Originally Posted by joder

Fossils clearly indicate evolution. Species have changed through time in a steady evolutionary progression.

Species have changed over time is true. No fossil, however, indicates that one species spawned another. If you believe otherwise, please uniquely identify the fossil as this is news to me!

Originally Posted by joder

No fossils have been discovered that can falsify Darwinian evolution.

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. I would theorize that "No fossils may be discovered which can prove Darwinian evolution."

Originally Posted by joder

A scientific theory is not an idea. It is falsifiable and verifiable. ID is not a scientific theory. If you think it is, then please tell me about it since it's own proponents have yet to produce a scientific theory.

I said I'm an atheist. The fact that I don't know an answer to a question (such as how creatures have progressed through time) does not imply that a superior being is responsible; does not imply that evolution has happend; it does imply that I have a lack of sufficient knowledge to come to a solid conclusion. My only statement is that "I don't know and there's currently insufficient evidence."

Jeremy,

If you don't know, what have you done to find out? What science have you read?

Just because YOU don't have the sufficient evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by joder

Jeremy,

If you don't know, what have you done to find out? What science have you read?

Just because YOU don't have the sufficient evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

As I said, "The absence of proof is not the proof of absence." This applies to me as well as anyone. I don't have enough information to conclude anything on this issue but that I don't know.

There are millions of books and research and fossils and religions out there on this subject. As I am a programmer I haven't taken the time to read 1% of them, though I have studied the subject in college and done some personal research, though that was years ago. I would prefer if you would correct errors in my understanding instead of criticizing me. I have replied to your PM with my personal email address so that you may correct any errors in knowledge I have and, in advance, I thank you for taking the time to correct my knowledge. I am an adherent to logic and look forward to proper academic debate.

Jeremy,

Step back from the keyboard and take a breath. You have made all these claims and I asked what you have read because your claiming that they are all theories is simply not true. ID is not a scientific theory. I asked you to show where it was. If you can't, what is the point of discussion? I posted a link to a debate where a leading proponent of ID stated they didn't have a scientific theory.

I really don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion. If anyone is interested there is a ton of information and links at http://talkorigins.org

Is it not funny were conversations and debates lead. I mean the start of this thread was “if republicans could get the Pres.” Now it’s a heated evolution debate. It’s great.

On this I have to partially agree with James and Jeremy. Evolution is a fact on some levels, there is proof of that and species are still evolving. However, there is no proof that says all species evolved from a single celled organism – religion or no religion.

So Hilary won.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Is it not funny were conversations and debates lead.

lol. I agree. I was waiting for a mod to comment that we were off topic.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

So Hilary won.

Yes, and so did McCain. I think that if McCain gets the GOP nomination that he'll be handily defeated. He has been an ardent supporter of every aspect of Bush's decade of death and I'm confident that the last thing this country wants is yet another decade of death.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

lol. I agree. I was waiting for a mod to comment that we were off topic.

Guess that might as well be me Get back on topic people (not quite sure where or why it deviated to evolution vs Creationism/ID) as this was originally about the Republicans having 0% chance of entering the White House.

Thanks Phil for getting the thread back on track

I was surprised Hilary won. According to the news I watched, a poll showed nearly 40% made up there minds at the last minute.

I hope McCain wins the GOP and not because I want him to be president but because his Iraq policy will be a gold mine for defeat.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

lol. I agree. I was waiting for a mod to comment that we were off topic.



Yes, and so did McCain. I think that if McCain gets the GOP nomination that he'll be handily defeated. He has been an ardent supporter of every aspect of Bush's decade of death and I'm confident that the last thing this country wants is yet another decade of death.

I will not vote for him. Honestly if Hilary and him wins both the nominees this might be the year I vote for a third party, but I don’t know who that will be.

Originally Posted by joder

I hope McCain wins the GOP and not because I want him to be president but because his Iraq policy will be a gold mine for defeat.

Alas, something we agree on 100%. Woo hoo for this thread getting back on track!

Originally Posted by joder

Thanks Phil for getting the thread back on track

Yeh no worries - just my name isn't Phil! It's Dan

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Alas, something we agree on 100%. Woo hoo for this thread getting back on track!

You can thank Phil for that!

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I will not vote for him. Honestly if Hilary and him wins both the nominees this might be the year I vote for a third party, but I don’t know who that will be.

