Who won the Republican Debates?

[avatar4321]

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/03/first-republican-debate-open-thread/

Here is another online poll. seems Romney is winning this one significant. But what doesnt everyone here think?

[lily]

Giuliani....I really wanted not to like him. He surprised me. Impressed me that he knew the difference between Sunni and Shia.

Paul.......so far, the man has my vote! Smart and wants to stick to the constitution.

McCain.....if you want Bush the second, vote for him.

Hunter and Huckabee.....strong on the enviorment.

Tancredo......strong on immigration, but that's not my #1 priority.

Brownbeck......too far right.

Romney....too slick for me.

None of the others impressed me.

All in all they were more prepared than the Democrats, stuck to the subject and answered the questions asked of them.

[Psychoblues]

Huckabee was honest, thoughtful and believable. All the rest lied to us. Huckabee is the dark horse that will return the Republican party to it's roots and regenerate respect for limited government, low taxation, credible jurisprudence, states rights and non intervention in the affairs of other nations.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Ron Paul was the only one there with an IQ over 75.

[Psychoblues]

What was that figure for W? 82? I think you are on to something, BVE.



Ron Paul was the only one there with an IQ over 75.

But, Paul was a little shrill even for the rEpublican state of affairs, don't you agree?

[Nuc]

McCain.....if you want Bush the second, vote for him.


Um, technically speaking wouldn't that make him Bush the Third? Remember Daddy? You know the one who bought little baby a baseball team?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

But, Paul was a little shrill even for the rEpublican state of affairs, don't you agree?

Nah. They all sound the same to me in the end anyway, Psycho: stupid. Paul is the well-meaning but no-hope exception. I don't agree with anything he stands for but he does speak comprehensible English.

[lily]

Um, technically speaking wouldn't that make him Bush the Third? Remember Daddy? You know the one who bought little baby a baseball team?


Well yeah, I was just trying to save Bush Sr. the embarrassment.

[lily]

Nah. They all sound the same to me in the end anyway, Psycho: stupid. Paul is the well-meaning but no-hope exception. I don't agree with anything he stands for but he does speak comprehensible English.


I don't know Baron, if I had to chose a Republican, he would be it. I've read some on him and I think I could put my trust in him, he's a very honest man which makes me believe he doesn't have a chance in hell of even making it to the primaries. Seems the "talking heads" are sitting up and giving him his props.

[Pale Rider]

Ron Paul was the only one there with an IQ over 75.

Why don't you show you're intelligence is over 50 and shut the fuck up idiot.

[Pale Rider]

I can tell you who it WON'T be, and that's either the shrill little, over excited, Paul, or the old status quo McCain.

I still like Tancredo, Romney, and Huckabee.

[avatar4321]

I can tell you who it WON'T be, and that's either the shrill little, over excited, Paul, or the old status quo McCain.

I still like Tancredo, Romney, and Huckabee.

It's amazing that people actually think Paul was a credible candidate.

The man was shrill, he demonstrated absolutely no real knowledge of the Constitution. Made outrageous claims - like he would do away with the Income tax within a week. Yeah sounds nice, but there is no way in hell that can possibly happen without a repeal of the sixteen amendment. Id favor such an action but even if he had the complete support of the American people there logistics of doing that in a week are impossible.

Then of course the man wants to do a course of Isolationism from the rest of the world. Let's withdrawal our military from the rest of the world. Within a month terrorists would be taking control of the worlds oil reserves. Our economy would be destroyed overnight.

He said he would stop the government from printing money to stop inflation. Well that isnt going to matter when we have no more gasoline. Its not going to matter when prices begin skyrocketing from an economy being destroyed.

He wants to go back to "original intent." The man has no freaking clue what original intent is. The man actually stated that the Constitution has a right to privacy. Hello!?! The "right to privacy" was found through judicial fiat on some crazy theory of the penumbra's of the constitution. The founders did not intend it. It's through that right to privacy that we had the Courts usurp the states right in establishing abortion laws. Thus following his logic the federal government has authority to legalize abortion, which is complete and utter bull crap.

