Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Cover Point]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/02/10/kare.missing.bush.kare?hpt=T2

[ruchir]

Hell Yes!!!

[Cover Point]

Hell Yes!!!

well maybe you will get lucky and get Palin. Both are pretty much at the same intellectual level

[ruchir]

Hell Yes!!!

well maybe you will get lucky and get Palin. Both are pretty much at the same intellectual level

Sure... and both are individually a thousand times intellectually better than inexperienced druggie Obama. So I will be in net profit anyways.

[Cover Point]

Hell Yes!!!

well maybe you will get lucky and get Palin. Both are pretty much at the same intellectual level

Sure... and both are individually a thousand times intellectually better than inexperienced druggie Obama. So I will be in net profit anyways.

doing some basic googling

Obama's IQ is 149

Bush's IQ was 91

Palin's IQ is estimated to be 105 MAX (since Palin has never really answered a question .... it is a generous estimate based on her college degree and the fact that she was the governer)

[LosingNow]

Hmm..looks like IQ and competence are not correlated

[ramshorns]

No sweat.  Obama will win another term.  I do not care or want to discuss politics.  As long as Republicans and FOX news can be kept off from getting the presidential powers it can only be good for America and the Americans.

While we enjoy 3 more years of Obama there is no need for us Obama fans to toil as yet while enjoying his presidency.  Three years from now see you all in the same space with 4 more years of Obama the best leader since Clinton cleaning up the mess created by Bush much as Clinton did cleaning up the mess created by Bush(Sr) and Reagan(the most stupidest leader there ever was).

[ruchir]

doing some basic googling

Obama's IQ is 149

Bush's IQ was 91

Palin's IQ is estimated to be 105 MAX (since Palin has never really answered a question .... it is a generous estimate based on her college degree and the fact that she was the governer)

Very often google results are misleading and this seems to be the best example.

Obama is a guy who never released his college education grade. Do you wonder why? Obama says in his book that to him high school and early college days were fuzzy becasue he was always "high". So that explains to me why he never declared his college grades and why he never worked a real job before entering politics.

So much for his so-called IQ. 

No sweat.  Obama will win another term.  I do not care or want to discuss politics.  As long as Republicans and FOX news can be kept off from getting the presidential powers it can only be good for America and the Americans.

While we enjoy 3 more years of Obama there is no need for us Obama fans to toil as yet while enjoying his presidency.  Three years from now see you all in the same space with 4 more years of Obama the best leader since Clinton cleaning up the mess created by Bush much as Clinton did cleaning up the mess created by Bush(Sr) and Reagan(the most stupidest leader there ever was).

Rams - Are you sure you are feeling elated at this so-called hero of yours?

Firstly, an FYI -- Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in his re-election. You call him the stupidest leader. Well.... I guess you are living in the stupidest country of the world then. But then how can the stupidest country be most powerful? That can't be. Either a country can be stupid or most powerful. Since it is a fact that US is the most powerful country, the other thing must be wrong.

Obama said if we don't pass his Stimulus package unemployment is going to cross 8%. Well, his stimulus was passed and unemployment crossed 10%. Much cause for elation, I guess.

Obama campaigned in NJ, VA and MA, and the three democrats fighting there lost miserably. Much cause for elation, I guess.

After Scott Brown's election Obama went on record saying that "The anger that resulted in Brown's victory is the same anger that put me in office". What? Is he brain dead? So, Obama earlier went on record saying that it was anger against Bush that put him in office. Now he is saying that this same anger against Bush prompted MA voters to vote a republican in Kennedy seat? Does that even compute? What the hell, it is still a cause for elation, I guess.

Obama was hyper on Obamacare bill. He had supermajority in Congress, and what did he achive on Obamacare? Zip. Nothing. Nada. Zero. With a supermajority, Obama did not even need republicans to be present in Capitol Hill for vote. He could have simply ensured that all Dems voted for Obamacare. But he even couldn't get that to happen. THAT's much cause for elation, I guess.


Obama is an intellectually bankrupt guy, who is morally down the drain and is a chronic liar.

Wednesday or Thursday, Obama eulogized a lady called Melanie Shouse, who died of breast cancer. While speaking, Obama said that Melanie died because she did not have health insurance, and then went on to crap on microphone that we need to pass healthcare to honor Melanie.

Well, I did a little youtube searching and found a video of this lady explaining her position. She says that she wanted to start a little business and did not have money to buy regular insurance so bought just catastrophic insurance. Hello!!!! I don't want to beat on a dead woman, but if she did not have money to buy regular insurance, how exactly was she planning to start a business? Something smells fishy here. What was her priority? Starting a business or her health? She could have invested in her health first, instead of a business. She could have easily taken up a job and got insurance from employer, and maybe she could have been alive today. BUT she chose to play with her life and got catastrophic insurance. So who is to blame here Mr. President? The insurance company? I wonder what is the reason when people choose to buy expensive shoes, T-shirt, cars but when it comes to buying insurance these same people say it is too costly to buy. Well, are those shoes, T-shirts and cars more important or health insurance? Anyways, then she says that she didn't go for mammograms because her insurance did not pay for it. Hello again!!!!! A mammogram for even the uninsured is about $120 out of pocket. Something smells very very fishy here. Is she saying that she wanted to start a business but did not have even $120 to pay for a mammogram when she felt a lump in her breast? So was she taking her health seriously even herself or not? IMO she was a Cindy Sheehan wannbe and wanted to use her unfortunate situation to be in limelight (and maybe get medical help in return). And our super intellectual Obama uses her as a prop for passing Obamacare? A lady who for all practical purposes was neglecting her own health, and started blaming insurance company once she found out she had breast cancer?

