October 28, 2005
-
The Gloves Have Come Off
Do You Libs Honestly Want A Fight?
WASHINGTON (AP) —”President Bush, eager to put a bruising brawl within his own party behind him, is expected to announce his new pick for the Supreme Court within days.”
“Bush has offered no hint about his thinking on a new nominee, but he isn’t starting from scratch. The president already has vetted and interviewed several candidates, and White House officials wouldn’t rule out the possibility that an announcement could be made as early as Friday.”
So it appears the President has acknowledged the divide within his conservative base and has decided that a new nominee would settle things down a bit. The left has downplayed this withdrawal as much as they could. You see, they want you to believe that this is happening because of Tom Delay, they want you to believe this is happening because of Karl Rove. This is happening because there was a divide in the conservative movement over this nominee. This time, there will be no divide. This time, our nominee will be easily confirmed through the Senate. This is not good for the American left. They will attempt to smear this nominee and it will result in a backlash. We will prevail, and another conservative will be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Morrison
Comments (36)
Even more nonsensical than normal.
You mean to say that the President didn’t nominate Harriet Miers so that she could withdraw, thus taking the spotlight off their legal troubles??
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!!!!
i don’t know what sort of narcotics you are on, but it might be a good idea to lay off them a bit before posting.
ps – i’d love a post on wacky LIBBY
Let me see, Bush is going to nominate a ultra social conservative to please the base which will alienate the moderates and independents going in to an election year… brilliant… why not just make the political culture more divisive than it already is by childish acts of “but I’m in in power” BS…
Where is the commentary about your full fledged support for Miers since you trust him (Bush)… this must come as a blow to your ego…
BTW- the so called evil left has not linked the other problems within the Grand Old Party outside of it being a string of problems… you are trying to make it sound as if DeLay or Libby is the reason for Miers… shame, shame, shame… and even Rove would say that this is not the time to start a fight in the way you are proposing… not before midterms with poll numbers already in the gutter… it might raise the expectations of the smaller social base but will hurt the party longer… but you should already know that since you are an expert on the situation…
You are so right. We need to put as many radical conservatives in Congress as possible, because women don’t own their own bodies, and men that are 50+ should be able to have a say in whether a 12 year old rape victim should be able to have an abortion.
And homosexuality is unnatural and against God’s will like polyester, air conditioning, cars, and electricity. We should get rid of them, too.
P.S. The national debt is a lie them dang “Libbies” drummed up to fund fags and Mexicans.
um…I didn’t write that stuff…
Umm…Yeah, I don’t know how Bush could not acknowledge the divide within his base. When one nominee gets shot down, the only thing left to do is to nominate a new one, so I’m not sure what your point is there … The left has downplayed the withdrawl? Example? I’ve seen them exploiting it as a failure of the President and as the Republican party, but not downplay it. I’m not seeing any connection between this and Tom DeLay or Karl Rove nor have I seen anyone putting forth that theory, it’s happening because Bush picked a piss-poor nominee and his base wouldn’t stand for it. In saying that there will be no divide, you’re assuming that Bush will pick an actual qualified and judicially conservative nominee – I hope you’re right. The argument can be made that he wouldn’t be so stupid as to do the same thing twice, but he was stupid enough to nominate Miers in the first place. For Bush’s sake, and for the party’s sake, I hope this next pick will be a judicial conservative and will be confirmed.
Yeah, at the American liberal convention We liberals, being the monolithic, organized block that we are, decided that We wanted to make the public believe that Miers backing down was because of Delay and Libby.
You know, almost every news analysis and opinion piece I’ve read on the Miers has acknowledged conservative division as the most important cause of her resignation. Your charge of some sort of liberal conspiracy to change public perception of the resignation is completely baseless.
I agree with you that the liberals are using this withdrawl as a “the end is near” talking point but I sure hope youre right about the next nominee.
ThinLizzy
“because women don’t own their own bodies”
- I believe women and men own their own bodies. Including those women and men who are growing in the womb.
- Too bad you think that homicide should somehow be justified by calling it choice!
“And homosexuality is unnatural and against God’s will like polyester, air conditioning, cars, and electricity.”
