REAL issues

Dude, the earth is something like 4.2 Billion years old


100,000 isn't even anything

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Also, both macro and microevolution are taught in my school, and they are taught as fact. And remember the huge backlash when parents tried to get stickers on their student's textbooks that said that Evolution was ONLY a fact?

Well, My schools never taught anything more than Microevolution, and considering I'm in one of those states the world considers Liberal....

ReconToaster wrote:

I just don't believe our ancestors were apes.

uhhh... That's not what evolution says. It says there was a common ancestor.

And just how would that 'common ancestor' be any different from an ape.

ReconToaster wrote:Either way, you're totally right. The FACT that both species' DNA is 99% alike is totally irrelevant!

Well, that is the system upon which life is based. So similar animals would have similar DNA.
But isn't a lot of DNA shared by organisms? Such as base cellular operations?

ReconToaster wrote:

through some sort of cosmic collision that never really was proven

I love how you Christians always demand absolute proof of our theories, while you go on blindly believing in things with no evidential support.

Whereas y'all rag on Christians because they have little evidence to go on, but your theories have some pretty big holes, now don't they?

Oh, and I have a few arguments about The Origin of the Universe... but they'll have to wait.

Until then, satisfy yourselves with this.

ReconToaster wrote: This was not the case at my school. I can understand your frustration under these circumstances. Still, understand that most of us do not fully submit ourselves to MAJOR MACRO evolution just as we do not submit ourselves to religion.

Most of who? I know one atheist in real life. Everyone else (no joke) is christian. And I know a lot of people...

Most of who? I know one atheist in real life. Everyone else (no joke) is christian. And I know a lot of people...

What state do you live in? Because I have *counts on fingers* ten friends that are Atheist. It's a great way to meet new people!

I of course know MANY more on the internets.

Other than that, people are mainly prodestant. Most christians that I know are not like you guys in that they actually know about their religion. Most of them are those "blind follower" types that I referred to in the other thread. I know more about the bible than most of them do.

I also know a few jewish people and one muslim

I'm in Ohio

ReconToaster wrote:

Most of who? I know one atheist in real life. Everyone else (no joke) is christian. And I know a lot of people...

What state do you live in? Because I have *counts on fingers* ten friends that are Atheist. It's a great way to meet new people!

Nebraska

ReconToaster wrote:I of course know MANY more on the internets.

As do I.

ReconToaster wrote:Other than that, people are mainly prodestant. Most christians that I know are not like you guys in that they actually know about their religion. Most of them are those "blind follower" types that I referred to in the other thread. I know more about the bible than most of them do.

I'm not supprised why you got such an opinion then. But most of my friends are relgious and are mildly to very involved in the church. (mind you, they don't blindly folow it)

ReconToaster wrote:I also know a few jewish people and one muslim

I know no jewish or mulsim people... unless Obama counts

ReconToaster wrote:I'm in Ohio

Closer to the big city areas than I am.

nearly everyone I know is atheist.....and a majority of those that aren't are what most would consider agnostic, although that term doesn't quite apply.

agnostics are atheists that want to sound more superior and set apart from others.

at least all the agnostics i know are at any rate.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:

Seriously, I think Obama is the end of this nation, I'm not whining.

SO instead of actually putting together a prepared response you are going to come in here and make a dumb statement like that and leave? How about you elaborate on WHY you think such a thing. I myself am under the comprehension that the previous administration already did all the damage. It can't get much worse.

I don't know if you remember, but George W. Bush ran on a campaign of no nation building. Apparently something changed. 9/11 is their excuse for inverting all of their policies. That doesn't cut it in my opinion.

the previous administration furthered the world's hatred towards the US by involving us in yet another stupid war, destroyed our economy, and dismantled the constitution. Tell me, how is Obama "the end of this nation"?

Why do you blame the president for all the problems?

The War is Congresses fault, they accepted it.
Our economy is in bad shape, but there are ways to make it much better.
Dismantling our Constitution? Not the presidents fault. If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court handles what is legal, and follows the constitution.

Angatar wrote:Our economy is in bad shape, but there are ways to make it much better.

lol, which also happens to be congresses fault.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Dude, the earth is something like 4.2 Billion years old


100,000 isn't even anything

Over the years, science has offered us many dates, varying from some in favor of young Earth creation to others in favor of evolution. This is why I've decided to remain neutral on the age of the Earth.

KristallNacht wrote:Well, My schools never taught anything more than Microevolution, and considering I'm in one of those states the world considers Liberal....

I live in one of those states the world considers Conservative, yet macroevolution is taught as fact and creationism is not only scoffed at, but used to provide trick answers on tests.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:And just how would that 'common ancestor' be any different from an ape.

Indeed.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Well, that is the system upon which life is based. So similar animals would have similar DNA.
But isn't a lot of DNA shared by organisms? Such as base cellular operations?

