Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists
    #7837394 - 01/05/08 09:46 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=209467&s=&i=&t=US_'doomed'_if_creationist_president_elected:_scientists

A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution.

A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, or the theory that God created humans at a single point in time, while 53 percent believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution.

Around a quarter of Americans said they believe in both.

The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into school classrooms and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.

"If our country starts to behave irrationally whereas all the other countries coming up and chasing us (to take over as the world leaders in science and technology) behaving rationally, we are doomed," Omenn said.

The book targets teachers and the general public, and presents in simple terms the current scientific understanding of evolution and the importance of teaching it in the science classroom.

A day after his win in Iowa, Huckabee, toned down his anti-evolution stance, saying in a television interview that the question of whether to teach creationism in schools was "not an issue for our president."

Omenn and the other scientists and teachers on the panel at the book launch were more categorical, saying creationism has no place in science classrooms.

"Scientific inquiry is not about accepting on faith a statement or scriptural passage. It's about exploring nature, so there really is not any place in the science classroom for creationism or intelligent design creationism," said Omenn.

"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine," said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.

"We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," he said.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoaster
Baʿal
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #7838187 - 01/06/08 03:50 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

huckabee is a fucking moron who gets his strength from his lil imaginary friend jesus, what the fuck does a dead jew know anyhow
nothing
evolution is obviously real
just look at the fucking steps in between
they fit together so perfectly


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefantastical
Strangler!
Registered: 11/18/07
Posts: 89
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Coaster]
    #7838474 - 01/06/08 08:47 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Wow I can't believe 66% of Americans believe in Creationism, that is fucking ridiculous!
In this day and age, in one of the worlds richest and most educated nations, where almost everyone has access to a computer and the internet. Talk about taking things on faith, no wonder many believe the government and think the war is a good thing.
This survey must be really weighted towards really religious communities? the number cant be that high.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleelbisivni

Registered: 10/01/06
Posts: 2,839
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #7838710 - 01/06/08 10:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Blasphemy!!


--------------------
From dust you are made and to dust you shall return.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTHE KRAT BARON
one-eyed willie

Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 42,409
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: fantastical]
    #7838933 - 01/06/08 11:29 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fantastical said:
Wow I can't believe 66% of Americans believe in Creationism, that is fucking ridiculous!
In this day and age, in one of the worlds richest and most educated nations, where almost everyone has access to a computer and the internet.  Talk about taking things on faith, no wonder many believe the government and think the war is a good thing.
This survey must be really weighted towards really religious communities? the number cant be that high.




Many famous scientists believed in a god. :shrug:

Quote:

  1.  Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
      Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
 
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
      Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
 
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
      Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
 
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
      Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
 
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
      Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
 
6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
      In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
 
7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
      One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
 
8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
      Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
 
9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
      Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
 
10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
      Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

  11. Max Planck (1858-1947)
      Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

  12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
      Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."





--------------------
m00nshine is currently vacationing in Maui. Rumor has it he got rolled by drunken natives and is currently prostituting himself in order to pay for airfare back to the mainland but he's having trouble juggling a hairon addiction. He won't be back for a long while.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #7839035 - 01/06/08 12:06 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Isn't pretty much EVERY president we've ever had been a creationist? What's going to change if we elect another one?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnastomosisJihad
Hominid
Male


Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: elbisivni]
    #7839284 - 01/06/08 01:08 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I can think of plenty of good reasons for people to question Darwinian dogmatism.

Foremost is the origin of life problem. The standard evolutionary story posits that life emerged from a prebiotic soup of naturally formed organic molecules in some sunlit pound or lagoon in a reducing atmosphere billions of years ago, shortly after the oceans formed. This is extremely unlikely for several reasons.

- Life uses only left handed isomers of amino acids and right handed isomers of nucleic acids, but any known natural process produces these isomers in equal quantities. Even if enough of the correct amino acids were produced to build a self replicating protein, the supposed starting point of life, the odds of getting enough of the left handed isomers together in one spot without interference from the right handed isomers would be very long in a naturally racemic solution.


- In an aqueous solution polypeptide chains (proteins) tend to break apart, not come together.

- The same ultraviolet radiation and lightning strikes posited as an energy source for synthesizing amino acids tend to break down proteins, not synthesize them.

- All experiments that have successfully synthesized amino acids from gasses in a simulated reducing atmosphere have also produced other acids in far greater concentrations, including large quantities of formic acid, the active component in bee and ant venom, which is very effective at breaking down proteins.