By the way, latest is that White House is claiming all the credit for success in Iraq!!!    Take that for being morally bankrupt now. This same Obama in 2007 and 2008 was saying that Iraq is a lost war, that Bush's surge in Iraq is not going to work at all, that he has no hopes for a US victory in Iraq. Security experts are on record saying that he has continued with Bush policies in Iraq without any changes. And now he is claiming credit for success in Iraq? WTF !?!?!?!?!?

Some here please justify exactly what has Obama done in 13 months of his presidency that justifies any elation. Someone please explain why his job approval rating in every poll is lass than 50% and why his fans are still elated!!!!!!

[ramshorns]

Ruchir:If people begin to write on Reagan, The Bushes and Palin based on your template of Obama then the space will run out.  Look we all have our preferences.  I love Obama and I think he is way better than Reagan and the twin Bush's.   I am real happy he will be the president of the U.S. for 8 years the max allowed.   When it is all said and done I do believe he will be in the stature of Clinton, Kennedy and Carter the only presidents that mattered in the recent American history.   I believe a section of the Republican party is pure evil(FOX news actually validates that -- Though I have not tuned to FOX news since 2005 September) and I hence will never vote for them no matter what. And you should do the same if you think Obama is a druggie and a liar.  Nothing wrong with that.    But I have a feeling my man Obama will win a re-election in 3 years time.   See you around then.  Till that time I will enjoy my sports and discussing them on this DG.  I do not want to waste my time analyzing policies and discussing politics.  I know I am a Obama guy no matter what.   To me he is an earnest leader who is honest and has good of America and World at heart much like Clinton in comparison to any Republican there is all things considered.

[dextrous]

no time to read through ruchir's stuff...but ruchir, you know, in MA, when asked how many support Obama's healthcare, a majority said they do...similarly, when asked how many would vote for Obama, a majority said yes. some elections are just that--elections.

[ruchir]

Ruchir:If people begin to write on Reagan, The Bushes and Palin based on your template of Obama then the space will run out.

Let me remind you of something first. I have hardly written anything on Palin. What I don't like is when people demean her for absolutely no reason. I don't like to demean Obama, but I do so when someone demeans Palin or Bush for no reason.

Now, I plead you to write on Reagan using my template for Obama. Let us see how much space you use.

Look we all have our preferences.  I love Obama and I think he is way better than Reagan and the twin Bush's.   I am real happy he will be the president of the U.S. for 8 years the max allowed.   When it is all said and done I do believe he will be in the stature of Clinton, Kennedy and Carter the only presidents that mattered in the recent American history.

Sure, we have our preferences, but that does not mean you have to throw trash on a person you don't like for absolutely no reason!! Does it?

FYI -- Carter is considered one of the worst ever president in US history. When Carter left office, inflation was nearly 13% and unemployment was around 10%. If you think that gives him any kind of stature, then good luck to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
Look at Carter's rankings and Reagan's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_%28economics%29
Carter added 7 points to misery index and Reagan reduced 10 points.

I believe a section of the Republican party is pure evil(FOX news actually validates that -- Though I have not tuned to FOX news since 2005 September) and I hence will never vote for them no matter what.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. FYI - Fox has more viewership than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC combined. What does that say?

And you should do the same if you think Obama is a druggie and a liar.  Nothing wrong with that.    But I have a feeling my man Obama will win a re-election in 3 years time.   See you around then.  Till that time I will enjoy my sports and discussing them on this DG.  I do not want to waste my time analyzing policies and discussing politics.  I know I am a Obama guy no matter what.

Again, you are entitled to you opinion. I will not argue that. I am talking facts. Obama says in his own book that he was a druggie. I didn't invent this fact. He says in his book that his high school days and early college days are fuzzy for him. He doesn't remember those day because he was always high. I didn't invent this fact. He didn't release his college grades during campaign. Inspite of all that if you still believe that he is even remotely intelligent (away from his teleprompter), then good luck to you. Only time will tell what will happen in 2012, but then we can always analyze the markers that are coming up in NJ, VA, MA.

To me he is an earnest leader who is honest and has good of America and World at heart much like Clinton in comparison to any Republican there is all things considered.

Okay, your opinion. I just tried to show what a liar he is, just like Clinton -- I did not have sex with that woman.

[ruchir]

no time to read through ruchir's stuff...but ruchir, you know, in MA, when asked how many support Obama's healthcare, a majority said they do...similarly, when asked how many would vote for Obama, a majority said yes. some elections are just that--elections.

Thanks for providing excuses for Dem defeat in MA. They are not required though. You can put whatever spin you want. Brown was openly saying that he will be the 41st vote against Obamacare. Still he won. Inspite of that if you want to believe that majority supports Obamacare then good luck. I would rather have Dems complacent in this ostrich-like thinking that majority still supports Obamacare. Good for us Conservatives. I would love for Dems to think that some elections are just that -- elections. Good.

[Cover Point]

Ruchir:If people begin to write on Reagan, The Bushes and Palin based on your template of Obama then the space will run out.

Let me remind you of something first. I have hardly written anything on Palin. What I don't like is when people demean her for absolutely no reason. I don't like to demean Obama, but I do so when someone demeans Palin or Bush for no reason.

Thats because Palin could not give ONE Effing interview. Her saturday night appearance was a joke. She claimed she can see russia from her backyard. I mean when you talk about ignorance!

