'Anti-Science?'...Who...Me???

[newpolitics]

As for part four, the reason liberals reject vivisection is because it is immoral, and tend to display mote empathy for our non-human compadres, and I am one if them. It has nothing to do with the science, but the immorality of the scientific methods involved in this particular domain. Perhaps if she confronted vivisection herself.

Www.earthlings.com

Learn about it yourself. Follow the link and watch the documentary film "earthlings" that summarizes humans' treatment of non-human animals. The last section (5), is about vivisection.

Vivisection is incredibly cruel, and most if the time, it is does by private corporations trying to fend off lawsuits and is therefore needless, or at least, not justifiable in producing so much suffering for a bottom line. You can also watch for free on YouTube. Either way its free.

 

[newpolitics]

Part five starts by saying republicans are more scientifically literate than democrats, and then cites astrology? That's an immediate fail.

 

[Ernie S.]

About 93 percent of Hispanics self-identify as Christian. 74 percent identify themselves as Catholic, while 18 percent consider themselves Protestant or non-Catholic.

LINK

According to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, Black Americans "are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole." It cited that 87% of Blacks (vs. 83% of all Americans) are affiliated with a religion. It also found that 79 % of Blacks (vs. 56% overall) say that religion is "very important in their life".

LINK

 

[Ernie S.]

Part five starts by saying republicans are more scientifically literate than democrats, and then cites astrology? That's an immediate fail.

Reread it yet again, idiot. You will get it eventually.

 

[Ernie S.]

As for part four, the reason liberals reject vivisection is because it is immoral, and tend to display mote empathy for our non-human compadres, and I am one if them. It has nothing to do with the science, but the immorality of the scientific methods involved in this particular domain. Perhaps if she confronted vivisection herself.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

Learn about it yourself. Follow the link and watch the documentary film "earthlings" that summarizes humans' treatment of non-human animals. The last section (5), is about vivisection.

Vivisection is incredibly cruel, and most if the time, it is does by private corporations trying to fend off lawsuits and is therefore needless, or at least, not justifiable in producing so much suffering for a bottom line. You can also watch for free on YouTube. Either way its free.

Are you a vegetarian?


Do you place animals ahead of humans? Should we test new drugs and procedures onthe offspring of registered Democrats or on hamsters?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism

"Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism
Republicans much more likely than Democrats to believe humans created as-is 10,000 years ago
by Frank Newport


PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats."

There you have it. Republicans are far more creationist than Democrats.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe that Jesus will return by the middle of this century.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You'd be wrong, on both accounts. The right is both more Christian, and more creationist.

"Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious
Democrats are more racially and ethnically diverse, and less religious
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- About 9 out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, and more than half of these are highly religious. That compares with 62% of the Democratic rank-and-file that is white and largely less religious, with blacks and Hispanics making up a much more substantial part of that party's base."

Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious

No they aren't, but we do thank you for showing your idiocy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The OP was about scientific literacy. It wouldn't be hard to argue, based in the statistics I just posted, that republicans are less scientifically literate because they more are religious, which tends to breed anti-science views. Measuring this directly is a tough thing to do, but measuring religiosity is not an has been done and shown here. More religious populations tend to reject the sciences involved with evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology, cherry-picking the science that suits them.

It wouldn't be hard to argue, based on the statistics you posted, that people in Burma are hatched from eggs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism

"Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism
Republicans much more likely than Democrats to believe humans created as-is 10,000 years ago
by Frank Newport


PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats."

There you have it. Republicans are far more creationist than Democrats.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe that Jesus will return by the middle of this century.

Didn't they believe that the event was accomplished in 2008?

 

[newpolitics]

It's quite hilarious how you ignore evidence that was just provided, and act as if it simply doesn't exist. Then again, this seems to be how you quacks handle most evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. Its an infantile defense mechanism: cover your ears, hold your nose, puff out your cheeks and stomp your feet. Quite the hilarity you provide. Thank you. The best part is that PC jumps on this idiocy to attempt an insult.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's quite hilarious how you ignore evidence that was just provided, and act as if it simply doesn't exist. Then again, this seems to be how you quacks handle most evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. Its an infantile defense mechanism: cover your ears, hold your nose, puff out your cheeks and stomp your feet. Quite the hilarity you provide. Thank you. The best part is that PC jumps on this idiocy to attempt an insult.

