So ... Obama vs Mitt Mormoney

I would too, actually.

worth a bump....or two

Anything interesting she said?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eec_1224891825

She is retarded.

Our very own young William is also a creationist if I remember correctly. What do we all think of him I wonder?

For the record, I like him - the fact that he is deeply religious does not blind me from seeing a decent person.

But of course, it'd be silly to generalize. We are talking specifically here and Palin, my GOD she is retarded or not! Her actions, her background, her sayings, every fudging thing that has to do with her and comes from her is utterly retarded it almost aches.

She should stay out of politics and stick to what she's good at which is Moose worrying!

btw, think about how many individual politicians around the globe fit to that comment. Sad.

Unfortunately a lot of people agree with her, at least with the non-science, creationist bullshit. It's depressing that humans can be so dumb when we can be so intelligent.

I'd agree that "dumb" is an unfortunate word to use. I've debated with many highly intelligent creationists over the years. What they share are some very strong biases and frequently huge holes in their scientific knowledge, but they can in fact be very intelligent.

That said, there are some unfortunate tendancies among the religious right, an example being the anti-science, pro-ignorance stances that Palin appealed to in the above link, which will be very harmful to society if carried out politically. Notice in her statement that she was talking about how to prioritize funding, and she followed that up by disparaging essential research because "they really don't make a whole lotta sense", as she said. If she'd made a thoughtless comment alone, that could have been understandable and forgivable, but when she actually states that she intends to let her prejudiced anti-science stance dictate her policies, that should be a concern to anyone who doesn't share her ignorance.

The greatest breakthroughs of genetics were done using fruit flies. Fruit fly experiments affirmed the Chromosome Theory of Inheritence, and extensive cross-breeding experiments was used to map the genes and reveal other properties of the then mysterious hereditary molecules. These model organisms are still widely used today, and they continue to reveal new knowledge about development, mechanisms of evolution, gene expression, the effect of mutations etc.

The fields of genetics is one of the great breakthroughs of the 20th century, and many people would be amazed to realize the impact it has had on our societies, especially relating agriculture, medicine and in the end our economies. These advances impact all our lifes, from Joe the plumber to Flo the waitress, whether Joe or Flo realize it or not.

Peter

word

At least science doesn't lay down its discoveries as dogma's, but tries to explain them by reason.


Anyway, Elfman speaks out about this witch, his Greatest Fear
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-elf … 39246.html

And the campaign he set up can be found here:
www.ourgreatestfear.org

Real Halloween stuff!

Forensic science has the same problem. By carefully examining the evidence left behind one can establish with a high degree of certainty what went on in the past. Certain theories have so much supporting evidence converging from various fields that they can be considered proven beyond reasonable doubt, and you'd essentially be denying a piece of reality by dismissing them. Of course nothing in life can ever be considered proven 100%. Perhaps the computer screen you're currently looking at doesn't even exist, and life might all be a dream or we might all be living in the Matrix. Or perhaps a mischievous gnome have planted all the evidence for common ancestry in the ground, our anatomy and DNA to play games with us. But until the day conflicting evidence is discovered, you might as well act as if your computer screen is standing in front of you, and we might as well act as if the evidence found for common ancestry reflects reality.




You're showing a serious misunderstanding that creationists frequently adhere to, by saying that evolution has something to do with the creation of the world. It doesn't. What's commonly referred to as The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory concerning the diversification of species. It doesn't explain the formation of the universe, or the formation of the planet, or the appearance of life. It explains how life has evolved from a common ancestor and continues to evolve. All scientific theories have strictly defined areas that they seek to explain, they don't and can't explain anything outside of those areas. Of course one can hear the word "evolution" used in other contexts, but that's simply because the word means "change over time". No doubt this lack of understanding of the words have confused many professional creationists (Hovind being one example).




Why not simply teach children about the best and up-to-date theories scientists have to offer? Why choose to exclude certain theories?




Indeed. What's even funnier is how ignorance and certainty sometimes go hand in hand. When laymen who've encountered some propaganda on the internet or heard a passionate speech at their church suddenly convince themselves that they know more about a subject than people who've dedicated most of their lifes to that subject, that is when it becomes truly hilarious.

Peter