So Palin Doesn't Believe in Evolution...

I love how our democratic system of government becomes a 'belief imposer' when the rightwing minority isn't getting their way.

Maybe we should invent a new system where the right gets to impose their beliefs on all of us simply by proclamation. Would that make you happy?

What would make me happy would be if Democrats would spend their own money instead of mine and care when their programs don't work.

Most of the money made in the US is by Democrats. Oops.

You're a moron, oops
 
Valid point Kaz.. the left is constantly imposing their beliefs on us under the notion that it is for the common good. IF you speak out it inevitably turns into...

What idiot wouldn't support _________________________? You fill in the blank.

I love how our democratic system of government becomes a 'belief imposer' when the rightwing minority isn't getting their way.

Maybe we should invent a new system where the right gets to impose their beliefs on all of us simply by proclamation. Would that make you happy?

What would make me happy would be if Democrats would spend their own money instead of mine and care when their programs don't work.

Maybe you should move to Mesylvania.
 
I hate to break it to you, we ARE apes. But kudos for not saying "monkeys."

Way to utterly fail taxonomy, Mensa Boy.

1) We're not apes. We're humans. Completely different groups.

2) Did you know that the first definition in the dictionary under "ape" says "Monkey"?

Tsk, tsk. Stepped on your johnson again.


What dictionary are you using? It needs to be tossed. Monkeys and apes are two different groups. Apes-tailless; monkeys-tailed!

Not this one:

1. any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (great ape), which includes the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (lesser ape), which includes the gibbon and siamang.


...although for the simple minded, ape = monkey is a godsend.
 
I personally don't beleive we came from Apes and neither does she.


Maybe, you are still one of the Apes that have not yet evolved.:lol::lol:

I hate to break it to you, we ARE apes. But kudos for not saying "monkeys."

Way to utterly fail taxonomy, Mensa Boy.

1) We're not apes. We're humans. Completely different groups.

2) Did you know that the first definition in the dictionary under "ape" says "Monkey"?

Tsk, tsk. Stepped on your johnson again.

Way to live up to renown as a braindead bimbo.

http://www.como.wa.edu.au/uploads/media/PRIMATE_20TAXONOMY.pdf
 
Gov. Palin doesn't believe in evolution and, like Bush, is a Christian. I know the left will cry that her beliefs is a threat to liberty and the separation of church and state but look at the first amendment and it starts out with "Congress shall pass no law...". This specifically refers to the actions that the congress can't do and that is pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion or....(you know the rest).

Her expressing her religious beliefs is not passing a law that would bind anyone into obedience to her faith which frees anyone to have disagreeing beliefs. However, the left seems not to realize this and thinks that the personality of the president somehow influences the citizen in such a way that has almost as much power as legal law which is why they decry "separation of church and state" over the idea that a president can have or even express religious beliefs that they themselves may not want to embrace.

Does this not say something about the mentality of our political thinking where the will and personality of the leader becomes as powerful as any law that is passed?

Palin fails to accept one of the most highly supported concepts in the natural sciences? I am shocked.

It says nothing about the law and everything about her ignorance* which she likes to display like a banner to her gullible base.

Luckily, she'll never be in a position of power to try and defund evolution research like the Bush Administration.

*Yes, I am claiming anyone that doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant.
 
I hate to break it to you, we ARE apes. But kudos for not saying "monkeys."

Way to utterly fail taxonomy, Mensa Boy.

1) We're not apes. We're humans. Completely different groups.

2) Did you know that the first definition in the dictionary under "ape" says "Monkey"?

Tsk, tsk. Stepped on your johnson again.


What dictionary are you using? It needs to be tossed. Monkeys and apes are two different groups. Apes-tailless; monkeys-tailed!

Merriam-Webster. What dictionary did YOU use? Are you really going to tell us now that Merriam-Webster, the best-known and most commonly used dictionary in America, is a bad source for word definitions? :eusa_angel:

ape - 1 a : monkey; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms b : any of two families (Pongidae and Hylobatidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon) —called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape
 
Gov. Palin doesn't believe in evolution and, like Bush, is a Christian. I know the left will cry that her beliefs is a threat to liberty and the separation of church and state but look at the first amendment and it starts out with "Congress shall pass no law...". This specifically refers to the actions that the congress can't do and that is pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion or....(you know the rest).