- Hmm, I guess you actually would say homosexuality is natural? Care to justify this with a midicome of evidence?
- In addition. Take your God slander elsewhere. One needn’t use the bible to expalin that indeed homosexuality isn’t natural, and by definition, is a perversion of the way the human genders were designed.
- In addition to that. It’s nice that you clump homosexuality with other inventions of our society. Because, as a social invention in itself, it fits in with the mechanical inventions you’ve listed. Although neither has really anything to do with each other.
- you see, I can play your little sladerous game too!
– I can call anyone who isn’t a liberal “ultra conservative” and think I’m being intellectual by name calling my detractors.
– I can say that people who are against the homocide of abortion are somehow against a woman’s choices.
– I can say that anyone who is against homosexuality is ONLY against it because “the Bible says so”
— And I can really slander God in the process too!
– And the simple fact is that all of those statements would be uneducated, slanderous, and false tripe. And nothing more.
- It’s so easy to sling sound bite mud and consider myself enlightened.
How do you great thinkers do it? it’s amazing…
BTW, Electricity wasn’t invented,, it was discovered, SO INDEED ELECTRICITY IS NATURAL. Nice of you to notice though…
sends: A “midicome” of evidence for you:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5429/803a
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html
Don’t worry, I’m under no illusion that this would convince anyone who doesn’t believe that homosexuality is a natural part of the human species (besides, this was just a quick search). However, since you asked, sends, I thought that I would oblige.
I would also suggest that the claim that ThinLizzy slandered God is a bit of a stretch. First, you would have to assume that ThinLizzy believes in God in the first place. If not, then how could he slander what he might regard as a myth? Also, to slander someone, even a deity, presuposes that the slanderer has willfully written things s/he know to be untrue. In realiy the word “God” is used only once; you’d be able to make a better case that ThinLizzy is slandering evangelical Christians, but that would also be a bit of a stretch.
Morrison21576: Actually, I have yet to hear of any leftist who claims that Meirss situation has anything to do with DeLay, Rove, “Scooter” or any other scandal the Bush administration and the Republicans are finding themselves involved in right now. That I’m afraid, is your construction. I would agree that Meirs exposed a divided Republican party — the social conservatives and the moderates — but then that isn’t saying much since every other talking head has been saying this for weeks. Meirs’ situation and the scandals are two separate issues, but they do point to a White House in trouble at this moment in time. We’ll see how it pans out.
The most ironic thing about people like sends who are bent on pro-life and anti-homosexual legislation being enacted is that they are trying to force laws of faith into a superficial, corrupt, and highly secular government for enforcment. Seems to me like a confused set of priorities.
That makes me horny.
Malleus…
I love it when people put links up to justify their positions. Maybe someday I’ll put up links for you in response that challenges your ‘evidence” of “natural” within the homosapein speicies. Otherwise, why bother, after all all the links I put up in the world wouldn’t, how do you say, “convince anyone who doesn’t believe” that homosexuality ISN’T naturaly that it indeed isn’t natural…
“I would also suggest that the claim that ThinLizzy slandered God is a bit of a stretch.”
- A) opinions vary.
- B) I think when someone makes light of God. Trivializes his name, or says “God Damnit” that they are indeed slanering his name or to use a “biblical” term, Taking God’s name in vein (weather they believe in Him or not).
- Maybe you don’t see respecting the name of the creator of all things as important but I and others do, thanx.
“First, you would have to assume that ThinLizzy believes in God in the first place.”
- Nope, people slander God and Jesus all of the time who don’t believe in either of them.
- This makes their commentary no less slanderous.
- I would hope that someone of your intellect would acknowledge this???
- In response to the rest of your commentary. Methinks you are hung up on the term “slander” to a fault.
– IF slander is the wrong word for you, then how about: Insulting, dredging, blasphemy, I could go on, but in essense, thin lizzy, weather he believes in God or not, isn’t remotely respecting the name.
REMM555,
- there isn’t one part of your accusatory post that is remotely accurate.
- PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR PRO-HOMSEXUAL laws on the rest of society.
- PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR PRO-HOMSEXUAL re-write of the term Marriage on the resot of society.
