Christine O'Donnell: Some mice have fully-functioning Human Brains

[rushmc 18]

Yes, I know what a theory is.

Do you?

When there is concrete evidence (your words) then it is no longer theory it is. It is then considered fact.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

SO, you cant do it .....right?

As of yet I have not stated a postion (for the most part) that is a dangerous assumption on your part. As for me? Claims are being made here. I am just asking for them to backed up.

Rush, if you're not willing to state a position you're not debating. If you spend all of your time trying to poke holes in others' positions, it's pretty logical to assume you are against their position. If not, then either you're a college professor trying to "encourage them to think" (my dad used to do that ) or just a natural contrarian who holds no beliefs other than trying to make himself look smart by putting others down.

Hint to all: one generally looks smarter by saying smart things and occasionally taking intellectual risks. If you keep putting others down to make yourself "look smarter" you just end up making the whole group look stupid.

So -- do you have thoughts on the issue?

Wendy P.

Sorry this is so threatening to you

I have not put anyone down here. A claim has been made. They were called on it. As of yet it can not be backed up.

Assumptions were made as to what I beleive and now you make a claim assumption I am trying to make myself look smarter?

Oh, and usually no one has to do anything to make those so inclined look stupid.

This thread is about O'Donnell and the comments made about her. I am just questioning those.

So, who did I put down here?

Rush, you keep asking questions and you have yet to put forth any kind of argument, you have not challenged anyone's beliefs much less mine. Even if you could 100% disprove evolution you still have not asserted an alternative so I ask you, what is it that you have to bring to the table, if you do not answer there is no reason for this conversation to even go on, this is a one sided debate I have given the facts and conclusions that you have asked for and you have not responded to me once, you just ask more random questions and state that you win. So lets hear it.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The word "theory" has a different meaning in science vs. the arts. In science, the following are also theories:
Gravity
Relativity
Cell theory
Kinetic theory of gases
Continental drift
Plate tectonics

So what do you think? Want to share it, or, like a middle-aged lady in an opaque negligee, do you figure that what we think is better than what we see?

Wendy P.

See what ever the hell you want to Wedny

I am just asking questions
Sorry this bothers you

I know about theory and supporting evidence. Theory is not fact however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,150]

This is not threatening to me. I hate the fact that SC is more and more devolving into a "yah? sez who?" type of a place, but all I can do there is try to interact how I'd like to be interacted with. Only wordier

Define "backed up" to your satisfaction. The fact that there is a large proportion of the scientific community that agrees is an indication that there a pretty significant amount of supporting evidence. That a poster on dz.com can't articulate it to your specific satisfaction, when you're disposed not to believe him, isn't real surprising.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

SO, you cant do it .....right?

As of yet I have not stated a postion (for the most part) that is a dangerous assumption on your part. As for me? Claims are being made here. I am just asking for them to backed up.

Rush, if you're not willing to state a position you're not debating. If you spend all of your time trying to poke holes in others' positions, it's pretty logical to assume you are against their position. If not, then either you're a college professor trying to "encourage them to think" (my dad used to do that ) or just a natural contrarian who holds no beliefs other than trying to make himself look smart by putting others down.

Hint to all: one generally looks smarter by saying smart things and occasionally taking intellectual risks. If you keep putting others down to make yourself "look smarter" you just end up making the whole group look stupid.

So -- do you have thoughts on the issue?

Wendy P.

Sorry this is so threatening to you

I have not put anyone down here. A claim has been made. They were called on it. As of yet it can not be backed up.

Assumptions were made as to what I beleive and now you make a claim assumption I am trying to make myself look smarter?

Oh, and usually no one has to do anything to make those so inclined look stupid.

This thread is about O'Donnell and the comments made about her. I am just questioning those.

So, who did I put down here?

Rush, you keep asking questions and you have yet to put forth any kind of argument, you have not challenged anyone's beliefs much less mine. Even if you could 100% disprove evolution you still have not asserted an alternative so I ask you, what is it that you have to bring to the table, if you do not answer there is no reason for this conversation to even go on, this is a one sided debate I have given the facts and conclusions that you have asked for and you have not responded to me once, you just ask more random questions and state that you win. So lets hear it.