Her expressing her religious beliefs is not passing a law that would bind anyone into obedience to her faith which frees anyone to have disagreeing beliefs. However, the left seems not to realize this and thinks that the personality of the president somehow influences the citizen in such a way that has almost as much power as legal law which is why they decry "separation of church and state" over the idea that a president can have or even express religious beliefs that they themselves may not want to embrace.

Does this not say something about the mentality of our political thinking where the will and personality of the leader becomes as powerful as any law that is passed?

Neither did Darwin
 
You uber-smart leftist genius' do understand that it is the theory of evolution?

And do you know what "theory" means in the scientific sense?

Yeah, they purport to explain phenomenon. There's a reason we don't have the Theory of Round Earth.

BTW... I accept evolution, and creationism. I just get annoyed with fucksticks proclaiming anyone who doesn't hold their world view as stupid.
 
Gov. Palin doesn't believe in evolution and, like Bush, is a Christian. I know the left will cry that her beliefs is a threat to liberty and the separation of church and state but look at the first amendment and it starts out with "Congress shall pass no law...". This specifically refers to the actions that the congress can't do and that is pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion or....(you know the rest).

Her expressing her religious beliefs is not passing a law that would bind anyone into obedience to her faith which frees anyone to have disagreeing beliefs. However, the left seems not to realize this and thinks that the personality of the president somehow influences the citizen in such a way that has almost as much power as legal law which is why they decry "separation of church and state" over the idea that a president can have or even express religious beliefs that they themselves may not want to embrace.

Does this not say something about the mentality of our political thinking where the will and personality of the leader becomes as powerful as any law that is passed?

Palin fails to accept one of the most highly supported concepts in the natural sciences? I am shocked.

It says nothing about the law and everything about her ignorance* which she likes to display like a banner to her gullible base.

Luckily, she'll never be in a position of power to try and defund evolution research like the Bush Administration.

*Yes, I am claiming anyone that doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant.

And I'm proclaiming anyone who says shit like this as being a self-righteous and dim-witted fucktard.
 
And I'm proclaiming anyone who says shit like this as being a self-righteous and dim-witted fucktard.

Proclaim away. The evidence is irrefutable. The only people who don't accept evolution are those that haven't studied it (legitimately ignorant) or who have studied it but reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs (purposely ignorant).

To date, no one has rejected evolution because of any logical, scientifically coherent counter-point.
 
Way to utterly fail taxonomy, Mensa Boy.

1) We're not apes. We're humans. Completely different groups.

2) Did you know that the first definition in the dictionary under "ape" says "Monkey"?

Tsk, tsk. Stepped on your johnson again.


What dictionary are you using? It needs to be tossed. Monkeys and apes are two different groups. Apes-tailless; monkeys-tailed!

Merriam-Webster. What dictionary did YOU use? Are you really going to tell us now that Merriam-Webster, the best-known and most commonly used dictionary in America, is a bad source for word definitions? :eusa_angel:

ape - 1 a : monkey; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms b : any of two families (Pongidae and Hylobatidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon) —called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape

That dictionary is wrong, and if you had a brain, you'd have known it.

'monkey' is only a down the line 3rd or 4th loose definition of ape.
 
The Left feels that you are entitled to anything our Constitution and Bill of Rights allows us.

But only if you agree with them on all things.
 
And I'm proclaiming anyone who says shit like this as being a self-righteous and dim-witted fucktard.

Proclaim away. The evidence is irrefutable. The only people who don't accept evolution are those that haven't studied it (legitimately ignorant) or who have studied it but reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs (purposely ignorant).

To date, no one has rejected evolution because of any logical, scientifically coherent counter-point.

You should also acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word ignorant. You can't be ignorant of of something if you understand it, yet you simply reject it.

