# Changed since election



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

*Have you become more liberal or more conservative since the election*​
I have become more liberal313.64%I have become more conservative731.82%My feelings have not changed1254.55%


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

How have your feelings changed since the re-election of president Bush?


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Yes my feelings have changed, I like President Bush even more. He stands up for what is right, and does what he says he is going to do. Great President.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

yeah....

what he said.

pointer


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I agree with the last 2 posts.   

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Often the man does things that demonstrate he has a conscience. A knowledge of right and wrong is something many politicians are missing these days, and my hats off to Bush. He doesn't do what the polls indicate would be the best political maneuver, he more often does what a decent person should.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Major Ditto.

For some reason, Guys named George mae GREAT presidents.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is my opinion that Bush does the wrong thing for the people that he knows is right for big buisness, and then tries to cover it up with poor methods like the switching of the war on terror into the war in Iraq and then the war in Iraq to the war of Iraqi freedom and the tying of Osama into Saddam (hence why more than half the country thought Saddam was behind 9/11, liberal media my eye). My feelings towards how this neo-con administration handles matters is disgusting, and I dislike it yet more than before. I have however considered the base republican principles, and agree with a few of them, unfortunately they are no longer executed as they once were. I suppose that evens things out for me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Mr Trooper

I think the problem some people have with Bush is that he does have a conscience. Of course that is the problem they have with you and I also. It started with society pushing self esteem above all else. Not many parents were willing to tell their kids when they were acting like jerks. Now some of those gown children act like jerks, but don't know it. No social skills what so ever. We carried it to far, and now were supposed to tell them how wonderful they are no matter what they do. Even when little Johnny wants to marry little Bobby.

They also can't grow up, and see the government as momma. The government is supposed to take care of them, because they are afraid they can't take care of themselves. Everyone owes them, but surprisingly they owe society nothing. Most of the complaining about Iraq is simply a smokescreen. Most of them could care less if all the Iraqi's die, what they are concerned about is their government freebee and their afraid Bush might jerk the mammary gland away.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> It is my opinion that Bush does the wrong thing for the people that he knows is right for big buisness, and then tries to cover it up with poor methods like the switching of the war on terror into the war in Iraq and then the war in Iraq to the war of Iraqi freedom and the tying of Osama into Saddam (hence why more than half the country thought Saddam was behind 9/11, liberal media my eye). My feelings towards how this neo-con administration handles matters is disgusting, and I dislike it yet more than before. I have however considered the base republican principles, and agree with a few of them, unfortunately they are no longer executed as they once were. I suppose that evens things out for me.


I guess you and I live in two different countries. Maybe you're in that one wild man Dean yells about all the time. Not one thing mentioned in the quote above is fact where I'm at. Iraq is part of the war on terror. Freedom in Iraq is a plus for the USA in the fight on terror. Never once did the President ever claim that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Osama has been proven to have had ties with Saddam. Yep, there must be two Americas after all. Course we all could just put our heads in the sand like we did during the Clinton years and trust the bad guys to leave us alone......not.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Not one thing mentioned in the quote above is fact where I'm at. Iraq is part of the war on terror. Freedom in Iraq is a plus for the USA in the fight on terror. Never once did the President ever claim that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Osama has been proven to have had ties with Saddam. Yep, there must be two Americas after all.


Iraq had hardly any if any ties with terrorism of any sort before the invasion. Saddam ran a fairly clean country in that respect. Freedom anywhere in the world is a plus for the war on terror. I didn't say that the president tied Saddam to 9/11 himself, I said that it was the fault of the media (television mainly) which is where most people get their information. More than half the country believed that he had something to do with 9/11, I doubt that is a coincidence, and I assure you that MSNBC didn't give them that idea.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... id=2030480

Saddam and Osama had no ties (a phone call is not a tie), look elsewhere than Fox news for your fair and balanced reporting.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

The tragedy of it all is that over 40% of Americans beleive that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but than over 42% also think that evolution is a myth.This is what is called the dumbing of America. You also have a group that think Rush Goebels Limburger knows more then the worlds scientific community.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

adokken said:


> The tragedy of it all is that over 40% of Americans beleive that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but than over 42% also think that evolution is a myth.This is what is called the dumbing of America. You also have a group that think Rush Goebels Limburger knows more then the worlds scientific community.