In terms of bigotry ... for someone going on a family platform .. her own daughter got pregnant by a red neck. They lied about them getting married (they eventually did not).

Palin was the biggest joke ... unfortunately the ignorant masses .... the Fox news crowd laps her up!

I believe a section of the Republican party is pure evil(FOX news actually validates that -- Though I have not tuned to FOX news since 2005 September) and I hence will never vote for them no matter what.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. FYI - Fox has more viewership than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC combined. What does that say?

That says that the a big part of the country is still living in Ignorance. In India the fact that the types of Bal Thakray and Lallu's wife repeatedly get elected does not prove their merit. It just proves the ignorance of the masses. The fact that Azhar won an election does not make him less of a desh drohi. It just points to the ignorance of the public.

Fox News caters the crowd that is ignorant. Thus the jingoism that you hear. the clear lies that they say are all lapped up. It proves that case that Democracy isnt the answer to everything!

When the republican extreme right refuses to still believe in Darwin's evolution and wants to ban that from school, you know you are not dealing with the smartest cookies!

Quote from: ramshorns on Yesterday at 11:23:36 AM
To me he is an earnest leader who is honest and has good of America and World at heart much like Clinton in comparison to any Republican there is all things considered.


Okay, your opinion. I just tried to show what a liar he is, just like Clinton -- I did not have sex with that woman.

Clinton's lie did not hurt the country. The republicans made a big deal out of his personal life.

The lie that did make a difference was Bush's .. Weapons of mass destruction... Now that was a whopper that single handedly destroyed America. The trillions spent on that baseless war could have been used to help the economy.

But you republicans cant see that. You just stick to words "socialism" = bad. Well I would rather my tax money be spent on helping the poor rather than make bombs to kill people .... killings based on a lie!

[vincent]

Talking about Palin, her gaffe about saying that she could see Russia from her kitchen window was bad enough, but saying that Putin would fly over Alaska to get to New York was the hight of ignorance in Geography. And this was a Governor of State!! What do they teach in the US in their primary schools?

[LosingNow]

Talking about Palin, her gaffe about saying that she could see Russia from her kitchen window was bad enough,

for the record, Palin did not say that she could see Russia from Alaska .. Tina Fey impersonating Palin said that "as a joke for effect" at that SNL.

Obviously, now it has been attributed to her so often that it has become a "fact" that Palin said those words!!

[ruchir]

Thats because Palin could not give ONE Effing interview. Her saturday night appearance was a joke. She claimed she can see russia from her backyard. I mean when you talk about ignorance!

In terms of bigotry ... for someone going on a family platform .. her own daughter got pregnant by a red neck. They lied about them getting married (they eventually did not).

Palin was the biggest joke ... unfortunately the ignorant masses .... the Fox news crowd laps her up!

If you don't agree with her politics or policies, it is one thing. But to make fun of her for no obvious reason is really petty... Aunty.

This is for Aunty and Vincent:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/you-can-see-russia-from-here/

This is from Anderson Cooper, who is on CNN, which is one of the beloved new channels of Obama supporters.

The island is called Little Diomede. It looks like a rock plopped into the Bering Strait. Only about 150 Alaskans live on the whole island. And just about two miles away; in full view of every single house on the island is the nation of Russia. Specifically, it is the Russian Island of Big Diomede which sits about 25 miles from the Russian Siberian mainland (which you can also see from the American island.) Most everybody on Little Diomede had relatives who lived on Big Diomede.

So yes, it is possible to see Russia from Alaska. Sure, Palin may have never seen Russia from Alaska with her own eyes. So what?

Obama said that one of his uncles saved some Jews from a Auschwitz camp. That claim was later debunked because it were the Russians who saved Jews from Auschwitz.

Now tell me Vincent and Aunty, both of you are making such a big deal about Palin not being able to see Russia from Alaska, what about this lie that Obama was peddling? If because of Russia Palin is incompetent for VP, then is Obama competent to be the President when he was peddling lies too? This is what I mean about trashing an individual for no reason.

You guys trash Palin for most ridiculous of reasons, but completely and probably deliberately ignore the lies Obama had been peddling.

 

That says that the a big part of the country is still living in Ignorance. In India the fact that the types of Bal Thakray and Lallu's wife repeatedly get elected does not prove their merit. It just proves the ignorance of the masses. The fact that Azhar won an election does not make him less of a desh drohi. It just points to the ignorance of the public.

Fox News caters the crowd that is ignorant. Thus the jingoism that you hear. the clear lies that they say are all lapped up. It proves that case that Democracy isnt the answer to everything!

When the republican extreme right refuses to still believe in Darwin's evolution and wants to ban that from school, you know you are not dealing with the smartest cookies!

    Majority of country is ignorant and only you are the intelligent one, Aunty.

Okay, lets come to Darwin. You believe in Darwin. I believe in Darwin. Let me ask you one very basic question. It is said that entire life on Earth came from a single cell organism. Right? I ask you, Aunty, where did that single cell come from? No scientist worth his/her salt has been able to answer that question. There are lot of theories, but no answers.

You know, in the absence of any coherent and substantive debate, you can call anyone by any name. No one can stop you. But, as I have said many times before, if you want to prove that Fox is evil, Republicans are evil, then the best way to do is to give facts. What is the point in calling everyone, who disagrees with you, ignorant? Does that make you intelligent?

Clinton's lie did not hurt the country. The republicans made a big deal out of his personal life.

The lie that did make a difference was Bush's .. Weapons of mass destruction... Now that was a whopper that single handedly destroyed America. The trillions spent on that baseless war could have been used to help the economy.