I have made no claim
I am asking you about yours

To give mine at this point would only be the distraction you seem to desperatly need at this time.

I cant prove anything

And my point is

Neither can you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

To act out one's penis envy?

WTF?

Quote

What a commie freak!

Did I say anything about Coons being a commie? That's another WTF.

Chris "the Taxman" Coons is his nickname. No different than "Arnold the Governator". If you can't handle this, you take your partisan politics far to serious.

They all suck, every last one of them. Some just suck more than others. In this case Christine O'Donnell probably sucks more that Chris Coons, but that does not mean I will support "The Taxman". There is a big difference between working for a county and working for the Feds. The US Federal Government must get it's spending issues under control and they will not do this by raising taxes.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

SO, you cant do it .....right?

As of yet I have not stated a postion (for the most part) that is a dangerous assumption on your part. As for me? Claims are being made here. I am just asking for them to backed up.

Rush, if you're not willing to state a position you're not debating. If you spend all of your time trying to poke holes in others' positions, it's pretty logical to assume you are against their position. If not, then either you're a college professor trying to "encourage them to think" (my dad used to do that ) or just a natural contrarian who holds no beliefs other than trying to make himself look smart by putting others down.

Hint to all: one generally looks smarter by saying smart things and occasionally taking intellectual risks. If you keep putting others down to make yourself "look smarter" you just end up making the whole group look stupid.

So -- do you have thoughts on the issue?

Wendy P.

Sorry this is so threatening to you

I have not put anyone down here. A claim has been made. They were called on it. As of yet it can not be backed up.

Assumptions were made as to what I beleive and now you make a claim assumption I am trying to make myself look smarter?

Oh, and usually no one has to do anything to make those so inclined look stupid.

This thread is about O'Donnell and the comments made about her. I am just questioning those.

So, who did I put down here?

Rush, you keep asking questions and you have yet to put forth any kind of argument, you have not challenged anyone's beliefs much less mine. Even if you could 100% disprove evolution you still have not asserted an alternative so I ask you, what is it that you have to bring to the table, if you do not answer there is no reason for this conversation to even go on, this is a one sided debate I have given the facts and conclusions that you have asked for and you have not responded to me once, you just ask more random questions and state that you win. So lets hear it.

I have made no claim
I am asking you about yours

To give mine at this point would only be the distraction you seem to desperatly need at this time.

I cant prove anything

And my point is

Neither can you

You are making these straw man arguments and you have yet to respond to ONE just ONE of mine or Wendy's numerous posts. I am wasting my time. Either respond with some kind of intellectual response or state your claim so we can have a rational discussion about it.

The reason I want you to state what you believe is because maybe I can see you actually state something that resembles some sort of an argument, but I may be giving too much credit by now.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

WTF?

Made you look.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

SO, you cant do it .....right?

As of yet I have not stated a postion (for the most part) that is a dangerous assumption on your part. As for me? Claims are being made here. I am just asking for them to backed up.

Rush, if you're not willing to state a position you're not debating. If you spend all of your time trying to poke holes in others' positions, it's pretty logical to assume you are against their position. If not, then either you're a college professor trying to "encourage them to think" (my dad used to do that ) or just a natural contrarian who holds no beliefs other than trying to make himself look smart by putting others down.

Hint to all: one generally looks smarter by saying smart things and occasionally taking intellectual risks. If you keep putting others down to make yourself "look smarter" you just end up making the whole group look stupid.

So -- do you have thoughts on the issue?

Wendy P.

Sorry this is so threatening to you

I have not put anyone down here. A claim has been made. They were called on it. As of yet it can not be backed up.

Assumptions were made as to what I beleive and now you make a claim assumption I am trying to make myself look smarter?

Oh, and usually no one has to do anything to make those so inclined look stupid.

This thread is about O'Donnell and the comments made about her. I am just questioning those.

So, who did I put down here?