Your right. Evolution is NOT myth. its an un-provable, un-testable THEORY that has never been observed in anything ( and as such is outside the realm of Science ), yet is often PRESENTED as Fact. :thumb:

And does anyone here actualy WATCH FOX news? I know i dont, and i dont know anyone who does. Regardless of political affiliation, FOX is just the worst station as far as programing and format, and those problems alone are enough not to watch them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Your right. Evolution is NOT myth. its an un-provable, un-testable THEORY that has never been observed in anything ( and as such is outside the realm of Science ), yet is often PRESENTED as Fact.


That is redundant.



> I know i dont, and i dont know anyone who does. Regardless of political affiliation, FOX is just the worst station as far as programing and format, and those problems alone are enough not to watch them.


I was told by your esteemed colleagues that they are large and growing larger and more popular by the day.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

The fundamentalists that are dictating that science should not be taught in our schools are the beginning of the New American Taliban, We should of learned from the dark ages that is one knows any history and what fundamentalist 's did to the population of Afaganistan. diffrent religion but the same mentality.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Adokken

You exhibit disrespect for science and prejudice of religion. In that I mean you think people who don't believe that evolution is fact are backwards, and blame that on religion. Good scientists don't teach evolution as fact, because the fact is it is scientific theory. It is destructive to open thinking to teach it as fact because when you think you have the answer you stop searching for answers. That is not how science moves forward, that's how it stagnates. Your comment comes from you self image of sophistication, and a prejudiced idea that religious people are incapable of cognizant scientific thought. This is the arrogance that people voted against in the last election.


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

> Your right. Evolution is NOT myth. its an un-provable, un-testable THEORY that has never been observed in anything ( and as such is outside the realm of Science ), yet is often PRESENTED as Fact.


There are more facts to support evolution than to support creationism. Look at fossil records and other scientific findings, especially by Darwin. I don't understand how you can say that evolution is b.s. with so many facts to prove it. What evidence does creationism have to back it? None that I am aware of. It makes much more sense to teach the method with the most evidence to back it. Also, if you teach creationism by the Christian standards, you would also have to teach the theories of all other religions. As far as I know, all religions don't have any hard evidence to back them up, and who's to say that any one particular religion is right?


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

If evolution does exist, it is all part of God's plan. And as far as people trying to discredit religion, or say that God doesn't exist, this isn't anything new. Jesus performed miracles and people still mocked him and called him a fake. Eventually they crucified him. I would encourage all of you to watch the Passion, and if you have already, watch it again. Great show. Having Religion takes faith, but if you truely want to learn about religion especially Christianity study the early Church. There is a distinct difference between Christianity, and Islam, or any other major religion. I grew up thinking religion was a joke, and that a bunch of sheep herders sat around a fire and made the Bible up. Through Gods grace I eventually came to a point in my life where I felt compelled to learn as much as possible about Christianity. I have only scratched the surface, but I can tell you my life is so much better now, than when I thought religion was a joke. It amazing how Christianity's biggest critics are people who haven't spent any time reading the Bible, studying early Church history, and simply have no clue what the Church stands for. Like a famous Theologian once said, " If everyone knew what true Christianity stood for, there wouldn't be 10 people in this world against it." People have to realize that there is a strong media bias against Christianity. There is a strong effort to completely take Christanity out of every aspect of our lives. Christianity is what this country was found on, and is the fiber that holds this country together. Take a quick look around the world and tell me where all the wars are being fought. They are being fought in countries that are predominantly Islamic. Be it in the middle east with the Jews against the Islamic fundamentalist. Be it in Africa where Muslim are trying the wipe Christianity off the continent. Prime example is Etheopia. The muslin north is trying to starve the Christian south out of existance. Or be it in S.E. Asia where radical Islamist are taking over vast areas of the Phillipines by force. Name me one country that is predominantly Christian that is having a civil war? There isn't one. Right there is a hung difference between Christianity and other world Religions.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

mr.trooper said:


> Your right. Evolution is NOT myth. its an un-provable, un-testable THEORY that has never been observed in anything ( and as such is outside the realm of Science ), yet is often PRESENTED as Fact. :thumb:


Examples close to home: ever wonder why the herbicides farmers used to spray 5 years ago don't work anymore? The same reason that the soybean varieties "resistant" to white mold four years ago are no longer planted.