- There is no evidence that Earth's atmosphere was ever reducing to begin with. The reducing atmosphere hypothesis is based solely on the ability of such an atmosphere to spontaneously generate organic molecules.

- Even using large organic molecules derived from living things and state of the art laboratories to simulate a wide spectrum of possible initial conditions, scientists have not been able to synthesize life from non-life.


From a purely chemical point of view, it would take a miracle for life to emerge from non-life in the shallow waters of early earth. This, however, is a miracle that Neo-Darwinists hold unquestioned while ridiculing creationists for their silly belief in miracles.

Secondly, there is the speciation problem. According to the Darwinian theory, new species form by a process of mutation and natural selection. Natural selection only ever removes genes, never adding them. The fittest organisms survive while the less fit are weeded out, thereby reducing the depth of the gene pool. There is plenty of room for variation within a genome, and new phenotypes can come about as a result of environmental pressures and natural selection, but a speciation event requires new genes not present in the current species' gene-pool.


The Neo-Darwinists claim that new genes arise through random mutations, providing the building blocks for new species. But, beneficial mutation events are very rare. A random beneficial mutation is analogous to improving a computer program by deleting a line of its code and replacing it with blind strokes on the keyboard. Such beneficial mutations can certainly happen, but not very often. Most mutations are deleterious, reducing the fitness of the organism. Given the spectacular diversity of life on earth, and the astronomical number of base pair combinations required to encode that life, it would be nothing short of a miracle for all those genes to come about though random beneficial mutations. There simply is not enough time since Earth formed for random beneficial mutations to account for the millions of species alive today. It would be a miracle if it actually happened that way. The time problem becomes especially acute when considering the short time frame in which all the major animal phyla emerged during the Cambrian explosion.

Speciation by mutation and natural selection is another dogma many biologists expect folks to accept without question, or else be labeled as ignorant and unscientific, but their story is no more scientific than the creation account given in Genesis; both are highly unlikely.


At this point the only rigorously honest position to take on the question of how all the different forms of life arose on the Earth is to say we really don't know. Dogmatic adherence to myth, be it creation myth or evolution myth, will not move us toward finding out how it really happened.

When Huckabee said he did not believe in evolution, he was probably referring the Neo-Darwinian myth, and if that is the case, his lack of acquiescence to an unscientific dogma is a good thing.


--------------------
come together

Edited by AnastomosisJihad (01/06/08 03:52 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7839510 - 01/06/08 01:46 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

The idea of evolution and of a being creating everything AREN'T mutually exclusive.


I mean.. everything that evolved had to come from somewhere in order to evolve FROM it, right?

And the big bang theory is bullshit. The big bang isn't the begining of everything. In order for a BIG BANG to happen there had to be something there first. No matter how many causes you can think of to explain how something came about, the fact that there *IS* a cause by definition means that somethere happened before. And to have something happen you have to have THINGS that existed before.

These are the questions I asked myself when I was doing acid a lot years ago which turned from FROM atheist to just being plain agnostic. I realized that there has to be SOMETHING out there. I don't think it's some all knowing humanoid with a white beard and robe but there's gotta be something. You can only explain so much through cause and effect but you'll never be able to answer where the beginning of EVERYTHING came from... ever. This is the one question I could NEVER answer which destroyed my idea that absolute atheism is the only way to go.


I think it's simple minded to call believers in creationism "stupid" or the idea "stupid" at all. The people who call creationists STUPID are people that can't even answer the question "where did the universe get created" themselves.

Everyone has their own theories and there isn't a SINGLE person on the planet who knows for sure. Thinking you're 100% right and there's no room for everyone and thinking that everyone else is stupid only proves that person's OWN stupidity and lack of wisdom.

I *DO* have a problem with creationists that push their shit on everyone else as if it's the ONLY possible explanation, though. It's such a widely accepted belief that I *DO* think it SHOULD be taught in schools... but only alongside other theaories as well. I also have a problem with atheists who push their beliefs and call everyone else stupid as well.

Edited by BrAiN (01/06/08 01:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
    #7839843 - 01/06/08 02:43 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

It should be taught in science class? That's the issue.


Also, I've rarely heard a physicist refer to the Big Bang as the beginning of everything - just the beginning of the expanding universe we live in (or on, I guess).