But you republicans cant see that. You just stick to words "socialism" = bad. Well I would rather my tax money be spent on helping the poor rather than make bombs to kill people .... killings based on a lie!

It's not about "personal lie" or professional lie.

When you elect someone, who is going to rule over you, going to make decisions that is going to affect your life, going to make laws that is going to govern your life, would you want a person who has better morality and personal behavior than you or someone who has worse morality and personal behavior than you?

Let's say, there is a politician who is a good administrator but beats his wife. Would you vote for him IF you knew he beat his wife? The reason why you vote for a supposedly honest and clean guy is because a clean person can not be blackmailed. Yes, blackmail. That's the reason why people vote for honest guy.

Now just imagine, Clinton got a blowjob. Lewinsky saved proof (other than what was on her dress). Could she not be in a position to blackmail Clinton? What if she sold this proof to another country like China or Russia?

This may look far-fetched to you, but in real world stuff like this happens. That's why you always vote for a supposed clean guy. That's why a lie told by a sitting president should be enough to impeach him. It does not matter whether the lie is personal or not.

Yes. Socialism is bad. When govt controls everything, it is bad. Ask Chinese, ask Russians, ask Venezuelans......

[dextrous]

Talking about Palin, her gaffe about saying that she could see Russia from her kitchen window was bad enough,

for the record, Palin did not say that she could see Russia from Alaska .. Tina Fey impersonating Palin said that "as a joke for effect" at that SNL.

Obviously, now it has been attributed to her so often that it has become a "fact" that Palin said those words!!

Oh, yeah, please do share what did she say to Katie Curic (oh, that liberal Curic!)

[Cover Point]

Thats because Palin could not give ONE Effing interview. Her saturday night appearance was a joke. She claimed she can see russia from her backyard. I mean when you talk about ignorance!

In terms of bigotry ... for someone going on a family platform .. her own daughter got pregnant by a red neck. They lied about them getting married (they eventually did not).

Palin was the biggest joke ... unfortunately the ignorant masses .... the Fox news crowd laps her up!

If you don't agree with her politics or policies, it is one thing. But to make fun of her for no obvious reason is really petty... Aunty.

This is for Aunty and Vincent:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/you-can-see-russia-from-here/

This is from Anderson Cooper, who is on CNN, which is one of the beloved new channels of Obama supporters.

The island is called Little Diomede. It looks like a rock plopped into the Bering Strait. Only about 150 Alaskans live on the whole island. And just about two miles away; in full view of every single house on the island is the nation of Russia. Specifically, it is the Russian Island of Big Diomede which sits about 25 miles from the Russian Siberian mainland (which you can also see from the American island.) Most everybody on Little Diomede had relatives who lived on Big Diomede.

So yes, it is possible to see Russia from Alaska. Sure, Palin may have never seen Russia from Alaska with her own eyes. So what?

Obama said that one of his uncles saved some Jews from a Auschwitz camp. That claim was later debunked because it were the Russians who saved Jews from Auschwitz.

Now tell me Vincent and Aunty, both of you are making such a big deal about Palin not being able to see Russia from Alaska, what about this lie that Obama was peddling? If because of Russia Palin is incompetent for VP, then is Obama competent to be the President when he was peddling lies too? This is what I mean about trashing an individual for no reason.

You guys trash Palin for most ridiculous of reasons, but completely and probably deliberately ignore the lies Obama had been peddling.

we trash Palin for being a dumb wit. Its a joke to discuss her and Obama's competence in the same sentence. They are world apart in terms of mental competence. To disagree with either's policies is one thing and I can appreciate and understand. But to compare their intellectual capabilities is like comparing Dravid (Obama) with Devang *hi!

That says that the a big part of the country is still living in Ignorance. In India the fact that the types of Bal Thakray and Lallu's wife repeatedly get elected does not prove their merit. It just proves the ignorance of the masses. The fact that Azhar won an election does not make him less of a desh drohi. It just points to the ignorance of the public.

Fox News caters the crowd that is ignorant. Thus the jingoism that you hear. the clear lies that they say are all lapped up. It proves that case that Democracy isnt the answer to everything!

When the republican extreme right refuses to still believe in Darwin's evolution and wants to ban that from school, you know you are not dealing with the smartest cookies!

    Majority of country is ignorant and only you are the intelligent one, Aunty.

I did not bring myself into the equation. The part of majority of country being ignorant is true. None of my examples are wrong.

Okay, lets come to Darwin. You believe in Darwin. I believe in Darwin. Let me ask you one very basic question. It is said that entire life on Earth came from a single cell organism. Right? I ask you, Aunty, where did that single cell come from? No scientist worth his/her salt has been able to answer that question. There are lot of theories, but no answers.

You know, in the absence of any coherent and substantive debate, you can call anyone by any name. No one can stop you. But, as I have said many times before, if you want to prove that Fox is evil, Republicans are evil, then the best way to do is to give facts. What is the point in calling everyone, who disagrees with you, ignorant? Does that make you intelligent?

I am not going to discuss evolution with you. Atleast not on that thread. There are some proven facts that dont need to discussed.

[dextrous]

I ask you, Aunty, where did that single cell come from? No scientist worth his/her salt has been able to answer that question.

Oh boy. I suggest you start with some PBS documentaries!

[LosingNow]

Talking about Palin, her gaffe about saying that she could see Russia from her kitchen window was bad enough,

for the record, Palin did not say that she could see Russia from Alaska .. Tina Fey impersonating Palin said that "as a joke for effect" at that SNL.