I went looking for statistics on how similar our DNA is to other animals, but I was unable to find any statistics. However, I did discover that the method used to determine that chimpanzees and humans are 97% similar is one that is fairly dubious for being inaccurate and only used on the simplest of life forms in actual science.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Whereas y'all rag on Christians because they have little evidence to go on, but your theories have some pretty big holes, now don't they?

Exactly. It's a double standard. I don't mind science, but when science demands we prove everything we believe, we demand right back.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Oh, and I have a few arguments about The Origin of the Universe... but they'll have to wait.

Until then, satisfy yourselves with this.

CivBase wrote:Most of who? I know one atheist in real life. Everyone else (no joke) is christian. And I know a lot of people...

I know a fair share of Atheists, a fair share of Agnostics, a fair share of Protestants, a fair share of Catholics, a fair share of Muslims, and one Jew. However, statistically speaking, those of faith do out number Atheists.

ReconToaster wrote: What state do you live in? Because I have *counts on fingers* ten friends that are Atheist. It's a great way to meet new people!

I of course know MANY more on the internets.

The Interwebz is crawling with Atheists.

ReconToaster wrote: Other than that, people are mainly prodestant. Most christians that I know are not like you guys in that they actually know about their religion. Most of them are those "blind follower" types that I referred to in the other thread. I know more about the bible than most of them do.

I know a fair share of Atheists who are also the blind follower type, who know nothing about the intricate details of string theory, evolution, redshift, and the like. And I know plenty of Atheists who know nothing of religion, but who generalize it as if they knew every inner working of every church. So I think it is safe to say there are blind followers on both sides.

ReconToaster wrote: I also know a few jewish people and one muslim

Hmm, I know more Muslims than Jews.

ReconToaster wrote: I'm in Ohio

Viva la Arizona!

CivBase wrote:Nebraska

Did you know that on the drive from Arizona to Nebraska, in New Mexico, there is an insane asylum and a sign warning against picking up hitchhikers in the area, and there is a gun shop right near the asylum, and another sign warning that hitchhikers may be armed? Not that I have any experience with said asylum...

CivBase wrote:As do I.

Indeed. I was quite surprised to find this site so full of conservatives. You are normally hard pressed to find a conservative, let alone one of faith, on the Interwebz.

CivBase wrote:I'm not supprised why you got such an opinion then. But most of my friends are relgious and are mildly to very involved in the church. (mind you, they don't blindly folow it)

I know some blind follower types, but like I said, they exist on all sides.

CivBase wrote:I know no jewish or mulsim people... unless Obama counts

Pff, not even I buy into the whole Muslim thing.

CivBase wrote:Closer to the big city areas than I am.

I'm in the suburbs of Phoenix...so I am kinda close to big cities, but not really.

KristallNacht wrote:nearly everyone I know is atheist.....and a majority of those that aren't are what most would consider agnostic, although that term doesn't quite apply.

No offense, NT, but with the extreme views you hold, you would probably be hard pressed to find friends who aren't at least open to those sorts of views. There are very few people of faith who support ethnic cleansing, after all. ;)

BBJynne wrote:agnostics are atheists that want to sound more superior and set apart from others.

at least all the agnostics i know are at any rate.

Agnostics are supposed to be people who will admit that they don't have enough knowledge whether to determine if there is a God or not, and often don't believe that it can ever be proven or disproven that there is a God.

Angatar wrote:Why do you blame the president for all the problems?

Everyone blames the President for all the problems. He rarely has anything to do with them, but he's like the national scape goat...well, unless he's a Democrat. Then he's just FOX's scape goat.

Angatar wrote:The War is Congresses fault, they accepted it.

The war is virtually everyone's fault, though Congress is the one in charge of funding (so arguments about lacking body armor and stuff like that would be Congress's fault). But, quite frankly, the Iraq War isn't the immense failure the media paints it out to be. We've had fewer casualties across the entire Coalition in this war than in basically any other war, except the Gulf War. We successfully eliminated a fascist regime that had, in the past, tested chemical weapons on its own people for kicks and giggles, and had been keeping political prisoners in torture chambers for some time. And now, we're helping them get back on their feet. Need I remind everyone that we were in Germany actively for over forty years after World War II? And we still have plenty of bases there (it's basically the center of our European Theater Command now). And if I'm not mistaken, a US presence is still active in South Korea. In fact, I can only recall two wars in the last hundred years where we pulled out immediately after winning, and those are World War I (which directly resulted in World War II) and the Vietnam War (look up the Fall of Saigon).

Angatar wrote:Our economy is in bad shape, but there are ways to make it much better.

The economic crisis is almost entirely Congress's fault anyway. Between the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the economy was doomed from the start.