– All the while telling me and others what we are trying to force anything when it is indeed “people like” you, REM555 who are trying to force pro-homosexual agenda on everyone else, NOT the other way around.
- And I’d thank you in the future to come up with something stronger than arguing against a non-existent “law of Faith”.
- In addition, You have only illustrated your ignorance of what I do and do not stand for here.
- And as for “forcing” of a Pro-Life agenda. I’ll take that accusation with pride. And I guess you would be for forcing your Pro-homicide agenda on me? Forcing me to allow millions of innocents to be murdered without even due process?
- As for the “Superficial, corrupt, and highly secular government”, I agree that it is the case. The most ironic part is that you think state that this should somehow stop people for rallying against injustice? Do you always try to measure apples against oranges when you compare things?
- Seems to me like you have a confused set of definitions, and most assuredly, a confused set of priorities…
sends: You’re indeed confusing “slander” with “blasphemy.” You might consider it to be a fine distinction, but there is a significant difference in meaning. That aside, a reading of ThinLizzy‘s comments indicates that he’s not blaspheming “God’s” name. From your stand, do you not believe that your God rejects homosexuality and abortion? The tone is certainly mocking, but in reality it isn’t mocking “God” so much as those groups and individuals who interpret the Bible from a social conservative world view, much like those same social conservative Christians might ridicule Christians who interpret the Bible from a socially progressive point of view.
As for presenting links as evidence… well… you did ask for evidence, did you not? That, and each of the links also provide citations from other peer reviewed publications. There are publications and articles that claim the oposite is true, of course. I’ve come across many of them, however one wonders about the agenda behind them (that, and many of the claims made have been refuted, yet the claims continue to be made).
Finally, if you’d like to engage in a discussion about the institution of marriage and how it has continued to evolve and change in meaning over time (as well as whom has been able to marry whom), both in the West and in a more global sense, I’d be more than happy to engage in such a discussion.
“Don’t worry, I’m under no illusion that this would convince anyone who doesn’t believe that homosexuality is a natural part of the human species”
Malleus, I think you’re confusing “natural” with “how they were born”. We all are aware that some people are born blind — is that natural? It’s an anomaly / defect (your choice of words) in their genetic makeup. If homosexuality was “natural” you’d see gay dogs, gay fish, etc. Homosexuality very well may be “how they were born” but it is in no way “natural” to the human race.
As for Lizzy…
“because women don’t own their own bodies, and men that are 50+ should be able to have a say in whether a 12 year old rape victim should be able to have an abortion.”
Women own their bodies — they do not own their childrens bodies. As for “12 year old rape victims” who are pregnant, studies have shown that the chances of getting pregnant from rape are 1.5 out of 1,000. Also, out of the small percentage of women who get pregnant through rape, about 76% of them carry the baby to term and either give it up for adoption or keep the baby. Now, if you do the math, the probability of a woman getting pregnant from rape AND carrying the baby to term is about 1.14 out of 1,000. That means that the chances of a woman getting pregant from rape AND having an abortion are .36 out of 1,000. That boils down to .114% of raped women getting pregnant and having an abortion.
how do I do this without getting dragged in another gay marriage argument… um, you do see gay dogs, fish and other animals… and if you are born that way it would make sense it was natural…
I would ask for a reference to where Bimmer got the abortion data to be perfectly honest, I really don’t care…
If homosexuality was “natural” you’d see gay dogs, gay fish, etc.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
- PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR PRO-HOMSEXUAL laws on the rest of society.
This is a brilliant argument that the majority can reuse for any issue! eg, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR PRO-MISCEGENATION laws on the rest of society. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR PRO-CATHOLIC laws on the rest of society. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR PRO-ZIONIST laws on the rest of society. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR PRO-BLACK laws on the rest of society.
“um, you do see gay dogs, fish and other animals.”
Never in my life have I heard of one. As for the National Geographic link, since they have no pictures to back it up, it’s all based on “cuz we said so”.
“and if you are born that way it would make sense it was natural…”
You’ve never heard of a “birth defect” before? I have a very rare disease that I was born with — it’s sure as hell not ‘natural’.
As for where I got those numbers http://www.abortionfacts.com, which neither endorses nor condemns abortion (at least from all the links I went to).