Rush, you keep asking questions and you have yet to put forth any kind of argument, you have not challenged anyone's beliefs much less mine. Even if you could 100% disprove evolution you still have not asserted an alternative so I ask you, what is it that you have to bring to the table, if you do not answer there is no reason for this conversation to even go on, this is a one sided debate I have given the facts and conclusions that you have asked for and you have not responded to me once, you just ask more random questions and state that you win. So lets hear it.

I have made no claim
I am asking you about yours

To give mine at this point would only be the distraction you seem to desperatly need at this time.

I cant prove anything

And my point is

Neither can you

You are making these straw man arguments and you have yet to respond to ONE just ONE of mine or Wendy's numerous posts. I am wasting my time. Either respond with some kind of intellectual response or state your claim so we can have a rational discussion about it.

The reason I want you to state what you believe is because maybe I can see you actually state something that resembles some sort of an argument, but I may be giving too much credit by now.

Do I beleive we all came from a "common ancestor"?

No

Can anyone prove we did?

No

Do we have theory's

Show me the fosilized link if you got proof

Do we evolve and change yes

Two different things

Now

Show me your proof

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

First of all, you're responding to a month-old post; but whatever.

Sorry some of us don't live here.

Quote

Be that as it may, Obama's smart and O'Donnell's a fucking twit. Period.

Ah, so you defend Obama for not knowing a basic fact but lambaste O'Donnell for knowing the the words "Separation of Church and State" is not actually in the Constitution. I see your political filter is on strong.

Quote

People have always found comfort in circle-jerking their ignorance; and I did acknowledge in my OP that the moronitude will probably vote her in.

As opposed to the moronitude that voted Obama in?

You only see the party and are unable to be honest or balanced.

[wmw999 2,150]

Quote

Do I beleive we all came from a "common ancestor"?

No

Do you think that not all humans came from the same ancestor (i.e. that Africans and Asians and Caucasians had different ancestors, that humans have a different ancestor from other animals (where did that ancestor come from? how far back -- are we descended from Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? If not, where did they go?), or something else?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

SO, you cant do it .....right?

As of yet I have not stated a postion (for the most part) that is a dangerous assumption on your part. As for me? Claims are being made here. I am just asking for them to backed up.

Rush, if you're not willing to state a position you're not debating. If you spend all of your time trying to poke holes in others' positions, it's pretty logical to assume you are against their position. If not, then either you're a college professor trying to "encourage them to think" (my dad used to do that ) or just a natural contrarian who holds no beliefs other than trying to make himself look smart by putting others down.

Hint to all: one generally looks smarter by saying smart things and occasionally taking intellectual risks. If you keep putting others down to make yourself "look smarter" you just end up making the whole group look stupid.

So -- do you have thoughts on the issue?

Wendy P.

Sorry this is so threatening to you

I have not put anyone down here. A claim has been made. They were called on it. As of yet it can not be backed up.

Assumptions were made as to what I beleive and now you make a claim assumption I am trying to make myself look smarter?

Oh, and usually no one has to do anything to make those so inclined look stupid.

This thread is about O'Donnell and the comments made about her. I am just questioning those.

So, who did I put down here?

Rush, you keep asking questions and you have yet to put forth any kind of argument, you have not challenged anyone's beliefs much less mine. Even if you could 100% disprove evolution you still have not asserted an alternative so I ask you, what is it that you have to bring to the table, if you do not answer there is no reason for this conversation to even go on, this is a one sided debate I have given the facts and conclusions that you have asked for and you have not responded to me once, you just ask more random questions and state that you win. So lets hear it.

I have made no claim
I am asking you about yours

To give mine at this point would only be the distraction you seem to desperatly need at this time.

I cant prove anything

And my point is

Neither can you

You are making these straw man arguments and you have yet to respond to ONE just ONE of mine or Wendy's numerous posts. I am wasting my time. Either respond with some kind of intellectual response or state your claim so we can have a rational discussion about it.

The reason I want you to state what you believe is because maybe I can see you actually state something that resembles some sort of an argument, but I may be giving too much credit by now.

Do I beleive we all came from a "common ancestor"?