Oh and of course their was the Schaivo question. He claimed that Congress had no right to intefere. Bull. Thats the entire point of the 14th amendment. So that the Federal government can act when states violate the due process clause and seek to take someones life under highly questionable circumstances. Whether Congress should have acted on this authority is another question, but to deny that Congress has this authority to act requires that we completely ignore the 14th amendment. But then I think his idea of original intent would require us to repeal all the amendments after the first 10. After all, the founders did intend to allow slavery even though most destested the practice, they did intend to not allow women the right to vote, etc.

Basically, I dont think the man has any clue what original intent actually means. If he did he wouldnt be advocating the right to privacy bull crap.

[Hagbard Celine]

To be honest, I didn't watch 'em (I don't have tv) but I do know that McCain's "I'll follow him (Osama) to the gates of hell" crack was lame and over the top. You're bought and paid for McCain! Nobody's buying it!

[Kathianne]

My feeling is they all did better than any of the Democratic candidates simply by the fact they agreed to appear on MSNBC, with Chris Matthews. Considering his 'I can't believe they are not discussing Scooter Libby", he made his bias known.

With that said, in and of itself the bias per se isn't that big a deal, it's obvious. Yet the Dems were too afraid to appear on FOX, which would probably have been far less bias, considering the microscope they could assume.

[Hagbard Celine]

My feeling is they all did better than any of the Democratic candidates simply by the fact they agreed to appear on MSNBC, with Chris Matthews. Considering his 'I can't believe they are not discussing Scooter Libby", he made his bias known.

With that said, in and of itself the bias per se isn't that big a deal, it's obvious. Yet the Dems were too afraid to appear on FOX, which would probably have been far less bias, considering the microscope they could assume.

They were wise not to appear on Fox. You don't get it do you? Fox isn't a respected news agency.

[Kathianne]

They were wise not to appear on Fox. You don't get it do you? Fox isn't a respected news agency.

LOL! MSNBC and Chris Matthews are? Give me a break.

[Hagbard Celine]

LOL! MSNBC and Chris Matthews are? Give me a break.

To be honest, I didn't know anyone besides accountants and day traders even watched MSNBC anymore.

[lily]

I can tell you who it WON'T be, and that's either the shrill little, over excited, Paul, or the old status quo McCain.

I still like Tancredo, Romney, and Huckabee.

Tancredo was a one note wonder. For him it's all about immigration. I liked Huckabee's stance on the enviorment, but Romney is just too slick for me, like Obama is just too charismatic. When you're that slick or that charismatic it makes the hair on my arms stand up.

[Guernicaa]

Why isn't there a "They all sucked" option?

[lily]

It's amazing that people actually think Paul was a credible candidate.
I never said Paul was a credible candidate. I said I liked what he said. I know he'll never make it to the primaries.


The man was shrill, he demonstrated absolutely no real knowledge of the Constitution. Made outrageous claims - like he would do away with the Income tax within a week. Yeah sounds nice, but there is no way in hell that can possibly happen without a repeal of the sixteen amendment. Id favor such an action but even if he had the complete support of the American people there logistics of doing that in a week are impossible.

Most citizens know when a candidate mentions flat tax, he's talking out of his ass......but it sure does sound good.



Oh and of course their was the Schaivo question. He claimed that Congress had no right to intefere. Bull. Thats the entire point of the 14th amendment. So that the Federal government can act when states violate the due process clause and seek to take someones life under highly questionable circumstances. Whether Congress should have acted on this authority is another question, but to deny that Congress has this authority to act requires that we completely ignore the 14th amendment. But then I think his idea of original intent would require us to repeal all the amendments after the first 10. After all, the founders did intend to allow slavery even though most destested the practice, they did intend to not allow women the right to vote, etc.

I'm no lawyer, but did congress have the right to over rule the court system in the Shiavo case?

[Psychoblues]

Looks like it might be Romney for all you hard core conservatives. HAAAA!!!! Al Gore is getting closer to entering the race. I can't wait!!!!!!