Organisms/populations have the natural ability to change due to pressure. When you select against a population, for example, by spraying a fungicide on crop of wheat, there are bound to be individuals that for whatever reason, don't die. These individuals then can procreate and we have a new population that is now "resistant" to the fungicide... for the time being. They are now genetically "different" and are more "fit" than they previously were.... and the cycle continues as long as we continue to plant crops. 
This is evolution on a small scale; but testable, provable, and has everything to do with science. 
Evololution is fundamental to almost every science discipline. I think each Christian scientist at some point has to come to terms with how to interpret the Bible, at least the parts that "appear" to be contradictory to science. This way they can understand both what they know to be true scientifically with their Christian faith.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass

Yes, and that is why we are now discouraged from taking to many antibiotics. It is also why you should finish the antibiotics your doctor gives you so that you kill the target organisms and do not allow the adaptable ones to survive. Of course we have an ongoing evolution. Even the car has evolved since the first were on the roads. I think what people are saying here is that the extent of evolution that Darwin put forward may or may not be true.

There are no facts as duckinator stated. Evolution is theory period, look in the science books. Currently there is no way to prove either one. When you state it as fact you prove you are not a scientist. My statement that it is detrimental to science still holds. If you think you have the answer you don't look any further, and we need to keep looking. If we were to simply except your premise then we would all still think the world was flat. We need to keep following new leads while at the same time building on current theories, because in some cases theories are all we have.

One of the cliché's that gives me a pain is "think outside the box". If you are willing to believe something as fact that isn't then you have voluntarily committed yourself to the box. I'm not saying that there are not evolutionary processes at work as we converse, what I am saying is, it is narrow minded to state it as fact. It is no less narrow minded than the creationism that you condemn. The simple current fact is that neither can be proven.

Compare it to the cure all vegetable fat for cholesterol. Now science finds that hydrogenated vegetable oil is worse for you than butter. We are in a constant learning process, those who think they know are not more intelligent, they are just more arrogant.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman,

I'll make myself more clear, its not _if_ evolution took place, its _how_ it took place... What you are questioning is the theory whether humans evoloved from primates.... or that primates evolved from simpler yet species. Fine. I'm not going to argue for or against. There are many "theories" our there. The fact that we can carbon date fossil records, for example, goes back to my original reason for posting a response. That is, each Christian needs to come to terms with science and its "theories" and the Bible. Carbon dating and the Biblical time-line are at odds with each other if the Bible is taken word-for-word, is it not?

What I'm saying is that evolution as a principle itself is fundamental to almost every scientific discipline. Of COURSE science is on-going discipline? Whats your point?

Where did I condemn creationism?


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

It is a *fact* that the genetic code of humans is over 99% the same as that of a chimpanzee. It is a *fact* that viruses such as HIV are always mutating, and therefore adapting, evolving. That is why we have yet to develop an AIDS vaccination.

Plainsman, you said yourself, "Of course we have an ongoing evolution" therefore condemning your own argument.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Duckinator

I didn't contradict myself at all. I did say we have evolution continuing as we converse, but my argument is the magnitude of evolution with human development. I have science and the Bible in perspective in my mind, but everyone has to do that one on their own. Sometimes science and the Bible complement each other. For example a few thousand years ago (don't have time line) there was a great convergence in the human gene code. It was more diverse, then converged about the same time the Bible talks about the great flood. Coincidence perhaps, but spooky.

It's not a surprise that humans and chimps have close genetics. All plants and animals have close genetic code within genera. Try tracking DNA in _Stipa spartea_, _Stipa viridula_, and _Stipa comata_. The _Agropyrons_ will give you an even bigger headache. The difference in species _Tropisternus lateralus _and subspecies _Tropisternus lateralus nimbatus_ is nearly indescript.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Seabass,
You are right about pest adapting to chemicals. In the summers I am an Ag Pilot, or better known as a "Crop Duster." Pest are constantly adapting and this is why Chemical companies are continueing to make new and different chemicals. But the big push now is bio-genetics. Monsanto was a chemical company that realize early on that this was the wave of the future for stopping pest. Now almost every farmer plants Bt Corn, and roundup ready soybeans. These seeds have been biogentically altered where a gene has been breed into the seed to kill cornborer in corn, and allow soybeans to be sprayed with Roundup without killing the plant, but will kill the weeds. All this is great, but I can't help but wonder when cornborer will adapt to this and become resistant to BT corn. And they are all ready have problems with weeds becoming resistant to Roundup. Thus the cycle goes on.
As far as evolutions stance vs creationism, the Church has always said that evolution is difficult to prove, but if it did and continues to happen, it is part of Gods plan. Different demoninations of Christianity might have a different take or stance on that. A person has to be careful not to interpret the Bible literally. You can read one passage that will seem to contradict another part of the Bible. Critics of Christainity love to point this out. The Bible was ment to be read and understood in its entirety, not just a verse here and there. Also there is no place in the Bible that says the Bible is the only source of information, in fact it says just the opposite. Several passages talk about using the Bible plus tradition. This only makes since, I don't think there was a man following Jesus with a video camera, or a lap top computer typing everything down.  But rather much was passed on by oral tradition and a small amount was written down, which is the Bible.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

