Questions for Sarah Palin.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You take after this but the stupid crap Obama has choked out doent matter?

Like?


I doubt any are as stupid as saying that because you can see Russia from an island in your state you will be able to deal with Russia better. Any one can make a mistake in a speech but to be using this as a platform is idiotic.


It is turly sad that you can not see this or choose not to see it.

Perhaps you can show how working as a Senator from a midwestern state for 143 days gives Obama any insight into Russian matters?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Darius11 12]

I am not saying that’s a great indicator of experience either, however someone mentioning how many days they have worked in the government is more relevant then the distance of your state from a foreign country would you not agree?


I find it an insult to my intelligence when that argument is made. So I guess only people from the East Coast should be selected to deal with Europe because we are closer.
Sorry I feel dumber just for repeating that logic.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[gkc1436 3]

dear mrs palin,

Your a religious and your a hunter, does killing small animals and consuming their flesh bring you closer to god?
If something bleeds once a month and does not die, is that the work of the devil?

and finally......

if i as a teenager left a shitload of dead babies on sock's and paper towels.
how many hail marys do i have to say......
and will those dead babies rise and walk the earth in the endtime's?

america is soooo screwed....

[normiss 806]

just keep believing my friend...Jebus has been "coming" since that book was written...

[MegaGoliath11 0]

dude, which mail order religious zealot skool did you buy your degree in Retardology from....

[MegaGoliath11 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You take after this but the stupid crap Obama has choked out doent matter?

Like?


I doubt any are as stupid as saying that because you can see Russia from an island in your state you will be able to deal with Russia better. Any one can make a mistake in a speech but to be using this as a platform is idiotic.


It is turly sad that you can not see this or choose not to see it.

Perhaps you can show how working as a Senator from a midwestern state for 143 days gives Obama any insight into Russian matters?

Because he doesn't sound like a parrot. any how many times does a VP candidate need to use "hell bent" to describe things..

[gkc1436 3]

damit.....i knew it...
all the dead babies will walk the earth in the end times....

good thing i didn't fill out the forwarding address card....

[quade 4]

One warning. Watch the PAs.

And . . . if you're only going to post one line of text, there really isn't a need to quote quite that much. Not that it's explicitly against the rules or anything, but it just makes people tune out in general and they're really likely not to read the point you're trying to make.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

dude, which mail order religious zealot skool did you buy your degree in Retardology from....

Thanks for quoting the ENTIRE post just to get your silly (and meaningless) dig in.

. . =(_8^(1)

[gkc1436 3]

be the first one on your block
to have a walmart mom send your kid home in a box......

special in isle #3

[rushmc 23]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zP8uFPWxaA



All I know is living close to Russia does not equal having foreign policy experience, and its not just her it seems as if the McCaine camp actually want us to think that is a legitimate argument.

I find that simply sad, not only does it show the Mccain/Palin camps stupidity it also suggest that they believe there followers are just as dim. I have not yet seen one person who didn’t see or hear that argument and not laugh their asses off. It is simply a ridiculous assumption, and if it was said once ok but they are trying to make a legitimate case for it.

Tell me something sir.

Did Gov Bill Clinton have more to offer for the VP office than Palin.

I will give you this though, there are some assed being laughed off. Some out of being nervous, and others for glee.

Yes indeed
I have also decided that I will enjoy shots at smarts are going to barbs I will enjoy. Why? The more they come, the closer to loosing is the other side.

You know, Bush is/was stupid too
Says much for the other side seeing how they rarley if ever beat him

Yes, laughing indeed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

It is not science unless it is observable (we have yet to observe any evolution)

Try again.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[MegaGoliath11 0]

did you read his post? its garbage..

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It is not science unless it is observable (we have yet to observe any evolution)

Try again.

Blues,
Dave

Are you saying the fosil record that shows the ape to human like has been found? That degree of evolution? (I am just asking)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,006]

>There's still no link between humans and apes.