Obviously, now it has been attributed to her so often that it has become a "fact" that Palin said those words!!

Oh, yeah, please do share what did she say to Katie Curic (oh, that liberal Curic!)

here is the transcript of the Couric interview..
--
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

---

AND here is the transcript of the Tina Fey SNL skit ...

TINA FEY as SARAH PALIN & AMY POEHLER as HILLARY CLINTON
Sexism in Campaign Politics
FEY/PALIN: Good evening, my fellow Americans. I was so excited when I was told Senator Clinton and I would be addressing you tonight.

POEHLER/CLINTON: And I was told I would be addressing you alone.

FEY/PALIN: Now I know it must be a little bit strange for all of you to see the two of us together. What with me being John McCain’s running mate.

POEHLER/CLINTON: And me being a fervent supporter of Senator Barack Obama, as evidenced by this button.

FEY/PALIN: But tonight we are crossing party lines to address the now very ugly role that sexism is playing in the campaign.

POEHLER/CLINTON: An issue which I am frankly surprised to hear people suddenly care about.

FEY/PALIN: You know, Hillary and I don’t agree on everything…

POEHLER/CLINTON: (OVERLAPPING) Anything. I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy.

FEY/PALIN: And I can see Russia from my house.

POEHLER/CLINTON: I believe global warming is caused by man.

FEY/PALIN: And I believe it’s just God hugging us closer.

POEHLER/CLINTON: I don’t agree with the Bush Doctrine.

FEY/PALIN: I don’t know what that is.

POEHLER/CLINTON: But, Sarah, one thing we can agree on is that sexism can never be allowed to permeate an American election.

FEY/PALIN: So, please, stop photoshopping my head on sexy bikini pictures.

POEHLER/CLINTON: And stop saying I have cankles.

---

QED!!

[LosingNow]

Speaking of gaffes.. was this ever covered by the media?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/EpGH02DtIws&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/EpGH02DtIws&rel=0</a>

[dextrous]

"PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny t"

this was in refernce to her original messup.

[dextrous]

Speaking of gaffes.. was this ever covered by the media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

So, does this show Obama is stupid, or that he doesn't have the intellectual prowess of Palin? There are certainly educated erudite Republican politicians, but Palin is not one of them.

[ramshorns]

7 more years of Obama to go.

Who the hell cares what his haters say?

Like I said we have the Kennedy's and Clinton's and Obama's of the world come in to clean up the mess created in the between years by the clueless leaders like Reagan, The Bush's who are all right wing driven anyway for most part.

Thankfully we have smart honest earnest democrat President's like the 3 I identified above to take care of things in between some agenda driven FOX News type presidents.

And a special mention needs to be made about Carter the biggest humanitarian there is and who to date spends time working for common good of the world community.   Hear that Dicky Cheney.

[ruchir]

we trash Palin for being a dumb wit. Its a joke to discuss her and Obama's competence in the same sentence. They are world apart in terms of mental competence. To disagree with either's policies is one thing and I can appreciate and understand. But to compare their intellectual capabilities is like comparing Dravid (Obama) with Devang *hi!

True..... Obama = Devang *hi and Palin = Dravid.

BTW, you should write to Obama and ask him what kind of dope gives a better buzz.

I did not bring myself into the equation. The part of majority of country being ignorant is true. None of my examples are wrong.

How exactly is it true?? Oh... sorry for asking... majority of country voted for Obama, so your comment must be true.

going to discuss evolution with you. Atleast not on that thread. There are some proven facts that dont need to discussed.

Oh boy. I suggest you start with some PBS documentaries!

Both of you spoke like true Gore-bots. When you can not defend something with evidence, just say that there is no need for debate on the issue. 

Dex, can you tell me which PBC documentaries are you talking about? And if you yourself have seen them then can you please tell me if the people making those documentaries gave any concrete PROOF of how that single cell organism came into being.. or were the just peddling theories?

[dextrous]

we trash Palin for being a dumb wit. Its a joke to discuss her and Obama's competence in the same sentence. They are world apart in terms of mental competence. To disagree with either's policies is one thing and I can appreciate and understand. But to compare their intellectual capabilities is like comparing Dravid (Obama) with Devang *hi!

True..... Obama = Devang *hi and Palin = Dravid.

BTW, you should write to Obama and ask him what kind of dope gives a better buzz.

I did not bring myself into the equation. The part of majority of country being ignorant is true. None of my examples are wrong.

How exactly is it true?? Oh... sorry for asking... majority of country voted for Obama, so your comment must be true.

going to discuss evolution with you. Atleast not on that thread. There are some proven facts that dont need to discussed.

Oh boy. I suggest you start with some PBS documentaries!

Both of you spoke like true Gore-bots. When you can not defend something with evidence, just say that there is no need for debate on the issue. 

Dex, can you tell me which PBC documentaries are you talking about? And if you yourself have seen them then can you please tell me if the people making those documentaries gave any concrete PROOF of how that single cell organism came into being.. or were the just peddling theories?

Ruchir, in order to believe in evolution, you need to believe in science. unlike religion, science does not deal with absolutes, but in theories. but you republicans have taken science's modesty and made it sound like a weakness.

[Cover Point]

we trash Palin for being a dumb wit. Its a joke to discuss her and Obama's competence in the same sentence. They are world apart in terms of mental competence. To disagree with either's policies is one thing and I can appreciate and understand. But to compare their intellectual capabilities is like comparing Dravid (Obama) with Devang *hi!

True..... Obama = Devang *hi and Palin = Dravid.