The main stream Protestant and Catholic Churches are not regecting science, its the fundamentalist extremist ones that are doing it. One of the cruelest periods in our history was during complete religious control of the populace, just go and study the Spanish Inquisition, There was one village in Germany where all the females were eventually burnt at the stake due to this religiuos ferver. Intolerance is our greatest enemy and the Christian religian preaches tolerance, so why should some of these so called extremist fundamentalist religions teach us to hate gays and people of other faiths.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> It's not a surprise that humans and chimps have close genetics. All plants and animals have close genetic code within genera.


Your statement is true but chimpanzees are not within our genus; they are _Pan troglodytes_.

What specificaly do you mean by "tracking DNA?"

"For example a few thousand years ago (don't have time line) there was a great convergence in the human gene code." I don't understand. What do you mean?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes I know we are not the same genera, but we are close. The closer you get in taxonomic resolution the closer the genetic code becomes. I used genera because it is the next closest step to species.

Here is what I mean. The genetic diversity was greater in humans four thousand years ago than it is today (may not be quite right but close). Think of it as a restriction (convergence). Something in our past destroyed much of our genetic diversity. Lets assume for a moment, if you will indulge me, that the world begin with Adam and Eve. From the beginning we evolved (adapted, took on new genetic codes) (blond hair, black hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes etc). This continued for thousands of years until there was great diversity in our genetics. Then sometime a few thousand years ago a great portion of that genetic diversity disappeared. Only a global disaster could have caused it. Flood, great meteor, disease, or some other thing must have destroyed most of the _**** sapiens _on the planet.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Storm,

Although I'm not in the chemical end, I'm in the plant science industry myself and am familiar with what you are explaining. Furthermore, the pesticides that these plants produce can be quite non-descript I believe. (i.e. the monarch butterfly scare) Another worry is that corn is an out-crossing grass species. Pollen can travel miles and miles and, potentially and theoretically, pollinate other native grass species giving them these insecticide-producing genes. Scary. I"ve heard that in some parts of Brazil, where soybeans were first domesticated, you can't even fine the wild relatives to the soybean that don't possess transgenic genes.

Not trying to start another debate here but this is a classic example of why govt. funding to public universities is good. Monsanta or ADM corp. couldn't care less what they do to the environment and aren't going to spend a dime on this type of research. Public universities DO this type of research and I believe help keep these companies in check. I think its very important.

_As far as evolutions stance vs creationism, the Church has always said that evolution is difficult to prove, but if it did and continues to happen, it is part of Gods plan._

Thats basically what I was trying to say.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass

I agree with you totally on research at Universities or any government facility. When research is done in the private sector it is normally done for profit. When it is done at an institution it is done to further learning with no bias to profit. Good Point.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> The closer you get in taxonomic resolution the closer the genetic code becomes. I used genera because it is the next closest step to species.


Actually its the opposite; high DNA homology between two species puts them in a close taxonomic framework, not the other way around. Only recently (last 10 or so years) have we had the capabilities to use DNA as a taxonomic tool and re-distribution of genera is on-going as more and more of this type of research continues.



> The genetic diversity was greater in humans four thousand years ago than it is today (may not be quite right but close).


I won't say you are wrong but where does one find this information you are talking about? Just using logic, I don't understand how we can have less diversity today than 4000 years ago. I mean, in that time period the world population was lets say (i'm totally guessing here) 1/20 of what it is today. Furthermore people weren't living in huge cities but were living in tribes and villages. I can only imagine that people bred within their village for the most part. Now today its nothing for us to marry people across the country or across the globe. America itself is a hodge-podge of ethnicities... I don't get it. I'd like to see the publication(s) where they state this.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass wrote:


> Actually its the opposite; high DNA homology between two species puts them in a close taxonomic framework, not the other way around.


I don't think I understand what you are saying when you say the opposite is true. Are not species within a genera more closely related than species from different genera? I know in the last couple years the generic research has been driving me nuts. In the past plants were organized by morphological characteristics. Now I can't keep up, _Agropyron smithii _is now _Pascopynum_ etc.