What are you doing here?

Is National Geographic filming at your place again?

 

[newpolitics]

It's quite hilarious how you ignore evidence that was just provided, and act as if it simply doesn't exist. Then again, this seems to be how you quacks handle most evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. Its an infantile defense mechanism: cover your ears, hold your nose, puff out your cheeks and stomp your feet. Quite the hilarity you provide. Thank you. The best part is that PC jumps on this idiocy to attempt an insult.

What are you doing here?

Is National Geographic filming at your place again?

Every time you ignore my post and jump to insult, you affirm your inability to respond.

 

[zombiehunter696]

It's quite hilarious how you ignore evidence that was just provided, and act as if it simply doesn't exist. Then again, this seems to be how you quacks handle most evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. Its an infantile defense mechanism: cover your ears, hold your nose, puff out your cheeks and stomp your feet. Quite the hilarity you provide. Thank you. The best part is that PC jumps on this idiocy to attempt an insult.

I'm convinced you could show a creationist a time lapse of the entire history of earth from the origin of the first life to today, showing that evolution took place, and they'd still deny it.

 

[newpolitics]

It's quite hilarious how you ignore evidence that was just provided, and act as if it simply doesn't exist. Then again, this seems to be how you quacks handle most evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. Its an infantile defense mechanism: cover your ears, hold your nose, puff out your cheeks and stomp your feet. Quite the hilarity you provide. Thank you. The best part is that PC jumps on this idiocy to attempt an insult.

I'm convinced you could show a creationist a time lapse of the entire history of earth from the origin of the first life to today, showing that evolution took place, and they'd still deny it.

I wouldn't put it past them. Their denial of reality knows no bounds. They basically already do this. Evolutionary theory's ability to demonstrate itself through observable facts basically outlays the scenario you put forth. It is their willful ignorance that keeps the facts at bay, and allows them to personally uphold untenable views in this age of reason and empiricism, in which skepticism is the only viable outlook.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's quite hilarious how you ignore evidence that was just provided, and act as if it simply doesn't exist. Then again, this seems to be how you quacks handle most evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. Its an infantile defense mechanism: cover your ears, hold your nose, puff out your cheeks and stomp your feet. Quite the hilarity you provide. Thank you. The best part is that PC jumps on this idiocy to attempt an insult.

I suggest you dig into that Pew study you provided, it is the one that I use to support the fact that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe Jesus will return by 2050. On the other hand, you could simply pretend to be the world's most renowned expert on everything and claim the entire planet is wrong when it disagrees with you.

Guess which way I am betting.

 

[newpolitics]

It's quite hilarious how you ignore evidence that was just provided, and act as if it simply doesn't exist. Then again, this seems to be how you quacks handle most evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. Its an infantile defense mechanism: cover your ears, hold your nose, puff out your cheeks and stomp your feet. Quite the hilarity you provide. Thank you. The best part is that PC jumps on this idiocy to attempt an insult.

I suggest you dig into that Pew study you provided, it is the one that I use to support the fact that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe Jesus will return by 2050. On the other hand, you could simply pretend to be the world's most renowned expert on everything and claim the entire planet is wrong when it disagrees with you.

Guess which way I am betting.

The world doesn't disagree with me. You do. Try deflating yourself just a little bit. Nor did I ever claim I am an expert. I merely cited evidence from experts, and drew conclusions. I cited statistics evidence that directly corroborates my conclusion. Your claim runs contradictory to the evidence in this study, and Im curious hear you how you arrived at the conclusion you did. Basically, your saying that democrats are more religious, which runs counter to the evidence just provided. Please justify this.

 

[newpolitics]

The studies clearly show republicans are both more Christian and creationist, yet you are concluding that more liberals believe Jesus will return in 2050? First of all, how are you determining this? Second of all, who cares? Even if this were true, it would simply mean that there are more democratic Christians who hold a specific theological model of reality, but this does nothing to falsify the notion that republicans are far and away more religious, so it is no consequence, unless you can show how this is somehow important. You've done none of this.