BTW, you should write to Obama and ask him what kind of dope gives a better buzz.

I did not bring myself into the equation. The part of majority of country being ignorant is true. None of my examples are wrong.

How exactly is it true?? Oh... sorry for asking... majority of country voted for Obama, so your comment must be true.

going to discuss evolution with you. Atleast not on that thread. There are some proven facts that dont need to discussed.

Oh boy. I suggest you start with some PBS documentaries!

Both of you spoke like true Gore-bots. When you can not defend something with evidence, just say that there is no need for debate on the issue. 

Dex, can you tell me which PBC documentaries are you talking about? And if you yourself have seen them then can you please tell me if the people making those documentaries gave any concrete PROOF of how that single cell organism came into being.. or were the just peddling theories?

Ruchir, in order to believe in evolution, you need to believe in science. unlike religion, science does not deal with absolutes, but in theories. but you republicans have taken science's modesty and made it sound like a weakness.

i cant believe I am saying this (and i will repent later) but very well said. Science is not absolute. They acknowledge where they are unsure. BUT religion talks in absolutes. You are either with us or you are Osama Bin laden. God created the great earth in 7 days! jesus was not a human being but son of God himself. Ganguly was a batsman! Teaching evolution would make a person go to hell!

and the majority laps it up! And thats why I call the masses ignorant!

[dhruvdeepak]

bah you guys are all morons.
ive just begun reading The Greatest Show On Earth. all proof is provided

[WicketView]

Okay, lets come to Darwin. You believe in Darwin. I believe in Darwin. Let me ask you one very basic question. It is said that entire life on Earth came from a single cell organism. Right? I ask you, Aunty, where did that single cell come from? No scientist worth his/her salt has been able to answer that question. There are lot of theories, but no answers.

So ? Just because this is not settled, you have a problem with everything else too? And (at least for the majority here) this is because of the contrast with a book which has no 'answers' but only statements?

[ruchir]

Quote from Dex:

Ruchir, in order to believe in evolution, you need to believe in science. unlike religion, science does not deal with absolutes, but in theories. but you republicans have taken science's modesty and made it sound like a weakness.

Quote from Aunty:

i cant believe I am saying this (and i will repent later) but very well said. Science is not absolute. They acknowledge where they are unsure. BUT religion talks in absolutes. You are either with us or you are Osama Bin laden. God created the great earth in 7 days! jesus was not a human being but son of God himself. Ganguly was a batsman! Teaching evolution would make a person go to hell!

and the majority laps it up! And thats why I call the masses ignorant!

Quote from Wicketview:

So ? Just because this is not settled, you have a problem with everything else too? And (at least for the majority here) this is because of the contrast with a book which has no 'answers' but only statements?

I simply can't understand why you guys always like to put words into others' mouths? On this thread did I ever talk about religion? I haven't. So why do you think I am always thinking from the religion angle?

I asked a very simple question. You guy think that science has answers to everything, so I asked has science been able to answer where that single cell organism came from? The answer is No. Now why did I ask the question to begin with?

The question cropped from Aunty's comment:
When the republican extreme right refuses to still believe in Darwin's evolution and wants to ban that from school, you know you are not dealing with the smartest cookies!

Aunty falsely said that Republicans want to ban Darwin from school. No one wants to do that. What certain people have said is that science does not have answers to everything. There are some questions that science can not answer. Yes, science can provide a lot of theories, but they are just theories. Theories are unprovable explanations. If they can be proved, they become facts.

So, since science can not answer the question - where did the single cell organism come from, these certain people said it would not be a bad idea to have a separate class where an alternative theory was told to the children that there might be a power beyond the realm of science that put that single cell organism on earth, from which life sprouted. That power can be anything! You can give it any name! You can call it god, you can call it alien, anything.

That's why I started the discussion that since we believe in science, can science give answers to all the questions? If not, then why do we simply disbelieve an explanation that even we can't dispute?

Scientists give a lot of theories that they know they can't prove, but want people to believe. Yeah.... believe theories that can't be proved. People do believe those theories. So, if there is an unanswered question about origin of the single cell organism, and a theory is provided that a higher power put that cell on earth, then why not give this theory the same amount of respect that you give to other unproven theories by other scientists?

I am not a christian, so I don't form my beliefs on bible. So Wicketview, please don't think that I believe in a higher power because bible says so. And I also don't believe in the absolutes of religion. I am not that religious a person. I believe in evolution. I never said that I disbelieved it. But evolution does not answer how the original single cell organism came into being. Since evolution does not answer that, I keep myself open to all theories until someone comes up with a way to prove that the single cell organism came into being because of XYZ reason.

[WicketView]

Quote from Wicketview:

So ? Just because this is not settled, you have a problem with everything else too? And (at least for the majority here) this is because of the contrast with a book which has no 'answers' but only statements?

I simply can't understand why you guys always like to put words into others' mouths? On this thread did I ever talk about religion? I haven't. So why do you think I am always thinking from the religion angle?

You are the one who is putting things in my mouth. I said "at least for a majority here" ... I may have been a little unclear about "here" though most would get it from the context ... I refered to the majority of the people in the US opposing evolution.  I know you are not Christian and so would not have this religious motivation. On the other hand, one would have to be blind to not realize that some of the strongest opposition to evolution comes from religious motivation.  That is what I refered to.

I asked a very simple question. You guy think that science has answers to everything, so I asked has science been able to answer where that single cell organism came from? The answer is No. Now why did I ask the question to begin with?