I'll see if I can find it on the internet. I watched it on the learning channel. They said the only explanation was that a great portion of the human race must have been eradicated a few thousand years ago.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I don't think I understand what you are saying when you say the opposite is true. Are not species within a genera more closely related than species from different genera? I know in the last couple years the generic research has been driving me nuts. In the past plants were organized by morphological characteristics. Now I can't keep up, _Agropyron smithii _is now _Pascopynum_ etc.


Yes, you are correct.

Yeah, I know what you mean. In fungi for example there is huge redstribution in species due to genetic characteristics. Agropyron is more like a Pascopynum because they have huge stretches of DNA which are the same... more so than they have with the members that they earlier shared a genus with.



> I'll see if I can find it on the internet. I watched it on the learning channel. They said the only explanation was that a great portion of the human race must have been eradicated a few thousand years ago


I'm curious to what you find.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Monsanto has opened a pandora's box. I agree Public University's should do research to keep companies like Monsanto in check. They now have a huge monopoly on the chemical and seed sales and they are in it for the money.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

#1) you guys dont seem to understand some basic things. building up resistances is part of nature and is needed to sustain life...how is this evidence of evolution?

#2) The fact that you dont know of any evidence is not proof it doesnt exist. unfortunately there isnt space here to list all of the evidence.

#3) have you actualy READ Darwins books? Do so. he himslef lists numerous reasons why evolution isnt plausible.

Whatever. i dont need to argue with you. im not going to be the one in need of an air-conditioner.

:beer:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

(uncomfortable silence)
...riiiighhhttt.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You exhibit disrespect for science and prejudice of religion. In that I mean you think people who don't believe that evolution is fact are backwards, and blame that on religion. Good scientists don't teach evolution as fact, because the fact is it is scientific theory. It is destructive to open thinking to teach it as fact because when you think you have the answer you stop searching for answers. That is not how science moves forward, that's how it stagnates. Your comment comes from you self image of sophistication, and a prejudiced idea that religious people are incapable of cognizant scientific thought. This is the arrogance that people voted against in the last election.


That is exactly what is done today. Good theory is taught as fact. I know I was taught that the theory of relativity is the truth, I would bet that you were too. It is not fact, it just makes logical sense and has information to back it up. The same goes for evolution, makes logical sense and there is fossils to back it up as well as living creatures. It is because of the radical religous that evolution cannot be taught in some schools. These extremists are the true arrogant, believing that their religon alone denies the theory of evolution entirely, such as yourself.



> If evolution does exist, it is all part of God's plan. And as far as people trying to discredit religion, or say that God doesn't exist, this isn't anything new.


Bingo, thus to cover all elements evolution should be taught as theory with information to back it up.



> I would encourage all of you to watch the Passion, and if you have already, watch it again.


:eyeroll:



> If everyone knew what true Christianity stood for, there wouldn't be 10 people in this world against it


Of course, most religons in their base form are good and just. It takes a group of radicals to start battle in its name to make it bad.



> People have to realize that there is a strong media bias against Christianity.


That is a HUGE load of it. Most of the reporters and owners of the major media organizations are Christian.



> There is a strong effort to completely take Christanity out of every aspect of our lives. Christianity is what this country was found on, and is the fiber that holds this country together.


It is not what the country is founded on, and it shouldn't be in any part of the public's life. Religon is a personal thing, and should be practiced as such.



> Be it in Africa where Muslim are trying the wipe Christianity off the continent.


Or where the Christians are trying to cleanse the Muslims via genocide, but you know.



> There are no facts as duckinator stated. Evolution is theory period, look in the science books. Currently there is no way to prove either one. When you state it as fact you prove you are not a scientist. My statement that it is detrimental to science still holds.


Find me one credible scholar or professor who has stated that evolution is the only truth.



> Yes I know we are not the same genera, but we are close.


I've heard of grasping at straws, but jeeze.



> Lets assume for a moment, if you will indulge me, that the world begin with Adam and Eve.


Only thing that ever bothered me about that is that it assumes that all people were made from incest, and we know the kind of problems that it causes.



> #1) you guys dont seem to understand some basic things. building up resistances is part of nature and is needed to sustain life...how is this evidence of evolution?


Because if our bodies didn't evolve to help combat the problem we would all die of the common cold.



> #2) The fact that you dont know of any evidence is not proof it doesnt exist. unfortunately there isnt space here to list all of the evidence.