BimmerPhile: Never in my life have I heard of one. As for the National Geographic link, since they have no pictures to back it up, it’s all based on “cuz we said so”.
Uhm…. wow.
While “National Geographic” isn’t a peer-reviewed journal, it is pretty respected. The information withing th “National Geographic” article IS based upon peer-reviewed articles. That, my young friend, is how science works. That it doesn’t include an image of two male monkeys getting it on, or two female wambats engaged in a little rub and tug, doesn’t discount the research that has been done (though it does beg the question why YOU want to see it… not going to touch that one [this is the humour part of the comment in case you wondered]). Of course the pictures exist — the article even says as such — but I’m not quite certain that people would want to see animals of any gender having homosexual or heterosexual intercourse… late night viewing on “The Spice Chanel” not withstanding.
Since the “National Geographic” article isn’t to your liking, I’ll provide other articles and/or links to peer reviewed studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4862020&dopt=Abstract
http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
http://www.discoverychannel.ca/sexfiles/season_2/sfs208b1.htm
In order for homosexuality to be a birth defect, you would have to concede that homosexuality is, at least in part, a result of nature. Thank you for making that concession. Of course you then run into problem. Since homosexuality doesn’t impede or hinder the organism in any discernable way, save the social stigma which is culturally based, then your argument that homosexuality is a birth defect tends to fall on it’s face.
As for the National Geographic link, since they have no pictures to back it up, it’s all based on “cuz we said so”.
I thought you’d consider National Geographic trustworthy, but here are a few of the many peer-reviewed articles about homosexuality in wild animals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11746281&query_hl=3
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1747043&dopt=Citation
At this point you can either accept PubMed as a valid source or be written off as a tinfoil nut who thinks that ivory tower scientists are conspiring to further the homosexual agenda by making shit up.
“Since homosexuality doesn’t impede or hinder the organism in any discernable way, save the social stigma which is culturally based, then your argument that homosexuality is a birth defect tends to fall on it’s face.”
Except that it prevents reproduction, therefore (if it becomes widespread) leading to the destruction of the species. I think that’s pretty hindering, don’t you?
“At this point you can either accept PubMed as a valid source or be written off as a tinfoil nut who thinks that ivory tower scientists are conspiring to further the homosexual agenda by making shit up.”
Do I think they’re making it up? Who knows. We have no way of proving what they are publishing is true or merely what the liberal controlled media and universities want to hear. I mean, who hasn’t written a paper in school that they didn’t believe in at all but it was what the teacher wanted to hear……so you write it to get a good grade. Is it so hard to believe that scientists who rely on grants from universities would do the same thing to keep getting funding? With the amount of bullshit coming from all over these days, the only way that you can know something for sure is to do it yourself.
Oh, side note: I have many good friends who are gay……just thought I’d put that up before the requisite “you just hate gays” comments start popping up.
MIKE!!!!!! I AM ACTUALLY GOING TO POST A COMMENT REGARDING YOUR POST!!!!! I LOVE IT AND I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT. I JUST POSTED A COMMENTARY OF MY OWN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO YOURS BUT MORE AMPLIFIED(MY FIRST POST OF TODAY,MONDAY.)
SORRY FOR HAVING TO USE ALL CAPS; I’M JUST TRYING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION AFTER ALL THESE OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER SUBJECTS…..
BimmerPhile: Except that it prevents reproduction, therefore (if it becomes widespread) leading to the destruction of the species. I think that’s pretty hindering, don’t you?
Not if it’s an evolutionary response to overpopulation. Just one of many theories regarding homosexuality. That, and given that a rather small percentage of the population are in fact practicing or latent homosexuals (between 2% and 5%), I don’t think we should anticipate a collapse in the population and the disappearance of Homo sapien sapien from the face of the earth any time soon.
Regarding the studies that have been done on non-human sexuality, it stretched the imagination to believe that a “liberal academia/media” cabal has conspired to make up data to confirm a political ideology. Certainly on an individual level this happens, however there are mechanisms within the scientific community that weeds out bad research.ne such mechanism is peer review. If research is deficient, other scientists will let you know, and scientists can be quite savage in ripping apart bad research. That, and given reputations and grants are, as you said, on the line, it behooves a scientist to be ethical lest s/he be caught in a lie, thus destroying that scientist’s career.