On the contrary, I don't. The point is that science can provide answers to many questions, and it makes no sense to not accept them because it does not have answers to others. In fact, this has nothing to do with science. From your writings on this DG, I know a number of things about who you have claimed to be. I could answer some questions about you. However, I have no idea what you ate for dinner last night. Does that mean, I should not believe that you grew up in India, work in the US, and are interested in cricket?

Or to give you a different analogy ... you surely have heard in the media that scientists don't have good answers for the quantum theory of gravity. Clearly they don't know everything about gravity. Does this mean you will not accept the fact that if you let go of an object it will fall to the ground?

The question cropped from Aunty's comment:
When the republican extreme right refuses to still believe in Darwin's evolution and wants to ban that from school, you know you are not dealing with the smartest cookies!

Aunty falsely said that Republicans want to ban Darwin from school. No one wants to do that. What certain people have said is that science does not have answers to everything. There are some questions that science can not answer. Yes, science can provide a lot of theories, but they are just theories. Theories are unprovable explanations. If they can be proved, they become facts.

So, since science can not answer the question - where did the single cell organism come from, these certain people said it would not be a bad idea to have a separate class where an alternative theory was told to the children that there might be a power beyond the realm of science that put that single cell organism on earth, from which life sprouted. That power can be anything! You can give it any name! You can call it god, you can call it alien, anything.

That's why I started the discussion that since we believe in science, can science give answers to all the questions? If not, then why do we simply disbelieve an explanation that even we can't dispute?

Scientists give a lot of theories that they know they can't prove, but want people to believe. Yeah.... believe theories that can't be proved. People do believe those theories. So, if there is an unanswered question about origin of the single cell organism, and a theory is provided that a higher power put that cell on earth, then why not give this theory the same amount of respect that you give to other unproven theories by other scientists?

I am not a christian, so I don't form my beliefs on bible. So Wicketview, please don't think that I believe in a higher power because bible says so. And I also don't believe in the absolutes of religion. I am not that religious a person. I believe in evolution. I never said that I disbelieved it. But evolution does not answer how the original single cell organism came into being. Since evolution does not answer that, I keep myself open to all theories until someone comes up with a way to prove that the single cell organism came into being because of XYZ reason.

1. I am afraid, I have to shake your faith in science a little more. Science does not prove any explanations/theories to be correct. It can, at best, prove explanations/theories to be wrong. On the other hand, when certain theories start to pass many tests, they are usually thought of as reliable.
3. I see no conflict between belief in a higher power and evolution. In order for the higher power idea to make sense, you would have to assume, of course, that the higher power does things in specific ways. For example, most people believing in a higher power do not seem to have a problem with the science of gravity.  Because, they assume that is how the higher power arranged it. So, where is the conflict with evolution ... the higher power could have arranged this so that apes evolve to humans. The contradiction is only there if one has reasons to believe that the higher power won't do things that way ... like a religious book that professes otherwise. I think people like Dawkins have pushed far beyond what can be scientifically said in discussing their opinions about higher powers and have perhaps contributed to this confusion.
4. You may be technically right that CP is wrong about republicans trying to ban teaching of evolution, but only in the strictest sense of the term. If you look at the history, evolution has faced many attempts to ban/marginalize it because of the church. If today, these fanatics are only asking for equal respect/space for intelligent design it is because they see no hope of banning evolution altogether.  If questions about evolution are not settled (I don't really know the exact status of open questions), the intelligent design approach is far worse ... which is why scientists don't like them. I think there is no doubt where the opposition for evolution is coming from, and it bothers me that someone like you (who does not have those reasons to hold beliefs against evolution) would jump on the bandwagon, that misrepresenting (ie. giving evolution and ID equat space) the situation is OK. 

[ruchir]

On the contrary, I don't. The point is that science can provide answers to many questions, and it makes no sense to not accept them because it does not have answers to others. In fact, this has nothing to do with science. From your writings on this DG, I know a number of things about who you have claimed to be. I could answer some questions about you. However, I have no idea what you ate for dinner last night. Does that mean, I should not believe that you grew up in India, work in the US, and are interested in cricket?

Or to give you a different analogy ... you surely have heard in the media that scientists don't have good answers for the quantum theory of gravity. Clearly they don't know everything about gravity. Does this mean you will not accept the fact that if you let go of an object it will fall to the ground?

Why would I ever doubt gravity? Any one can see that when let go of an object, it falls toward the ground. Every one recognizes this phenomenon by the name of gravity. So who questions gravity? Sure, science may not be able to answer WHY this happens but we we all know that IT does happen.

Same can not be said about the theory regarding the original single cell organism on planet earth. No one saw that organism to begin with. Scientists theorize that this is how life began on earth, and I agree with them. What I am saying is that in cases where science is unable to provide a direct answer, it makes sense to hear all available theories, not just those of scientists.

As for your analogy about me, at least you know something about me first hand to form an opinion. What do you know about the original single cell organism? What does any scientist know about that organism? Nothing. They just theorize about it, and I believe their theories. I just happen to believe an alternate theory for one instance and you suddenly believe that I don't believe in science? That's no right.

1. I am afraid, I have to shake your faith in science a little more. Science does not prove any explanations/theories to be correct. It can, at best, prove explanations/theories to be wrong. On the other hand, when certain theories start to pass many tests, they are usually thought of as reliable.

Agree.