Shouldn't be too hard to pick out a few favorites then, I want to hear some.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Trooper

I have said I don't buy into the magnitude of evolution that some do. Perhaps it is the word itself that makes people uncomfortable. When a bacteria mutates rendering it resistant to medicine of course it is a natural thing. To say it mutated or evolved is simply terminology. To say it evolved doesn't mean it changed from a bacteria to a bird. It means it changed as your children or mine if the have a bad cold and develop a resistance to the virus that caused it. I'm with Storm on this one. If we evolved to any extent at all then it fits in with Gods plan. So hold the thought on that air conditioner I don't plan on needing it. I'm not disagreeing with you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass

You scared me for a minute, I thought perhaps some great changes had taken place since I last went to school. To date myself, I went on field trips with O. A. Stevens. Yup.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT are your trying to mess up another serious discussion with your childish jibber. Look below. Either you have a serious problem with the english language or you simply want to argue. If you want to play with the big boys grow up.

Plainsman Wrote:


> I did say we have evolution continuing as we converse,


Militant Tiger wrote:



> These extremists are the true arrogant, believing that their religon alone denies the theory of evolution entirely, such as yourself.





> Only thing that ever bothered me about that is that it assumes that all people were made from incest, and we know the kind of problems that it causes.


Sure we know what kind of problem incest causes I argue with those kind of people all the time. :lol:


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Tiger where are Christians trying to wipe Muslims out through genocide? And like I said about the Bible you can't take the Bible literally. Genesis is one book that Theologians regard as a parable. Christianity is based on loving thy neighbor as you would love yourself and turning the other cheeck. Most of Islam is passive, except for the part in the Koran that talks about Holy Jehad. And every one who isn't a Muslim should be killed. This is the part of Islam that the media doesn't want to talk about. This is why the the Islamic Fundamentalist are trying to wipe Israel of the map. And this is why radicals like Osama will get radical Muslims to fly jets into buildings. Now tell me what part of Christianity or in the Bible it talks about killing all non Christians? That is the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity and this is why Islam is NOT the fullness of the truth. What all knowing, all loving, God is going to want you to kill people who don't believe the same as you do? There isn't one. And your idea that all network stations are owned by Christian is funny. Have you watched any t.v. lately. There is nothing on t.v. that I can let my 6 year old daughter watch. A prime example of the media being anti Christisan or religion is the Pro-Life march held every January in Washinghton D.C. How many t.v. stations carried this on their news? Not one. Fox news may of breifly mentioned it and there were leterally thousands of people marching. Now the pro-abortion movement will have a march with 300 people and every t.v. station will cover it. Total hypocracy. And Tiger did you watch the Passion? I noticed that you had a blue face beside your comment. What is this about. The Passion was a smashing hit, even after the media totally tried to derail it and say that it was anti-semetic. I think it was funny, that totally back fired and only made it more popular. And by the way where was all this anti-sematic behavior that was going to happen after the movie aired. There was none, because it wasn't anti-semetic.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Religon will be the death of the world. I think the ten commandments are things that ALL people should live by and tell the Pope, Mulla, Preist and all of the others to KISS OFF.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass

I typed human genetic convergence into dogpile search and there is a ton of information. So much that I am including only a couple sites here.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi ... ookieSet=1

Citation
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 19: 187-210 (Volume publication date October 1990) 
(doi:10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001155)
Advances in Evolutionary Culture Theory

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 074159.htm

Ancient 'Volcanic Winter' Tied To Rapid Genetic Divergence In Humans

"Geneticists long have argued that the human species passed through a recent bottleneck, but they never offered explanations for the population crash or recovery, nor considered its consequences for modern human diversification."
"Those six years of "relentless volcanic winter" led to substantial lowering of global temperatures, drought and famine, and to a global human population crash during which, if geneticists are correct, no more than 15,000 to 40,000 people survived."

There is argument to the time line and extent of the population crash. Some believe it was as long ago as 70,000 years, others think it is much more recent, and more devastating.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Tiger where are Christians trying to wipe Muslims out through genocide?


Ever heard of Bosnia?



> MT are your trying to mess up another serious discussion with your childish jibber. Look below. Either you have a serious problem with the english language or you simply want to argue. If you want to play with the big boys grow up.


Your party has been built in recent years on baseless insults such as this, good work.



> Sure we know what kind of problem incest causes I argue with those kind of people all the time.


Considering your location and political views thats pretty funny.



> And like I said about the Bible you can't take the Bible literally.


Just like the constitution, now if we could get one group that wouldn't take either of them literally we would be better off.



> And every one who isn't a Muslim should be killed.