Angatar wrote:Dismantling our Constitution? Not the presidents fault. If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court handles what is legal, and follows the constitution.

I think the President can be partially blamed for this, but then, in these troubled times, I'm not sure how much I care if I have to wave a few rights to ensure security. I have nothing to hide (except those bodies, but they aren't kept in my house, so no illegal search and seizure would turn them up ).

CivBase wrote:lol, which also happens to be congresses fault.

Indeed.

Why is it I uninimously agree with rot 99% of the time?
So instead of quoting it all: Indeed rot, indeed.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:Nebraska

Did you know that on the drive from Arizona to Nebraska, in New Mexico, there is an insane asylum and a sign warning against picking up hitchhikers in the area, and there is a gun shop right near the asylum, and another sign warning that hitchhikers may be armed? Not that I have any experience with said asylum...

<.<
>.>

I think the President can be partially blamed for this, but then, in these troubled times, I'm not sure how much I care if I have to wave a few rights to ensure security.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Palpatine?

ReconToaster wrote:

I think the President can be partially blamed for this, but then, in these troubled times, I'm not sure how much I care if I have to wave a few rights to ensure security.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Palpatine?

Kind of off topic but, Toaster, why don't you ever include names in your quotes?

PiElord wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

I think the President can be partially blamed for this, but then, in these troubled times, I'm not sure how much I care if I have to wave a few rights to ensure security.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Palpatine?

Kind of off topic but, Toaster, why don't you ever include names in your quotes?

That's a good question....

Are you actualy bringing Starwars into this? Don't tell me you're one of those guys that said true on bilcos youtube quiz... I'm pretty sure Bush has no intentions on going completely evil and using the force to conquer the universe and establish an empire that none would dare trifle with.

Really though, would living under the empire have been so bad? Think about it for a bit. Universal peace, the government wasn't opressive... doens't sound too bad to me.

So recon, you're saying you don't want to give up any rights? Well that blows the crap out of your socialistic idea which gives the whole economy to the government.

Our government did nothing irrational as a responce to the terrorist attacks that were plauging not only america, but the whole world at the time. We did a good job in the war, had minimal casualties, and brought a corrupted ruler to his knees. Maybe it doesn't end opression and terrorism in the world, but it's one helluva start.

CivBase wrote:

PiElord wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

I think the President can be partially blamed for this, but then, in these troubled times, I'm not sure how much I care if I have to wave a few rights to ensure security.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Palpatine?

Kind of off topic but, Toaster, why don't you ever include names in your quotes?

That's a good question....

Are you actualy bringing Starwars into this? Don't tell me you're one of those guys that said true on bilcos youtube quiz... I'm pretty sure Bush has no intentions on going completely evil and using the force to conquer the universe and establish an empire that none would dare trifle with.

Really though, would living under the empire have been so bad? Think about it for a bit. Universal peace, the government wasn't opressive... doens't sound too bad to me.

So recon, you're saying you don't want to give up any rights? Well that blows the crap out of your socialistic idea which gives the whole economy to the government.

Our government did nothing irrational as a responce to the terrorist attacks that were plauging not only america, but the whole world at the time. We did a good job in the war, had minimal casualties, and brought a corrupted ruler to his knees. Maybe it doesn't end opression and terrorism in the world, but it's one helluva start.

You see, this is what I hate about this forum anymore.

There are no two pollitical issues I agree with anyone on.

Republicans, the election is over.
McCain lost.
Palin's an idiot.
Bush was a terrible president.
Obama will be a hell of a lot better.
And the U.S.A. will not become the U.S.S.A.

So recon, you're saying you don't want to give up any rights? Well that blows the crap out of your socialistic idea which gives the whole economy to the government.

do tell me, what is this "socialistic idea" of mine?

why don't you ever include names in your quotes?

Because I just copy and paste the text into quickreply, highlite it, and push "quote."

well its easier to tell who wrote that, as you could just be making it up.

CivBase wrote:<.<
>.>

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

ReconToaster wrote:That's a good question....

Are you actualy bringing Starwars into this? Don't tell me you're one of those guys that said true on bilcos youtube quiz... I'm pretty sure Bush has no intentions on going completely evil and using the force to conquer the universe and establish an empire that none would dare trifle with.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Really though, would living under the empire have been so bad? Think about it for a bit. Universal peace, the government wasn't opressive... doens't sound too bad to me.

I'm not much of a Star Wars buff, but wasn't the government at least a tad oppressive?

CivBase wrote:So recon, you're saying you don't want to give up any rights? Well that blows the crap out of your socialistic idea which gives the whole economy to the government.

I don't think it is so much rights as civil liberties. On the Nolan Chart, Democrats favor civil freedom and economic regulation, whereas Republicans favor civil regulation and economic freedom.