[Pale Rider]

They were wise not to appear on Fox. You don't get it do you? Fox isn't a respected news agency.

This from a cancer stick smokin' little school boy liberal who doesn't even OWN a TV!

FOX is THE MOST WATCHED NEWS CHANNEL, PERIOD! And O'Reilly is the NUMBER ONE PROGRAM on that MOST WATCHED CHANNEL. And the reason the neocommies won't show up there to debate is because they're spineless sacks of puss. They DON'T want to have to answer any questions that may expose their true agenda. Liberals HATE it when they're exposed.

You've just been educated. Remember it. I don't like to have tell under achievers twice.

[avatar4321]

Looks like it might be Romney for all you hard core conservatives. HAAAA!!!! Al Gore is getting closer to entering the race. I can't wait!!!!!!

Yeah good on both counts. Romney is an excellent man. An if Al Gore enters the race the Democrat side gets more entertaining and more divided.

[Psychoblues]

Entertaining for sure. Divided? I think not.



Yeah good on both counts. Romney is an excellent man. An if Al Gore enters the race the Democrat side gets more entertaining and more divided.

C'mon over to the Lounge and have a refreshment, a4321, in the Cinco De Mayo Thread. I hope to start a new tradition there with a daily thread aimed at the more positive notes in our arguments and relationships. Tell the bartender to put it on my tab.

[Samantha]

It was a Ronald Reagan lovefest. They mentioned Reagan 19 times and George Bush hardly at all.

3 of them said they don't believe in evolution. Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo don't believe in evolution. WTF?!?!

Guiliani brought up 9/11 just about every time he spoke.

Ron Paul looked the best to me. He voted against the war and is fired up about preserving our privacy rights and habeas corpus.

[emmett]

Huckabee was honest, thoughtful and believable. All the rest lied to us. Huckabee is the dark horse that will return the Republican party to it's roots and regenerate respect for limited government, low taxation, credible jurisprudence, states rights and non intervention in the affairs of other nations.

What about Ron Paul?

[lily]

Guiliani brought up 9/11 just about every time he spoke.



Gotta disagree with you on this one, Sam only because I was waiting for it. He did mention the things he did as mayor, but only mentioned 911 in his last comment. I know this because as I said, he surprised me and I honestly expected him to do it and he didn't.

[Samantha]

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Sam only because I was waiting for it. He did mention the things he did as mayor, but only mentioned 911 in his last comment. I know this because as I said, he surprised me and I honestly expected him to do it and he didn't.Are you sure? I could have sworn he brought it up again and again.

[lily]

Are you sure? I could have sworn he brought it up again and again.

I'll check the transcripts if you want (tomorrow), but I'd bet my life on it, only because like I said I was wating for it over and over and it was only right at the end. Like I say he did keep metioning that he was mayor of New York and he did this and that, but as for the 911 statement only once.

[Samantha]

You're right, I just looked it up. He waited till the end to mention it.

[Samantha]

Here's the transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18478985/

[emmett]

My feeling is they all did better than any of the Democratic candidates simply by the fact they agreed to appear on MSNBC, with Chris Matthews. Considering his 'I can't believe they are not discussing Scooter Libby", he made his bias known.

With that said, in and of itself the bias per se isn't that big a deal, it's obvious. Yet the Dems were too afraid to appear on FOX, which would probably have been far less bias, considering the microscope they could assume.

excellent point

[Fountainhead]

Wake me, when it is time to mark my primary ballot.

[avatar4321]

You're right, I just looked it up. He waited till the end to mention it.

Would it have been wrong if he mentioned it? It's a clear example of his leadership and quite contrary to how liberals seem to act, 9/11 is, as of right now, the key event of our generation. It changed the world.

Unfortunately too many people are still slumbering.

[stephanie]

Sheeesh...Now, a candidate is not suppose to even mention...9/11

I guess we're all suppose to bury our heads.. and act like it didn't HAPPEN..

Just like we're suppose to pretend it wasn't done by radical Muslims???

[Pale Rider]

3 of them said they don't believe in evolution. Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo don't believe in evolution.