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleelbisivni

Registered: 10/01/06
Posts: 2,839
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7840162 - 01/06/08 03:38 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Interesting..

Thanks for getting a bit in depth :thumbup:


--------------------
From dust you are made and to dust you shall return.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Gijith]
    #7840234 - 01/06/08 04:04 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
It should be taught in science class? That's the issue.


Also, I've rarely heard a physicist refer to the Big Bang as the beginning of everything - just the beginning of the expanding universe we live in (or on, I guess).




Good question. As an alternative theory to a scientific theory maybe it should be b at least brought up during a science class at least. Evolution *is* technically just a theory. "Where it all came from" is about as philisophical of a question as it is scientific so I see no harm bringing up creationism in a science class if it's in this particular context. Just because you're bringing it up, doesn't mean you're shoving it down people's throats.

IMO, the more viewpoints presented on a subject, the better off people are. Knowledge is power :P

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
    #7840404 - 01/06/08 04:50 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

And evolution is taught as a theory, always. The same way the big bang and plate tectonics are taught as theories.

As long as creationism is mentioned as an alternative belief, as opposed to an alternative scientific theory, I guess it's alright. Still, as a science teacher, how is it my job to start delving into discussion of some almighty divine being who operates outside the confines of science?


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineallreadyused
The Liquor
Male


Registered: 09/10/07
Posts: 480
Loc: Trailer Park, Nova Scotia
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
    #7840559 - 01/06/08 05:31 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BrAiN said:
Isn't pretty much EVERY president we've ever had been a creationist? What's going to change if we elect another one?



Yes.
Nothing, other than me having to dislike some new guy.


--------------------
Everything I say is for entertainment.

Fuck the ASPCA

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger


Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 20 days
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #7840564 - 01/06/08 05:33 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Evolution vs Creationism is not what is going to doom the US. This is merely another issue to be distracted by while very disastrous people destroy our country from the inside.

Our foreign and economic policies will doom us, not whether a president believes some god waved a magic wand and the earth appeared. Lets stick to the real issues.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Gijith]
    #7840665 - 01/06/08 06:01 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Still, as a science teacher, how is it my job to start delving into discussion of some almighty divine being who operates outside the confines of science?




Simply because of the popularity. If some loney cult believes in something.. who cares.... but I think if such a HUGE number of people believe in it... (including jews/muslims/etc.. not limited to christianity) then something THAT significant should at least be MENTIONED.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSyle
Kenai Sigh
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #7840673 - 01/06/08 06:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Evolution vs Creationism is not what is going to doom the US. This is merely another issue to be distracted by while very disastrous people destroy our country from the inside.

Our foreign and economic policies will doom us, not whether a president believes some god waved a magic wand and the earth appeared. Lets stick to the real issues.




--------------------
https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Syle]
    #7840677 - 01/06/08 06:04 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

test.... browser freaking out

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 3 days
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
    #7840791 - 01/06/08 06:41 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BrAiN said:
Isn't pretty much EVERY president we've ever had been a creationist? What's going to change if we elect another one?




are any of the candidates running for president in 2008 not creationist?


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: lonestar2004]
    #7840892 - 01/06/08 07:15 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Maybe Hillary.. for she thinks she is God and all humans are spawns of her seed that owe her homage

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 3 days
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
    #7841016 - 01/06/08 07:42 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I just love watching the Bitch freefall! I would pay $$$$$$ to watch her concession/withdrawal speech on pay-per-view.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Dutch president elect assasinated??? nugsarenice 636 2 06/26/02 05:50 AM
by nugsarenice
* Who is your favorite President and why?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Innvertigo 6,292 75 02/09/02 02:14 PM
by Anonymous
* Want to become president? Take hostages! Phred 1,835 12 08/23/05 04:49 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Psychological effects of Presidency DoctorJ 914 9 05/19/04 03:28 PM
by d33p
* Don?t Think the Bush Campaign Stole This Election? Think Again ekomstop 5,494 10 11/06/04 08:23 AM
by ekomstop
* Hacking the presidency ekomstop 543 0 10/31/04 12:47 AM
by ekomstop
* Bad news for President Bush fft2 963 12 07/28/04 11:31 PM
by AhronZombi
* Suicide at ground zero over staged election results usefulidiot 369 2 11/08/04 09:17 PM
by usefulidiot

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,954 topic views. 4 members, 9 guests and 24 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.