There are dozens of fossils that show gradual changes between our most recent common ancestor and cro-magnon man (basically modern humans.) A few include:

Ardipithicus - 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus - 4.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus - 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic - 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens - 200 thousand years to present

We have 99% of the same DNA that chimpanzees do. 18 of our 23 pairs of chromosomes are indistinguishable from those of the chimpanzee; the variation from human to human is about the same as the variation between human and chimpanzee.

Our molecular clocks indicate that we've been separate from chimpanzees and bonobos (our closest relatives) for about 5 million years.

Our skeletons, basic organ arrangement and neural wiring are nearly identical with that of a chimpanzee.

>There's definitely, not even close to a proven link between one-celled
>organisms and humans.

Again, we both use DNA. We both use the same basic cellular respiration chemistry. We use the same proteins for similar purposes, and we synthesize proteins the same way.

And again, there's a long lineage of organisms that range from one-celled animals to multi-cellular colony animals (volvox) to simple cooperative organisms (hydra) through simple worms (planaria) vertebrates (fish) and finally mammals. And in each one you see the same basic life proceses, and in each case you can see the path they took to evolve to their present day form.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

It is not science unless it is observable (we have yet to observe any evolution)

Try again.

Blues,
Dave

Wow, if that is all you have as a responces (no evidence or references, just a statement that I am supposed to believe with a blind faith) then I am convinced.....

[billvon 3,006]

>Actually the fatal leap of logic is to conclude that natural forces can
>accomplish, over millions of years, something that we cannot
>accomplish in any lab even with the help or aid of the scientist.

?? Huh? We can create organic molecules from non-organic ones. We can synthesize self-replicating RNA molecules, cell membranes and DNA. We have successfully synthesized DNA and had it work.

Scientists at Maryland are pretty close to putting this all together - creating their own artficial DNA (already done) creating an inert cell (already done) injecting the DNA and having it start running the cell. At that point we won't be God, and it won't change anything dramatic. It will just be another step in our understanding of how life works.

>It is not science unless it is observable (we have yet to observe any
>evolution) and testable (we have yet to test evolutionary processes in
>the lab).

Here are a list of new species that have evolved while we've been watching:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)
Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

>Lets also keep in mind that any test that could be conducted or have
>been attempted ultimately require the input or control of the scientist
>which would ultimately point to some being controlling the evolutionary
>process if evolution actually happened.

Most of the above happened without any help whatsoever.

>We've all heard it said, for example, that "given enough monkeys and
>enough typewriters, EVENTUALLY one of them is bound to type the
>sonnets of Shakespeare error free." But this outrageous myth violates
>the statistical foundation on which all modern science rests.

Let's take that example.

Were we to claim that humans simply sprang forth fully formed from mud, then the monkey equivalent would be a monkey recreating all the works of Shakespeare.

But evolution doesn't work like that. Evolution only requires one monkey, once, to write a coherent english sentence - say "Monkey wrote." (I'll let you calculate the odds on that, and what the odds of a million monkeys over a million years coming up with that sentence are.)

Then evolution takes over. Random mutation changes those letters at random, and natural selection becomes the editor, discarding the sentences that don't make any sense. Reproduction allows billions and billions of attempts. And soon you have sentences like "this man wrote" and "though Michael writes" and "monkeys writ large."

Fast forward five million years, and you have equivalents of Shakespeare, Homer, Faulkner, Blake and Stephen King.

>Lets also consider, if evolution is true then Hitler was on the right track
>with the haulcaust and his "super race".

Yes. And from a purely evolutionary standpoint, you should eat any of your children who are not genetically perfect. (Actually feed them to your other children.) Heck, from an epidemological point of view, you should kill and incinerate any child of yours that has a serious disease.

Both of which demonstrate the danger of trying to conflate science and morality.

>Survival of the fittest is the force behind evolution. It is put as simply
>as if you are more fit you live and reproduce and if you are less fit you
>will die off. If evolution is what got us from a primordial mud to today
>why would it not longer work in this fasion all of a sudden?

Because nowadays we protect the weaker members of society. We have "tricked" natural selection into allowing nearly everyone to live.

>If the slow dogs are not removed from the equation they won't get any
>faster. (this is also a reason the example is not in good support of
>evolution as it required an intelligence and not "natural forces" in the
>process.)