I would be much obliged if you could find that passage.



> This is why the the Islamic Fundamentalist are trying to wipe Israel of the map.


Not really, its because they see them as agressors who forcefully pushed the people off their land.



> And your idea that all network stations are owned by Christian is funny. Have you watched any t.v. lately. There is nothing on t.v. that I can let my 6 year old daughter watch.


That isin't their fault, they are delivering what the public wants. Remember there are more of you than there are of us, thus the base of that problem rests on you.



> A prime example of the media being anti Christisan or religion is the Pro-Life march held every January in Washinghton D.C. How many t.v. stations carried this on their news? Not one. Fox news may of breifly mentioned it and there were leterally thousands of people marching. Now the pro-abortion movement will have a march with 300 people and every t.v. station will cover it. Total hypocracy.


I don't remember the last time I saw a pro choice march or speech on television, nor do I see any reason why a pro Christian or pro life march should get any air time.



> What is this about. The Passion was a smashing hit, even after the media totally tried to derail it and say that it was anti-semetic. I think it was funny, that totally back fired and only made it more popular. And by the way where was all this anti-sematic behavior that was going to happen after the movie aired. There was none, because it wasn't anti-semetic.


The passion was originally done as to inspire hate against the Jews, this is simply a remake. Why exactly is how Christ died more important than his teachings? If his teachings are more important, why did this hugely popular movie only show his death?


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Tiger where are Christians trying to wipe Muslims out through genocide?
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Bosnia?
> ...


 Whew Brother!!!

pointer


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Your party has been built in recent years on baseless insults such as this, good work.


WOW, thanks for proving his point correct. This is PRIME example of said "childish jibber".


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > Your party has been built in recent years on baseless insults such as this, good work.
> ...


I see, so he can insult all of my posts without reason or base for the claim, but calling that insult and those stated by his kind ridiculous is childish. I get it now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> MT are your trying to mess up another serious discussion with your childish jibber. Look below. Either you have a serious problem with the english language or you simply want to argue. If you want to play with the big boys grow up.
> 
> Plainsman Wrote:
> 
> ...


Don't play innocent MT. I said and quote "evolution continues as we converse". You ignored that and talked about extremist arrogance and used me as an example. Poor understanding of english or simply looking to argue. Now you claim your poor picked on MT. That is not adult like so I said grow up. I repeat grow up.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Don't play innocent MT. I said and quote "evolution continues as we converse". You ignored that and talked about extremist arrogance and used me as an example. Poor understanding of english or simply looking to argue. Now you claim your poor picked on MT. That is not adult like so I said grow up. I repeat grow up.


You called the evolutionist side of the argument arrogant, and I stated that yours is as well. To this you retorted with a childish taunt. You are right, I am the one who needs to grow up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:


> you think people who don't believe that evolution is fact are backwards, and blame that on religion. This is the arrogance that people voted against in the last election


.

Meaning for MT: People who think they have all the answers and no one else is up to their standards are arrogant. I think there was a rejection of this attitude in the last election.



> those who think they know are not more intelligent, they are just more arrogant.


Meaning for MT: We live in a complex universe and people who think they know (have all the correct answers) are not more intelligent just arrogant. You see MT I realize how little we all know (This is called humility MT). Every generation thinks they have the answers and in a 1000 years they will look back at us as little advanced beyond the caves.

As you see I called people who think religion spawns stupidity arrogant. I also said that people who think they have all the answers and not necessarily more intelligent just more arrogant.

If you notice some were upset with me because I said yes evolution continues as we converse. Now you say my side is arrogant as well. Which side would that be MT? You in your mind put me on a side, I did not in my posts state a side. I said it should be taught correctly as theory. If you can't understand that then you have a communication problem.

Does it bother you MT when reasonable men look like they may come to a consensus? When people come to like thinking you interrupt. Are you looking for attention, or do you feel that a general consensus might endanger your radical agenda? The alternative is childish disruption. You want to play, but you don't want to behave.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Meaning for MT: People who think they have all the answers and no one else is up to their standards are arrogant. I think there was a rejection of this attitude in the last election.


Aren't those the same people who voted republican? They think that they have the answers to the worlds problems, and no one is up to our standards.



> in your mind put me on a side, I did not in my posts state a side. I said it should be taught correctly as theory.


You denounced those who teach evolution but no religon. You said nothing of those who teach religon but no evolution, that puts you on a side.