That said, science has been politicized, not by the scientists but by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Global warming, environmental research, stem cells. Without trying to sound partisan — not an easy job since I readily and happily say I’m a social democrat; a liberal — the Bush administration has politicized science like no other presidency before him. They don’t like the research and data behind global warming conducted by scientists on the president’s payroll, it’s supressed and the administration carries on in support of their own ideological agenda. While Bush might be the most glaring example, Democrats and Republicans before him have politicized science.
Furthering what Malleus has said, if you look at homosexuality from yet another viewpoint you have to ask yourself if being gay is really a “choice” for most people. Do you honestly think that most teenage kids seriously sit down and decide to be gay? Do believe that they figure that being harassed by peers and, at least in most high schools, called a “fag” by ignorant classmates, will better their personal life? No, of course not. No matter what conservatives try to claim, the fact is that homosexuality is neither a new nor an increasing phenomenon nor a “evil and sick perversion” promoted by the “liberal media.” Its not an inherent trait. No one either has homosexuality because of genes inheirted from or parent nor do they adopt the behavior from parents. If that was true, homosexuality would be more widespread considering that gay couples have been able to adopt for decades.
To address homosexuality, or for that case, evolution, global warming, stem cells, or hell even the Terri Schaivo tragedy with such a narrow and condensing manner as most hardline social conservatives do might the most backward and arcahic intellectual movement this country has experienced in recent times. When people look back on this era in the future and scoff at the ignorance that existed I’ll be glad to know I wasn’t one of the people who threw out scientific fact for “intelligent design” or voted yes on Texas state propostion 2 because I felt that destroyed the “sanctity of marriage” when rampant divorce and infidelity between “normal” straight couples already has.
Malleus.
- I’ll not waste anything more here on the symanticle tangent, as you know tangent is all that it amounts to. Feel free to split hairs, but know simply that I do believe that ThinLizzy was disrepecting God.
moving on…
From your stand, do you not believe that your God rejects homosexuality and abortion?
- Although this is a yet another tangent, my belief of what God thinks is irrelevant to the topic.
continuing on…
“As for presenting links as evidence… well… you did ask for evidence, did you not?
- I did indeed as for evidence. And you did indeed provide links, and indeed this providing links back and forth as “evidence” could go on ad infinitum, and you indeed know it.
- In addition, providing links isn’t the same as presenting an argument.
- You provide links that present arguments. And as bimmer has shown there are counters to the websites you posted that can be seen as arguments for a position. Not that this is a bad thing, but again, I could provide links that have counter arguments, or I could chose the route that bimmer has done and start arguing against the arguments made in the links. Either way it would be time consuming, and would get us nowhere.
- But along those lines, thanx for doing Thinlizzy’s homework for him/her. –> Now that is semantical stuff you should be proud of!
“Finally, if you’d like to engage in a discussion about the institution of marriage and how it has continued to evolve and change in meaning over time (as well as whom has been able to marry whom), both in the West and in a more global sense, I’d be more than happy to engage in such a discussion.”
- I honestly would, but methinks we should take it to either of our sites instead of the politics of the day page here…. I leave you some fodder on your site…
We have no way of proving what they are publishing is true or merely what the liberal controlled media and universities want to hear.
If you are seriously saying it’s possible that all observations of homosexuality in animals are fabricated, I guess I can group you with people who think the earth is flat, we never went to the moon, evolution is made up, and global warming isn’t happening (other liberal “scientific” conspiracies they let you in on when you get your PhD).
“Furthering what Malleus has said, if you look at homosexuality from yet another viewpoint you have to ask yourself if being gay is really a “choice” for most people.”
I never, ever said that it was a matter of choice.
“If you are seriously saying it’s possible that all observations of homosexuality in animals are fabricated, I guess I can group you with people who think the earth is flat, we never went to the moon, evolution is made up, and global warming isn’t happening (other liberal “scientific” conspiracies they let you in on when you get your PhD).”