Nope. Slow horses get eaten by sabre tooth tigers - and thus the slower horses die. Which is why, nowadays, they're pretty fast. Didn't need any intelligence for that to happen - just hungry tigers.

>So if it "refines" the gene pool and furthers evolution by removing the
>less fit dog why would this not apply to humans?

It would - if you had a single definition of "fit." That's the problem. Hitler would have killed off Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, but I would consider them more "fit" in many ways than most.

>Lets also consider that morals are ultimately abstract ideas so how can
>they be a product of evolution.

Compassion helps a society survive, and thus helps propgate the genetic code of that society. Love of family is a huge help in reproduction and caring for children. Anger helps in defending one's home from others who would take food that their children need. Sorrow helps one learn from one's mistakes.

Take all those basic emotions/drives, mix in some intelligence, and pretty soon you have morals and eventually laws that codify them.

>If the idea or morals is a result of evolution then we have no free will
>as we are only subject to our genetics.

The two have nothing at all to do with each other. Our basic drives are set by our biology; what we do with them is up to us.

>If evolution has resulted in the idea of morals and we are only subject
>to them then why so many different ideas of what is actually right and
>wrong?

Because we all interpret and channel our basic drives a bit differently. The rapist and the hardworking twice-divorced father of five have many of the same basic drives, but have channelled them very differently.

>If its just that the gene pool hasn't been refined yet then why not use
>our intelligence to clean up the gene pool like we do with dogs?

You could - if closeness to a genetic ideal is a good thing. I don't think it is, nor do most people.

We do this to some extent, of course. We often prevent profoundly disabled people from breeding, and many people with significant genetic defects choose not to have their own children. But in general, people don't like the idea of forced sterilization or execution for purposes of maintaining a certain gene pool.

>Even if this results in a world war wouldn't that be a good thing as the
>most fit will prevail and evolution has once again done its job?

Again, "most fit" is the problem here. If it's worldwide domination, then the "most fit" people are the people smart enough to make the best weapons and warlike enough to use them - even if they have lots of diabetics.

>However, if evolution is true the everything else follows.

Not even close. You are confusing morality with evolution, which is as silly as confusing physics or chemistry with morality.

[airdvr 210]

I've always felt the more complex the explanation the more BS involved

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is not science unless it is observable (we have yet to observe any evolution)

Try again.

Blues,
Dave

Wow, if that is all you have as a responces (no evidence or references, just a statement that I am supposed to believe with a blind faith) then I am convinced.....

If you don't believe we've observed any sort of evolution, than nothing I can say will change your mind. Have you heard of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)? Do you think it's existed since the Garden of Eden? Do you have a pat explanation for the human appendix? Do you think we've never needed it? Have you ever noticed that domesticated pigs are a bit different looking than their wild cousins?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

If you don't believe we've observed any sort of evolution, than nothing I can say will change your mind. Have you heard of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)? Do you think it's existed since the Garden of Eden? Do you have a pat explanation for the human appendix? Do you think we've never needed it? Have you ever noticed that domesticated pigs are a bit different looking than their wild cousins?

Blues,
Dave

The pig is still a pig. (lipstick or not ) The domesticated pig even has different DNA as compared to a wild boar. It's still a pig. Evolution, and more specifically natural selection, happen. It's been observed. Taking that to the extreme and assuming the pig will evolve wings and fly right the fuck out of the slaughter house is different.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 3,006]

> Taking that to the extreme and assuming the pig will evolve wings
>and fly right the fuck out of the slaughter house is different.

You are correct, and no one has proposed that that will happen, ever.

However, give a pig 100 million years and an environment/ecologic niche where flying is essential, and you will indeed see them develop wings - just as birds, squirrels, fish and bats have.

[normiss 806]

Anyway to get us humans on this evolutionary path to wings????
PLEASE????

[shropshire 0]

Hey, we're on it... but if you look over your shoulder (a few million years) we took the wrong path - sorry bud you missed your chance

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Hey, we're on it... but if you look over your shoulder (a few million years) we took the wrong path - sorry bud you missed your chance

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 806]

fucking wingsuiters...