Take God for example... simple science tells me that there had to be catalyst for all of this.... shit doesn't just happen for no reason. Now, with that said, you may reject God, but that hardly makes you ignorant.

You're welcome.
 
Gov. Palin doesn't believe in evolution and, like Bush, is a Christian. I know the left will cry that her beliefs is a threat to liberty and the separation of church and state but look at the first amendment and it starts out with "Congress shall pass no law...". This specifically refers to the actions that the congress can't do and that is pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion or....(you know the rest).

Her expressing her religious beliefs is not passing a law that would bind anyone into obedience to her faith which frees anyone to have disagreeing beliefs. However, the left seems not to realize this and thinks that the personality of the president somehow influences the citizen in such a way that has almost as much power as legal law which is why they decry "separation of church and state" over the idea that a president can have or even express religious beliefs that they themselves may not want to embrace.

Does this not say something about the mentality of our political thinking where the will and personality of the leader becomes as powerful as any law that is passed?

It shouts out loud how stupid and unqualified she is for a position that demands reason and intelligence.

You people that think it is OK to put someone that stupid in a position of that much authority are astonishing and a danger to the republic.
 
Gov. Palin doesn't believe in evolution and, like Bush, is a Christian. I know the left will cry that her beliefs is a threat to liberty and the separation of church and state but look at the first amendment and it starts out with "Congress shall pass no law...". This specifically refers to the actions that the congress can't do and that is pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion or....(you know the rest).

Her expressing her religious beliefs is not passing a law that would bind anyone into obedience to her faith which frees anyone to have disagreeing beliefs. However, the left seems not to realize this and thinks that the personality of the president somehow influences the citizen in such a way that has almost as much power as legal law which is why they decry "separation of church and state" over the idea that a president can have or even express religious beliefs that they themselves may not want to embrace.

Does this not say something about the mentality of our political thinking where the will and personality of the leader becomes as powerful as any law that is passed?

It shouts out loud how stupid and unqualified she is for a position that demands reason and intelligence.

You people that think it is OK to put someone that stupid in a position of that much authority are astonishing and a danger to the republic.

True but that's what campaigning and voting is all about...........
 
You should also acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word ignorant. You can't be ignorant of of something if you understand it, yet you simply reject it.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the term. You thought I meant "stupid" when I used the term "ignorant". I did not. The two are not synonymous.

The term "willful ignorance" is a well known term in the lexicon:

willful ignorance - Wiktionary

There are plenty of people who choose to ignore evolution simply because it conflicts with their belief in some other non-scientific explanation. That's the very example of willful ignorance, as opposed to true ignorance.

Take God for example... simple science tells me that there had to be catalyst for all of this.... shit doesn't just happen for no reason. Now, with that said, you may reject God, but that hardly makes you ignorant.

The existence of God is not something that can be scientifically quantified. Therefore, it's not an alternative to evolutionary theory. That's why I said "scientifically valid alternative".

Rejection of God is an issue of faith, not ignorance.

Again you guys try and blur the lines between science and religion.
 
You should also acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word ignorant. You can't be ignorant of of something if you understand it, yet you simply reject it.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the term. You thought I meant "stupid" when I used the term "ignorant". I did not. The two are not synonymous.

The term "willful ignorance" is a well known term in the lexicon:

willful ignorance - Wiktionary

There are plenty of people who choose to ignore evolution simply because it conflicts with their belief in some other non-scientific explanation. That's the very example of willful ignorance, as opposed to true ignorance.

Take God for example... simple science tells me that there had to be catalyst for all of this.... shit doesn't just happen for no reason. Now, with that said, you may reject God, but that hardly makes you ignorant.

The existence of God is not something that can be scientifically quantified. Therefore, it's not an alternative to evolutionary theory. That's why I said "scientifically valid alternative".

Rejection of God is an issue of faith, not ignorance.

Again you guys try and blur the lines between science and religion.

Again, you totally missed the point.

And spare us the "I'm so much smarter than you" lectures... it really isn't all that impressive and is really kinda douchey.

Hit that one on Wiktionary.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top