I’m not saying that they ARE making it up, just that WE (i.e. normal people) have no way of proving that they’re NOT. Same way that normal people have no way of knowing wtf is going on inside the CIA and NSA. As for some of the things you’ve listed, I’ve seen some very convincing evidence to back up the theory that the lunar landing was faked. Do I believe that we never went to the moon? No, but I doubt that we really did it in the 60′s. Evolution, in the sense of an amoeba eventually becoming humans, is flawed from a mathematical stand point. Oh and global warming is a bunch of B.S. — at least in the sense of human beings causing it. We know that the Earth’s temerature fluctuates natrually……..how are you going to blame the Ice Age on Halliburton? We also know that the hole in the ozone is over Antarctica………..so please explain how if pollution is causing it, the hole is as far away from civilization as physically possible.
Now, I know that (at least for some) liberals will never accept anything that doesn’t support their faith of evolution and global warming……….why? Because they are corner stones of the liberal “religion” and acknowledging any flaws in said theories would be equivalent to Christians making a public annoucement that they found facts proving that Jesus never existed (i.e. the whole religion would fall apart).
My two dogs are lesbian.
No, but I doubt that we really did it in the 60′s.
I would love to hear your explanation of how NASA faked the Apollo mission(s? I can’t tell if you think they faked all of them)
Evolution, in the sense of an amoeba eventually becoming humans, is flawed from a mathematical stand point.
Elaborate and show me a source please.
Oh and global warming is a bunch of B.S. — at least in the sense of human beings causing it. We know that the Earth’s temerature fluctuates natrually
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human beings are definitely causing global warming; past temperature fluctuations were caused by changes in C02 levels due to things like continental shift and volcanoes, and by changes in the Earth’s orbit. Guess which one is happening right now. You can probably find a few scientists out of thousands who disagree, but they are funded by oil companies and libertarian think tanks. Needless to say, they don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals where their work can be checked. Don’t believe me? Try to find one recent paper that rejects the idea that humans are causing global warming.
We also know that the hole in the ozone is over Antarctica………..so please explain how if pollution is causing it, the
hole is as far away from civilization as physically possible.
Just skip over this if you think chemistry is a liberal myth.
If a UV ray below a certain wavelength strikes an oxygen molecule in the atmosphere, it breaks into two oxygen atoms. These atoms react with 2 oxygen molecules to create 2 ozone molecules (ozone is O3). The creation of new ozone is a slow process because there isn’t much radiation at the right wavelength to provide new oxygen atoms.
Ozone molecules are broken apart by radiation into O2 and O, which quickly react to form ozone again. The UV rays are converted to heat.
UV rays also break down the CFCs in the atmosphere. The resulting free radicals become catalysts for the reaction that converts ozone to oxygen, which causes a net decline in ozone levels. This reaction happens much faster on the surface of polar stratospheric clouds, which coincidentally form above Antarctica.
This is all well established and there really isn’t anything to debate.
Now, I know that (at least for some) liberals will never accept anything that doesn’t support their faith of evolution and global warming……….why? Because they are corner stones of the liberal “religion” and acknowledging any flaws in said theories would be equivalent to Christians making a public annoucement that they found facts proving that Jesus never existed (i.e. the whole religion would fall apart).
Faith in evolution and global warming is faith in the “strongly believing” sense, not the religious “believing something without evidence” sense. As for the second part about the Christian religion collapsing, I doubt it. Hypothetically, if someone proved that Jesus never existed, then He would be reduced to a metaphor or people would deny the facts. It is a fact that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, but that hasn’t stopped Christian fundies.
” Evolution, in the sense of an amoeba eventually becoming humans, is flawed from a mathematical stand point.”
One of the greatest misundertandings in today’s pop culture of science… evolution is a series (not just one) of different theories on how life has changed… not all of it is we came from a primal ooze but it is easier for the detractors to use this one (along with the theories from Darwin) to try to prove their unprovable point…
BimmerPhile: Your last comment is why I cannot believe the claim you made that you have an IQ approaching 200. Again, this isn’t an indictment of your intelligence, however genius-level intellects wouldn’t make arguments such as these, (even if said genius-level individuals didn’t believe in evolution, global climate change, moon landings etal).
so… yeah