: ring ring ::Oh hi, yes, Dell? Hi, I have this metal box here with your name on it and I was wondering what it was. Oh you want me to open it up? Oh ok. Yeah, um, there is a processor, a graphics card, a ... what? NO, I'm not crazy. No, I'm not prank calling you. It's a computer? Oh thank you. HEY, that wasn't a very nice thing to say about me":: click ::

Being, I'm pretty much a computer illiterate and have no idea what a "processor" "graphics card" is, calling the company is actually the third thing I do, I admit. First, I do try to read the manual and understand it. If I can't understand I call a friend who knows more about it than I do to try and help explain it to me, and if that doesn't work, I call the company for help, and then they come and install it for me. Your analogy works better for a Christian than an evolutionist. Lol. Aren't you the guy that said he hated analogies. Lol.Webster's 21ist century dictionary defines: theory-1.statement of possible truth 2.untried assumption. so the evolutionary theory is a statement of possible truth, meaning it might be true, but it might not be. or the evolutionary theory is an untried assumption. Ooohh. That's sounds really bad, wouldn't you say?refine- 1.make free from impurities. 2.make cultured.change-1.make into a different form. 2-give up one for the other.Okay, so if scientists refine evolution, they would make it free from impurities, which I think that would mean to make it into a pure form, instead of an impure form...which would be the definition of change. HMMMMMMM.

[herokid7 0]

Thank you for quoting what I posted to you.Did you read it? Yes, the parts that were bolded... I was the one who bolded them.So you would pay attention to them. Maybe so you can understand that you don't have to be standing next to something to know that it's true. Or else I could say that the Holocaust never happened. And then I could say that you can't tell me it did because you weren't there! :D :D

You did see where I added some stuff in there, didn't you? But, I guess it too much of me to expect an evolutionists to see the obvious. I know that was underhanded. I apologize.

[Suited_Up 2]

Being, I'm pretty much a computer illiterate and have no idea what a "processor" "graphics card" is, calling the company is actually the third thing I do, I admit. First, I do try to read the manual and understand it. If I can't understand I call a friend who knows more about it than I do to try and help explain it to me, and if that doesn't work, I call the company for help, and then they come and install it for me. Your analogy works better for a Christian than an evolutionist. Lol. Aren't you the guy that said he hated analogies. Lol.Webster's 21ist century dictionary defines: theory-1.statement of possible truth 2.untried assumption. so the evolutionary theory is a statement of possible truth, meaning it might be true, but it might not be. or the evolutionary theory is an untried assumption. Ooohh. That's sounds really bad, wouldn't you say?refine- 1.make free from impurities. 2.make cultured.change-1.make into a different form. 2-give up one for the other.Okay, so if scientists refine evolution, they would make it free from impurities, which I think that would mean to make it into a pure form, instead of an impure form...which would be the definition of change. HMMMMMMM.

You forgot this one...8. refine on or upon, to improve by inserting finer distinctions, superior elements, etc.: to refine on one's previous work.Try again.

[jmkiser 0]

Being, I'm pretty much a computer illiterate and have no idea what a "processor" "graphics card" is, calling the company is actually the third thing I do, I admit. First, I do try to read the manual and understand it. If I can't understand I call a friend who knows more about it than I do to try and help explain it to me, and if that doesn't work, I call the company for help, and then they come and install it for me. Your analogy works better for a Christian than an evolutionist. Lol. Aren't you the guy that said he hated analogies. Lol.I use them when I it deems that I need to Webster's 21ist century dictionary defines: theory-1.statement of possible truth 2.untried assumption. so the evolutionary theory is a statement of possible truth, meaning it might be true, but it might not be. or the evolutionary theory is an untried assumption. Ooohh. That's sounds really bad, wouldn't you say?Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. refine- 1.make free from impurities. 2.make cultured.Not change. To refine a realization on something that is already there does not change what is already there. There are some better words I could probably use. Actually a phrase. How about this? TO DISCOVER IN MORE DETAIL

To all those who are actually much less ignorant of science then I am, I apologize to the injustice that I'm doing to it.

[BenSavage 0]

I love it with creationists with no background whatsoever in biology try to refute evolution by pointing out a few details that are wrong or unclear.The problem is that science doesn't work that way, laws are only seen in science when something can be "proven" mathematically. Evolution can't be categorized like that. Nor can gravity, gram theory of disease, the atomic theory, and many others.A scientific theory has to be confirmed again and again and again and again and again and again...and this "theory" has been around for more than a century. Not one scientist has come to the conclusion that "change over time" doesn't happen. And that is what evolution is, "change over time." Simple and true. Dolts say there are no transitional fossils, they say evolution just isn't possible, but what do they do after that. When the scientist asks these intelligent design proponents what there theory is?Oh yeah, "God did it.""God did it" is not science, neither is "I don't know."Science works on falsifiable facts, religion is not falsifiable. Even if it is true. Why do I care?Because many inbred dolts in the south (see a few counties in Florida, Texas, and Dover PA recently) have decided they know more than real science teachers. And that evolution should not be taught. Science is not voted on, popular vote doesn't win. Facts win.You can be damn sure Russia, China, Japan, England, France, and every other civilized country is studying evolution. They also happen to value science and math education. And many are the most irreligious places on earth (England, Norway, Finland, Sweden) and they are swell places to live.And we are asking why America is falling behind in technological advances?Intelligent Design can go in a Religion class. Science in a science class. Even in the supposed good ole family values days of the 50s, the leaders of this nation valued science and math.Look at us now, so sad.