CivBase wrote:Our government did nothing irrational as a responce to the terrorist attacks that were plauging not only america, but the whole world at the time. We did a good job in the war, had minimal casualties, and brought a corrupted ruler to his knees. Maybe it doesn't end opression and terrorism in the world, but it's one helluva start.

Indeed.

PiElord wrote:You see, this is what I hate about this forum anymore.

There are no two pollitical issues I agree with anyone on.

Mm...

PiElord wrote:Republicans, the election is over.

Bad news, Pie, but none of us were even talking about the elections. We were simply discussing Bush's Presidency.

PiElord wrote:McCain lost.

And if McCain had won, would you have instantly just started to love him simply because he won, because if so, you're a blinder person than I thought.

PiElord wrote:Palin's an idiot.

Sadly, Palin has about as much experience as your prized Obama.

PiElord wrote:Bush was a terrible president.

The only evidence to this you've provided was a regurgitated post about Bush's "100 mistakes" that we've already dealt with, in which half were not related to Bush, half of the remaining contradicted themselves, and the remaining were statistical things that are easy to take out of context and make sound bad.

PiElord wrote:Obama will be a hell of a lot better.

Naturally. Because I always wanted higher taxes, more gun control to ensure the common criminal is packing heat but the average citizen can't, wealth redistribution that will scare big business away from the US and promote outsourcing, and a timetable pull out of Iraq that would result in more civilian casualties than the entire war so far. And let's not mention eight hundred billion dollars of increased government spending to add to that national deficit Democrats love to call one of Bush's major failures.

PiElord wrote:And the U.S.A. will not become the U.S.S.A.

With a Democratic controlled Congress? It very well might. We're looking at increased socialist programs like universal health care and wealth redistribution, and those were just a few of the things Obama promised during his campaigning, not to mention things he hasn't even had a chance to think up yet.

ReconToaster wrote: do tell me, what is this "socialistic idea" of mine?

Government control of the economy is basic version of proto-socialism. I don't know if you support that or not, but that seemed to be what Civ was referring to.

ReconToaster wrote: Because I just copy and paste the text into quickreply, highlite it, and push "quote."

I always get the a-post-was-added-while-you-were-typing error when trying to use quick reply.

Lord Pheonix wrote:well its easier to tell who wrote that, as you could just be making it up.

Well, it is a step above the quotes he tried to use in the early posts of this thread, which were made up.

PiElord wrote:You see, this is what I hate about this forum anymore.

There are no two pollitical issues I agree with anyone on.

Republicans, the election is over.
McCain lost.
Palin's an idiot.
Bush was a terrible president.
Obama will be a hell of a lot better.
And the U.S.A. will not become the U.S.S.A.

We're not even talking about the election, we're talking about Bush being blamed for things that weren't entirely his fault (or even his fault at all in some cases).

Rotaretilbo wrote:I'm not much of a Star Wars buff, but wasn't the government at least a tad oppressive?

Not really twards it's civilians. Sure they fight the rebelian and try to kill the jedi, but they don't really show opression to the people themselves.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Naturally. Because I always wanted higher taxes, more gun control to ensure the common criminal is packing heat but the average citizen can't, wealth redistribution that will scare big business away from the US and promote outsourcing, and a timetable pull out of Iraq that would result in more civilian casualties than the entire war so far. And let's not mention eight hundred billion dollars of increased government spending to add to that national deficit Democrats love to call one of Bush's major failures.

lol
Pie, you may learn something from this whole discussion/debate/thing.

Recon Toaster wrote:do tell me, what is this "socialistic idea" of mine?

Were you not one of the people that supported socialism, universal healthcare, Obama, ect?
If not, then never mind.

Hey Rot, what do you think is going to happen once we do pull out of Iraq, and then not to long after we start getting hit by terroist bombings in the U.S?


There are a couple of different ways this could go down, but I imagine the sneakiest thing the press can do is say its BECAUSE we were in Iraq that this is happening.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Hey Rot, what do you think is going to happen once we do pull out of Iraq, and then not to long after we start getting hit by terroist bombings in the U.S?

You are, unfortunately, correct. We've turned the place into a shit-hole and now we're stuck in this war. There really is no efficient withdrawal strategy. We're in it for the long-run.

With regard to the press, I personally do not think we are well informed enough about the War.

Civ Base wrote:Were you not one of the people that supported socialism, universal healthcare, Obama, ect?
If not, then never mind.

Universal Healthcare yes. Full scale socialism no.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Hey Rot, what do you think is going to happen once we do pull out of Iraq, and then not to long after we start getting hit by terroist bombings in the U.S?


There are a couple of different ways this could go down, but I imagine the sneakiest thing the press can do is say its BECAUSE we were in Iraq that this is happening.

I say we GTFO.

Yes, there will be casualties, but they won't be ours once we're gone.

Pie, you sicken me.