I gaurantee you more than three of them didn't believe in evolution. Those three were just the ones with the presence of mind to raise their hands.

I don't believe it either. It's never been proven. You can believe in a "theory" if you'd like. I'd rather not. I don't know about your parents, but mine walk upright. All my relatives walk upright. Always have, always will.

[lily]

Would it have been wrong if he mentioned it? It's a clear example of his leadership and quite contrary to how liberals seem to act, 9/11 is, as of right now, the key event of our generation. It changed the world.

Unfortunately too many people are still slumbering.

As a debate tactic yes it would have been wrong. If Guiliani answered every question given to him by saying after 911 I did this, that and the other thing it would seem like that was all he did. Him saying I did this when I was Mayor gives him a wider range and makes him look like he can do things while in office. Also, the firefighters who did most of the work do not back him. It would have been brought up.

As for your claim that liberals don't remember 911, that's just ludicrous.

[Guernicaa]

I gaurantee you more than three of them didn't believe in evolution. Those three were just the ones with the presence of mind to raise their hands.

I don't believe it either. It's never been proven. You can believe in a "theory" if you'd like. I'd rather not. I don't know about your parents, but mine walk upright. All my relatives walk upright. Always have, always will.
LMAO!
You don't know SHIT about the theory of Evolution do you?

Nowhere in the present day theory of Evolution does it say that our parents didn't walk upright. The theory is that humans, along with other ape species share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.
Evolution is so hard for people to grasp because it takes literally millions of years to see significant changes in macro species. However, micro-evolution is seen everyday.

Evidence for evolution:
-Fossils (Dating of them)
-Comparative Anatomy (comparing structural similarities and differences between species) In this case, homologous structures are direct evidence for a the theory of a "common ancestor". Birds, bats, whales, and humans all have extremely similar skeletal structure in the hand region.
-Comparative Embryology (Embryos of species with common ancestors show similarities in early stages of development)
-Comparative Biochemistry (greater similarity of DNA among certain groups of species i.e. Humans and Chimps have 99% identical DNA.)
-Comparative Cytology (how cells are made up)

And then there’s the other aspect to evolution which is "survival of the fittest". Certain species will be stronger than others, and within that species, certain organisms will be stronger than others. The fittest will reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation. The organisms that move on and continue to multiply are the ones with the necessary adaptations to their environment. As time goes on, mutations will occur, and organisms will adapt to other environments, thus evolving the species.

[Pale Rider]

LMAO!
You don't know SHIT about the theory of Evolution do you?

Nowhere in the present day theory of Evolution does it say that our parents didn't walk upright. The theory is that humans, along with other ape species share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.
Evolution is so hard for people to grasp because it takes literally millions of years to see significant changes in macro species. However, micro-evolution is seen everyday.

Evidence for evolution:
-Fossils (Dating of them)
-Comparative Anatomy (comparing structural similarities and differences between species) In this case, homologous structures are direct evidence for a the theory of a "common ancestor". Birds, bats, whales, and humans all have extremely similar skeletal structure in the hand region.
-Comparative Embryology (Embryos of species with common ancestors show similarities in early stages of development)
-Comparative Biochemistry (greater similarity of DNA among certain groups of species i.e. Humans and Chimps have 99% identical DNA.)
-Comparative Cytology (how cells are made up)

And then there’s the other aspect to evolution which is "survival of the fittest". Certain species will be stronger than others, and within that species, certain organisms will be stronger than others. The fittest will reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation. The organisms that move on and continue to multiply are the ones with the necessary adaptations to their environment. As time goes on, mutations will occur, and organisms will adapt to other environments, thus evolving the species.

Well gee osama, you very well might be the most brilliant man in the world. You just proved evolution isn't a THEORY! Good God man, you've got to contact the scientific community right away with this discovery!!! You'll be RICH and FAMOUS! :talk2hand:

It's a "THEORY".... dumbass. I repeat... a "THEORY". Nothing more.

[Sitarro]

LMAO!
You don't know SHIT about the theory of Evolution do you?