> Does it bother you MT when reasonable men look like they may come to a consensus? When people come to like thinking you interrupt. Are you looking for attention, or do you feel that a general consensus might endanger your radical agenda? The alternative is childish disruption. You want to play, but you don't want to behave.


I'm not certain how it is fine for you to call groups of people arrogant, ignorant, or wrong. I can only assume that as you climb in age it is considered being grumpy and not misbehaving. I'm not certain how I was attempting to break up this concensus, in fact I was agreeing with it. Evolution needs to be taught just as the theory of relativity does, like a well supported theory. I know that you will continue to spew slander just for the purpose of ruining my credibility, but I will continue to argue in a reasonable fashion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

In public school they can't teach religion MT. So why would I condemn something that doesn't exist. As for reasonable argument you still have not explained why you refer to me as one of the arrogant extremists that don't believe in evolution when I previously stated that evolution exists to a point, and that it should be taught as theory. I have posted the quote twice, and you have not addressed that aspect of it. Much the same as you said, but you purposely wanted to make it more. So MT, that is why I have often said to people ignore MT. The same advise that longshot gave a person. He said you speak not from experience, but from web sites you go to. Your response was to cite another web site.

So now MT it is evident that one does not debate with you one only argues. That is why I say you are disruptive. You argue even when we agree.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Ix-nay on the Tigerstay.

Some peole just dont make sence, and done want to make sence. thats whe you call them a fool and leave them to their folly. time to move on.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Seabass
> 
> I typed human genetic convergence into dogpile search and there is a ton of information. So much that I am including only a couple sites here.
> 
> ...


Plainsman, I couldn't get the publication for some reason... strange because we have a subscription to that journal. Anyway, I did read the article but I don't think its saying what you said originally. It says that we had an increase in _divergence_ after the volcanic winter. Divergence meaning a larger difference between populations (e.g. black vs white skin). 
_When our African recent ancestors passed through the prism of Toba's volcanic winter, a rainbow of differences appeared," Ambrose said._

Anyway, it is interesting but it doesn't say anything against evolution as a theory. 
_The Weak GOE model proposes an African origin for modern humans about 130,000 years ago, and credits the invention and spread of advanced stone tool technology, 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, for population growth after the bottleneck. _

There was no mention of an argument in the time line, either.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> In public school they can't teach religion MT. So why would I condemn something that doesn't exist. As for reasonable argument you still have not explained why you refer to me as one of the arrogant extremists that don't believe in evolution when I previously stated that evolution exists to a point, and that it should be taught as theory. I have posted the quote twice, and you have not addressed that aspect of it. Much the same as you said, but you purposely wanted to make it more. So MT, that is why I have often said to people ignore MT. The same advise that longshot gave a person. He said you speak not from experience, but from web sites you go to. Your response was to cite another web site.
> 
> So now MT it is evident that one does not debate with you one only argues. That is why I say you are disruptive. You argue even when we agree.


Evolution to a point? It rather seems to me that saying that would put you on a side. I pointed you out before I completely understood your feeling on the matter, prejudice on my part and it was wrong, in most cases you are predictable as clockwork. I continue to argue when a resolution has been made because for an agreement to be made a concession is usually nesissary on my side, which I continue to argue. You have been trying to crush my credibility for quite a few weeks now by telling people to ignore me entirely. I take pride in this, it means you're reading what I post and are bothered by it. As to the argument with longshot, you should take the time to read all of it before you comment.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I did read it. After you gave someone an answer that longshot didn't agree with he said don't pay attention to MT he speaks not from experience, but from internets sites and reading. Then you posted an internet site in response.

The part about your posts that bothers me MT is when we are having a good discussion you throw a wrench in the works. I think you do this to keep moderate liberals and moderate conservatives from coming to any consensus. I think you do that because your agenda is so radical it has no chance unless you can keep those moderate liberals hating conservatives. If we have a serious discussion going along comes MT to turn it into bickering.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I did read it. After you gave someone an answer that longshot didn't agree with he said don't pay attention to MT he speaks not from experience, but from internets sites and reading. Then you posted an internet site in response.


Longshot felt that a short experience with said gun is more valuable than the analysis done by the gun expert Chuck Hawks.



> The part about your posts that bothers me MT is when we are having a good discussion you throw a wrench in the works. I think you do this to keep moderate liberals and moderate conservatives from coming to any consensus. I think you do that because your agenda is so radical it has no chance unless you can keep those moderate liberals hating conservatives.


What part of what I said threw a wrench in the works of your well oiled ground breaking concensus machine? I gave my opinion on the matter, and argued a few points.


----------