Are you misspelling Hillary on purpose? Is that an ever-so-slight cut?

I'm hoping Edwards or Obama get the nom. I'm debating on caucusing for Obama instead of Edwards (I'm in NV, so we're on the 19th) because Edwards is looking less and less like a potential nominee and I'm worried that a vote for Edwards is really for Clinton since I'd prefer Obama to Clinton. Whoever gets the Democratic nom, though, will get my vote in the election as I want to do my best to ensure that another GOP administration is far off in the future, if the party can ever recover from the current administration.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Alas, something we agree on 100%. Woo hoo for this thread getting back on track!

As bad as McCain was not reading the intelligence reports that were given to Congress before the Iraq war vote was his flip-flop on torture. The U.S. prosecuted people for waterboarding as torture in WWII but somehow they think it's okay now.

If it comes down to Hilary and McCain I will vote for Hilary. I don't want to throw my vote away on the third party candidate and give that much more of a chance for McCain to be elected.

EDIT:

We agree again Jeremy. I would like to see Obama or Edwards get the nomination. Time for some real change.

Originally Posted by joder

The U.S. prosecuted people for waterboarding as torture in WWII but somehow they think it's okay now.

I thought that this was remarkable myself, coupled, of course, with the fact that our Attorney General has openly declared that he can't call it torture! I guess if Americans are doing it, then it's not torture; however, if Americans are being subjected to it, then it is.

I feel like a retard sometimes - I guess Phil reminded people to get on track and I want to take the credit. Anyway yeh continue the debate people!

Personally I'm not sure who I want to win the democratic candidate thing - Hillary and Obama sound good. Both seem to have fairly similar policies on things and following todays victory for Hillary, both seem to be neck and neck.

Originally Posted by whym

I feel like a retard

Something I'm sure EVERYONE can agree on
(j/k Dan )

Originally Posted by whym

Personally I'm not sure who I want to win the democratic candidate thing - Hillary and Obama sound good. Both seem to have fairly similar policies on things and following todays victory for Hillary, both seem to be neck and neck.

On the Democratic side, I'd like to see Kucinich get the nomination, but unfortunately everyone knows he doesn't stand a chance, darn Electoral process.

I don't know why these guys run (even Paul to an extent), as they know they'll get the least media coverage.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

On the Democratic side, I'd like to see Kucinich get the nomination, but unfortunately everyone knows he doesn't stand a chance, darn Electoral process.

I don't know why these guys run (even Paul to an extent), as they know they'll get the least media coverage.

I took one of those online tests in 2004 and Kucinich was the candidate it correctly said I agreed most with on the issues. I didn't list him earlier because he doesn't stand a chance. Perhaps it is because he doesn't have charisma and the media controls who they cover and comment on.

"Everything is proceeding according to plan". I find it comical how forgetful people are. Iowa votes Hucklebee, and everyone is saying "OMG Hucklebee is going to be the nominee!". McCain wins NH, and the same is said about him. Two states of 50, with a long road ahead.

If anyone has the boost from the first two states on the Republican side, it's Romney, who did well in both. Hillary's surprise turn around in New Hampshire also provides evidence that both races are still wide open(which is great for Giuliani who still holds the lead on the Republican side, by 40 points in California).

I agree that McCain is not an attractive option, but not for his Iraq policy. He looks like he would die of old age in office. Hes crotchety, which isn't good for building support on issues, even within his own party.

I've also changed my mind on Hillary. Something Dick Morris said last night stuck in my mind. Hillary is running on 8 years experience in the White House. Dick pointed out that the Head Chef also had 8 years experience at the White House. He, and a few other Clinton Advisors, alledge that while Bill may have used her as a sounding board for some ideas, she was absent in most situations (Especially when Billy was getting a hummer by an intern, which was often). That means electing her would be electing a short term Senator with a criminal record.

Tough to call right now, but if Romney or Giuliani get the Republican nomination, Obama will be easy, and Hillary manageable.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

So Hilary won.

Depressing, isn't it?

I'd say the people of New Hampshire won, though, because they get to go back to regular life now.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Are you misspelling Hillary on purpose? Is that an ever-so-slight cut?

Ha, I am a very poor typist, and prone to make a lot of mistakes like thatt.