Nowhere in the present day theory of Evolution does it say that our parents didn't walk upright. The theory is that humans, along with other ape species share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.
Evolution is so hard for people to grasp because it takes literally millions of years to see significant changes in macro species. However, micro-evolution is seen everyday.

Evidence for evolution:
-Fossils (Dating of them)
-Comparative Anatomy (comparing structural similarities and differences between species) In this case, homologous structures are direct evidence for a the theory of a "common ancestor". Birds, bats, whales, and humans all have extremely similar skeletal structure in the hand region.
-Comparative Embryology (Embryos of species with common ancestors show similarities in early stages of development)
-Comparative Biochemistry (greater similarity of DNA among certain groups of species i.e. Humans and Chimps have 99% identical DNA.)
-Comparative Cytology (how cells are made up)

And then there’s the other aspect to evolution which is "survival of the fittest". Certain species will be stronger than others, and within that species, certain organisms will be stronger than others. The fittest will reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation. The organisms that move on and continue to multiply are the ones with the necessary adaptations to their environment. As time goes on, mutations will occur, and organisms will adapt to other environments, thus evolving the species.

Could you explain one thing? Why has man "evolved" to a creature that doesn't just use tools (an ape uses a tool and scientists go ape) but has infinitly more ability than any other species on the planet. Sure we can't fly like birds so we invented and have continued to perfect the airplane that allows us to fly. We can't swim like dolphins but we have invented and are perfecting amazing watercraft. We have rid ourselves of many deadly diseases and will continue to do so. We entertain ourselves with song and dance and comedy......etc., etc. How EXACTLY does the theory of evolution explain us as humans?

Oh and by the way, by showing support for Obama as President, it says a lot more about your intellect, or lack of, than you may want people to know.

[diuretic]

Could you explain one thing? Why has man "evolved" to a creature that doesn't just use tools (an ape uses a tool and scientists go ape) but has infinitly more ability than any other species on the planet. Sure we can't fly like birds so we invented and have continued to perfect the airplane that allows us to fly. We can't swim like dolphins but we have invented and are perfecting amazing watercraft. We have rid ourselves of many deadly diseases and will continue to do so. We entertain ourselves with song and dance and comedy......etc., etc. How EXACTLY does the theory of evolution explain us as humans?

Oh and by the way, by showing support for Obama as President, it says a lot more about your intellect, or lack of, than you may want people to know.

Our brain. Our brain has evolved from reptilian to mammalian, the cerebral cortex is what allows us to do all those really great things.

[Sitarro]

Our brain. Our brain has evolved from reptilian to mammalian, the cerebral cortex is what allows us to do all those really great things.

Yeah that and apposing thumbs but that still doesn't answer the question.Why did the human brain "evolve" to such an enormous degree over any other animal including the ones we are supposedly so close to,( I agree that Idi Amin and Oprah present visual reference to the possibility but....) ones we supposedly evolved from.

[Guernicaa]

Well gee osama, you very well might be the most brilliant man in the world. You just proved evolution isn't a THEORY! Good God man, you've got to contact the scientific community right away with this discovery!!! You'll be RICH and FAMOUS!

It's a "THEORY".... dumbass. I repeat... a "THEORY". Nothing more.
Actually, if you had any literary comprehension you would have seen me include the phrase "theory of evolution" in the beginning of my earlier response. A theory is most accurate depending on how many facts there are to back it up. In the case of evolution, all the facts are there. We can even witness evolution firsthand in microscopic organisms. We are able to see microscopic evolution because micro-organisms have a much simpler form than, say, humans. Why do you think bacteria are becoming resistant to many pharmaceutical antibiotics? When taken, most of the bacteria will die, but a very small amount will not. These are the "fittest" organisms. They have certain adaptations that the majority of the other bacteria do not have which makes them resistant to anti-biotics. Therefore, they reproduce and pass on their genes, making the next generation equipped with the same adaptations the parents had. Humans are much more complex. We are made up of BILLIONS of cells (which are the same size as bacteria). That is why it takes thousands, even millions of years to see evolutionary changes among much more complex organisms.