No

Can anyone prove we did?

No

Do we have theory's

Show me the fosilized link if you got proof

Do we evolve and change yes

Two different things

Now

Show me you proof

Okay you asked me for the evidence. So here is one place to look for it.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And these are all cited from prestigious universities and scholars so don't try to denote my source or try to say "ohhh you can't speak for yourself". I already know you're going to say it, I told you I'm not an evolutionary biologist but this is some of the best evidence out there if you really are interested in reading it. Do not respond to me unless you have something to say about what is in the link I sent you because you asked for evidence so you can't just ignore me after I give it to you.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.

Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Geological Society of America (2001) "Evolution." http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[wmw999 2,150]

So is it your contention that Christine O'Donnell is smarter and better qualified than Obama?

He is capable of mistakes. She is capable of mistakes. He is capable of being right. She is capable of being right.

Single instances don't make either one into something they aren't.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,147]

And how exactly did it help Christine O'Donnell's argument/debate to state that those exact words are not found in the constitution (if you truly believe that is what she meant)?

So she knew that the legal doctrine is there, based on the wording in the constitution, but somehow she was trying to make a point stating that the exact words weren't in there. So, what was her point with that statement?

[Prior23 0]

Quote

So is it your contention that Christine O'Donnell is smarter and better qualified than Obama?

He is capable of mistakes. She is capable of mistakes. He is capable of being right. She is capable of being right.

Single instances don't make either one into something they aren't.

Wendy P.

I'm not quite sure that O'Donnell's recent antics can be classified as mistakes though they are deliberate statements of ignorance would you not agree? So it would be a fair judgment of her character and her ability to be right and wrong.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[Prior23 0]

Quote

And how exactly did it help Christine O'Donnell's argument/debate to state that those exact words are not found in the constitution (if you truly believe that is what she meant)?

So she knew that the legal doctrine is there, based on the wording in the constitution, but somehow she was trying to make a point stating that the exact words weren't in there. So, what was her point with that statement?

She was being part of the team of Mavericks! Showing them all who's boss!

B.A.S.E. #1734

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

And how exactly did it help Christine O'Donnell's argument/debate to state that those exact words are not found in the constitution (if you truly believe that is what she meant)?

So she knew that the legal doctrine is there, based on the wording in the constitution, but somehow she was trying to make a point stating that the exact words weren't in there. So, what was her point with that statement?

I guess that would depend on what the meaning of "Is" is.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skipbelt 0]

our government cannot establish a state church , however , churches can and do influence the state. this is how the founders intended it !

[wmw999 2,150]

Quote

this is how the founders intended it

How do you know that?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

this is how the founders intended it

How do you know that?

Wendy P.

Twardo told him. He was there.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Prior23 0]

Quote

our government cannot establish a state church , however , churches can and do influence the state. this is how the founders intended it !

A number of the founder fathers were deists, which does not even involved a religion or church doctrine, so I don't know who told you that were their intentions because it is just wrong.

If they were intended on it they would have put it in the constitution don't you think?

B.A.S.E. #1734

[quade 3]

Quote

our government cannot establish a state church , however , churches can and do influence the state. this is how the founders intended it !

Hogwash.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

our government cannot establish a state church , however , churches can and do influence the state. this is how the founders intended it !

Hogwash.

I agree - Except the FF did not want the existence of God to be questioned.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,150]

Quote

the FF did not want the existence of God to be questioned

They also didn't want women or slaves to count as people.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,435]

>Do I beleive we all came from a "common ancestor"?
>No

>Can anyone prove we did?
>No

Actually, we can. We all share exactly the same basic building blocks of life (DNA/RNA/proteins.) The one exception are viruses - and people argue over whether they are alive or not anyway.

>Show me the fosilized link if you got proof

Sure. Here are 59 fossils that chronicle our evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

>Do we evolve and change yes
>Two different things

Evolution is evolution. Over short time periods there are small changes. Over long time periods there are large changes.

We turned gray wolves into chihuahuas in under 16,000 years. Now imagine what would happen due to natural selection over ten million years.