Why am I even explaining this to you? You are an ignorant, delusional, and uneducated (trust me...we know you didn't go to college) right-winger. This knowledge is beyond your brain capacity limits.

[Kathianne]

Actually, if you had any literary comprehension you would have seen me include the phrase "theory of evolution" in the beginning of my earlier response. A theory is most accurate depending on how many facts there are to back it up. In the case of evolution, all the facts are there. We can even witness evolution firsthand in microscopic organisms. We are able to see microscopic evolution because micro-organisms have a much simpler form than, say, humans. Why do you think bacteria are becoming resistant to many pharmaceutical antibiotics? When taken, most of the bacteria will die, but a very small amount will not. These are the "fittest" organisms. They have certain adaptations that the majority of the other bacteria do not have which makes them resistant to anti-biotics. Therefore, they reproduce and pass on their genes, making the next generation equipped with the same adaptations the parents had. Humans are much more complex. We are made up of BILLIONS of cells (which are the same size as bacteria). That is why it takes thousands, even millions of years to see evolutionary changes among much more complex organisms.

Why am I even explaining this to you? You are an ignorant, delusional, and uneducated (trust me...we know you didn't go to college) right-winger. This knowledge is beyond your brain capacity limits.

Does lack of formal education mean ignorant in your world? I disagree with both your specifics and generalizations.

[Guernicaa]

Could you explain one thing? Why has man "evolved" to a creature that doesn't just use tools (an ape uses a tool and scientists go ape) but has infinitly more ability than any other species on the planet. Sure we can't fly like birds so we invented and have continued to perfect the airplane that allows us to fly. We can't swim like dolphins but we have invented and are perfecting amazing watercraft. We have rid ourselves of many deadly diseases and will continue to do so. We entertain ourselves with song and dance and comedy......etc., etc. How EXACTLY does the theory of evolution explain us as humans?
All the traits we have are the results of millions of years of evolutionary developments in intelligence. We can observe through fossils and bones what type of tools are early ancestors used, and as time goes on, the tools become more and more advanced, and the level of intelligence gradually increases. Humans were lucky enough to have developed characteristics that make us most intelligent, but not best fit for the environment. Take for instance a wolf. A wolf is able to live through harsh cold winters, without needing a complex home equipped with heating. That is because the wolf had adaptations (its fur) that make needing heat unnecessary. Humans however, do not have fur. But we do have the intelligence to create warmth. Humans create and think on a much higher level. Other ape species create things as well, but not as well as humans. The theory explains that over millions of years, our adaptations were mainly traits that have to do with the brain and thinking. We did not however, develop what other species did, such as fur for the cold, or the ability to have phenomenal hearing for hunting.

[Pale Rider]

Actually, if you had any literary comprehension you would have seen me include the phrase "theory of evolution" in the beginning of my earlier response. A theory is most accurate depending on how many facts there are to back it up. In the case of evolution, all the facts are there. We can even witness evolution firsthand in microscopic organisms. We are able to see microscopic evolution because micro-organisms have a much simpler form than, say, humans. Why do you think bacteria are becoming resistant to many pharmaceutical antibiotics? When taken, most of the bacteria will die, but a very small amount will not. These are the "fittest" organisms. They have certain adaptations that the majority of the other bacteria do not have which makes them resistant to anti-biotics. Therefore, they reproduce and pass on their genes, making the next generation equipped with the same adaptations the parents had. Humans are much more complex. We are made up of BILLIONS of cells (which are the same size as bacteria). That is why it takes thousands, even millions of years to see evolutionary changes among much more complex organisms.

Why am I even explaining this to you? You are an ignorant, delusional, and uneducated (trust me...we know you didn't go to college) right-winger. This knowledge is beyond your brain capacity limits.


Funny, I have two degrees and several trade diplomas. I was sure they meant something after two years of college and four years of trade schools, not to mention, A.F. Avionics Training, IBM Customer Engineer Training, Professional Military Education, assorted college extension courses, and a summer training program from Madison Area Technical College, and never carried a GPA lower than a 3.75. So you see, once again, asswipe, you're talking out your ASS! Stupid mother fucker.

It's as simple as this Einstein... when something is "PROVEN", it is no longer a "THEORY". That makes "EVOLUTION" still a "THEORY"... you ignorant little bitch. What you're trying to pass of as evolution is nothing more than a mutation dumbass.

I don't know why I even bother replying to you. You're one of the dumbest, cockiest, mouthiest little piss drinkers on the board.

Grow up boy.

[Guernicaa]

It's as simple as this Einstein... when something is "PROVEN", it is no longer a "THEORY". That makes "EVOLUTION" still a "THEORY"... you ignorant little bitch. What you're trying to pass of as evolution is nothing more than a mutation dumbass.
Again, you continue to not read...Probably because its too much for you to handle. The likely scenario is that you don't understand any of the words...all of which are common vocabulary among high school students studying biology.
If you had understood my paragraph, than you would have understood how mutations come into play of how Evolution works.

We can even witness evolution firsthand in microscopic organisms. We are able to see microscopic evolution because micro-organisms have a much simpler form than, say, humans. Why do you think bacteria are becoming resistant to many pharmaceutical antibiotics? When taken, most of the bacteria will die, but a very small amount will not. These are the "fittest" organisms. They have certain adaptations that the majority of the other bacteria do not have which makes them resistant to anti-biotics. Therefore, they reproduce and pass on their genes, making the next generation equipped with the same adaptations the parents had. Humans are much more complex. We are made up of BILLIONS of cells (which are the same size as bacteria). That is why it takes thousands, even millions of years to see evolutionary changes among much more complex organisms.
It is not "proven" because the only way we can see it is through examining simple celled organisms and natural records of the past. This is because, as I said earlier, it takes millions of years to see significant changes. It's not like lightning where it just goes BOOM and appears.

You really need to wake up my friend. Genesis is a LIE. A big fat fucking lie. Nothing more than a story of BULL SHIT. You know NOTHING about Evolution, because if you did, you wouldn't open your fuckin' mouth and act like you know something.

[OCA]

God created the world in 7 days, nothing more, nothing less.

[Guernicaa]

You're one of the dumbest
hahahahahahahah!!

[Guernicaa]

God created the world in 7 days, nothing more, nothing less.
Where do you type from? A group home?

[lily]

[QUOTE=Obama08;53566]
It is not "proven" because the only way we can see it is through examining simple celled organisms and natural records of the past. This is because, as I said earlier, it takes millions of years to see significant changes. It's not like lightning where it just goes BOOM and appears.

QUOTE]

Is it too far of a stretch to think that someone had to create those simple organisms to begin with?

[Guernicaa]

Is it too far of a stretch to think that someone had to create those simple organisms to begin with?
Did I say they didn't????
I said Genesis was a lie...the story.
I never said there wasn't a higher power that created them.

A more logical genesis would be that god created humans through evolution, and will continue to let his creations evolve for thousands, maybe millions of years to come.

[lily]

Did I say they didn't????
I said Genesis was a lie...the story.
I never said there wasn't a higher power that created them.

A more logical genesis would be that god created humans through evolution, and will continue to let his creations evolve for thousands, maybe millions of years to come.


It would be more logical, but it wasn't known then. If you're not saying that there wasn't a higher power, it still doesn't change the story of Genesis all that much, if you look at it scientificly.

[diuretic]

Yeah that and apposing thumbs but that still doesn't answer the question.Why did the human brain "evolve" to such an enormous degree over any other animal including the ones we are supposedly so close to,( I agree that Idi Amin and Oprah present visual reference to the possibility but....) ones we supposedly evolved from.

Why did the human brain evolve or how did it evolve?

Why, because it could.

How, that's beyond my current level of knowledge.

[diuretic]

God created the world in 7 days, nothing more, nothing less.

Prove it.

[Pale Rider]

Again, you continue to not read...Probably because its too much for you to handle. The likely scenario is that you don't understand any of the words...all of which are common vocabulary among high school students studying biology.
If you had understood my paragraph, than you would have understood how mutations come into play of how Evolution works.

It is not "proven" because the only way we can see it is through examining simple celled organisms and natural records of the past. This is because, as I said earlier, it takes millions of years to see significant changes. It's not like lightning where it just goes BOOM and appears.

You really need to wake up my friend. Genesis is a LIE. A big fat fucking lie. Nothing more than a story of BULL SHIT. You know NOTHING about Evolution, because if you did, you wouldn't open your fuckin' mouth and act like you know something.


No one... I repeat, NO ONE has "witnessed" evolution. That is what one person has labeled a mutation.

So for the last time, evolution is a "THEORY"!!!

See, the problem here is, you were TAUGHT that in high school, and you swallowed the whole "THEORY" as a proven fact, when in reality, science is no closer now to PROVING evolution than they were 200 YEARS AGO!!!

Now don't be such a DUNCE! You're ruining your reputation for being such an IDIOT!

[loosecannon]

No one... I repeat, NO ONE has "witnessed" evolution. That is what one person has labeled a mutation.

So for the last time, evolution is a "THEORY"!!!

See, the problem here is, you were TAUGHT that in high school, and you swallowed the whole "THEORY" as a proven fact, when in reality, science is no closer now to PROVING evolution than they were 200 YEARS AGO!!!

Now don't be such a DUNCE! You're ruining your reputation for being such an IDIOT!

Gravity is a theory too, never proven to be the result of any specific field energy.

But the evidence that gravitational effect and evolutionary effect are real is astronomical.

And even bare statistics and the base premises of mathematics like 1=1 are still theories, but they have a proven utilitarian track record that numbers in the quadrillions at least. (much more actually)

Evolution is simply as real and true as ANYTHING mankind has ever discovered, invented or made work.

But it still includes significant potential error.

But you don't let that stop you when you turn on a light switch. ("what if electricity ISN'T as it is theorized?)

Evolution is as real as anything you consider real, including God.

[Guernicaa]

No one... I repeat, NO ONE has "witnessed" evolution. That is what one person has labeled a mutation.
There are two types of evolution:

-Macro evolution
-Microscopic evolution

Macro is organisms such as mammals, fish, reptiles, ect...
All of these things are made up of MILLIONS of cells.

Micro is microscopic organisms that can't be seen by the eye. These organisms are not composed of millions of cells. They're the size of a cell. The ones most fit for their enviroment will go on to reproduce and spread their genes (the genese that help them survive) And that is EXACTLY what Darwin said.

And for the record....Microscopic evolution can be witnessed.
I'll use bacteria as an example.
Bacteria are constantly EVOLVING as small amounts of them (THE ONES WITH MUTATIONS THAT MAKE THEM MOST FIT) become resistant to anti-biotics and other chemicals meant to destroy them. That is evolution.

The reason we cannot witness humans evolving is because humans are millions of times bigger than microscopic organisms. It takes millions of years to see significant changes in macro evolution. All the proof is there though:
-Fossil records
-Comparative embryology
-Comparative anatomy

[Guernicaa]

So for the last time, evolution is a "THEORY"!!!

See, the problem here is, you were TAUGHT that in high school, and you swallowed the whole "THEORY" as a proven fact, when in reality, science is no closer now to PROVING evolution than they were 200 YEARS AGO!!!
You know what else is a "theory"...Music!
Ever heard of "music theory"???
I guess that’s all wrong as well...

The only reason you accept a theory such as music over a theory like evolution is because evolution contradicts a story of bull shit that Christians still try to hold true. But the story is not true. You need to stop defending it like it has credibility and open your eyes to what we know.

[Guernicaa]

Now don't be such a DUNCE! You're ruining your reputation for being such an IDIOT!
LOL...Do you think I give a flying fuck?

[manu1959]

evolution is a theoretical process which may occur after life has begun.....

where is the theory on the instantaneous creation of life....

because at one point there is not life....then there is life....

[avatar4321]

So because a man has a brain and actually questions conventional knowledge he should be banned from politics?