3. I see no conflict between belief in a higher power and evolution. In order for the higher power idea to make sense, you would have to assume, of course, that the higher power does things in specific ways. For example, most people believing in a higher power do not seem to have a problem with the science of gravity.  Because, they assume that is how the higher power arranged it. So, where is the conflict with evolution ... the higher power could have arranged this so that apes evolve to humans. The contradiction is only there if one has reasons to believe that the higher power won't do things that way ... like a religious book that professes otherwise. I think people like Dawkins have pushed far beyond what can be scientifically said in discussing their opinions about higher powers and have perhaps contributed to this confusion.

If you followed the evolution related discussion here, it was not me who said there was a disconnect between higher power and evolution. It was Aunty who said that Republicans wanted to ban evolution studies in schools because they believe in god creating earth.

You put it beautifully, that the higher power may have arranged everything to be the way it is and it obviously depended on some sort of science to do it. What I am objecting to is notions that come from Aunty, Dex etc. that even if something can not be explained by science, views of scientists are the only views that should be considered. Everything else is immaterialevil.

4. You may be technically right that CP is wrong about republicans trying to ban teaching of evolution, but only in the strictest sense of the term. If you look at the history, evolution has faced many attempts to ban/marginalize it because of the church. If today, these fanatics are only asking for equal respect/space for intelligent design it is because they see no hope of banning evolution altogether.  If questions about evolution are not settled (I don't really know the exact status of open questions), the intelligent design approach is far worse ... which is why scientists don't like them. I think there is no doubt where the opposition for evolution is coming from, and it bothers me that someone like you (who does not have those reasons to hold beliefs against evolution) would jump on the bandwagon, that misrepresenting (ie. giving evolution and ID equat space) the situation is OK.

I don't agree with any bans or marginalization of evolution theory. Why should I do that? Yes, there may be people who did not believe in science and chose to marginalize scientists of their times. That's bad. But what is equally bad is to say that only views of scientists should be accepted, no other views should be even heard. Isn't that the same marginalization that you just spoke against?

[WicketView]

On the contrary, I don't. The point is that science can provide answers to many questions, and it makes no sense to not accept them because it does not have answers to others. In fact, this has nothing to do with science. From your writings on this DG, I know a number of things about who you have claimed to be. I could answer some questions about you. However, I have no idea what you ate for dinner last night. Does that mean, I should not believe that you grew up in India, work in the US, and are interested in cricket?

Or to give you a different analogy ... you surely have heard in the media that scientists don't have good answers for the quantum theory of gravity. Clearly they don't know everything about gravity. Does this mean you will not accept the fact that if you let go of an object it will fall to the ground?

Why would I ever doubt gravity? Any one can see that when let go of an object, it falls toward the ground. Every one recognizes this phenomenon by the name of gravity. So who questions gravity? Sure, science may not be able to answer WHY this happens but we we all know that IT does happen.

You have seen that happen when you have done so before. That does not imply that it will happen again. By saying it will, you are extending what you have seen, by thinking why would it not happen again. In other words, you have a theory, that things should work in a sensible way.

Same can not be said about the theory regarding the original single cell organism on planet earth. No one saw that organism to begin with. Scientists theorize that this is how life began on earth, and I agree with them. What I am saying is that in cases where science is unable to provide a direct answer, it makes sense to hear all available theories, not just those of scientists.

As for your analogy about me, at least you know something about me first hand to form an opinion. What do you know about the original single cell organism? What does any scientist know about that organism? Nothing. They just theorize about it, and I believe their theories. I just happen to believe an alternate theory for one instance and you suddenly believe that I don't believe in science? That's no right.

OK I am quite confused about what you want to say. In fact in your previous post too, I was a bit confused:
a) Evolution (ie. simple organisms evolved to complex organisms) ... you seem to say you believe and don't believe in it?
b) single cell organism (I actually don't know what you are refering to, but assume you mean the first simple forms of life from which other life evolved according to evolution)
c) You believe the theories about how this single cell organism emerged (Don't know what these are ...but OK)
d) You believe in alternate theories (which explain how these single cell organisms evolve?)

1. I am afraid, I have to shake your faith in science a little more. Science does not prove any explanations/theories to be correct. It can, at best, prove explanations/theories to be wrong. On the other hand, when certain theories start to pass many tests, they are usually thought of as reliable.

Agree.

3. I see no conflict between belief in a higher power and evolution. In order for the higher power idea to make sense, you would have to assume, of course, that the higher power does things in specific ways. For example, most people believing in a higher power do not seem to have a problem with the science of gravity.  Because, they assume that is how the higher power arranged it. So, where is the conflict with evolution ... the higher power could have arranged this so that apes evolve to humans. The contradiction is only there if one has reasons to believe that the higher power won't do things that way ... like a religious book that professes otherwise. I think people like Dawkins have pushed far beyond what can be scientifically said in discussing their opinions about higher powers and have perhaps contributed to this confusion.

If you followed the evolution related discussion here, it was not me who said there was a disconnect between higher power and evolution. It was Aunty who said that Republicans wanted to ban evolution studies in schools because they believe in god creating earth.

I would agree with CP. The reason is that the people he is talking about don't just believe in  a higher power, but a very specific concept of higher power  (I would call it a theory of higher power,  but don't want to argue on that) as dictated by the Bible. There, how the higher power arranges things is specified ... 7 days, blah blah blah. And therefore it conflicts with evolution.
 

You put it beautifully, that the higher power may have arranged everything to be the way it is and it obviously depended on some sort of science to do it. What I am objecting to is notions that come from Aunty, Dex etc. that even if something can not be explained by science, views of scientists are the only views that should be considered. Everything else is immaterialevil.

4. You may be technically right that CP is wrong about republicans trying to ban teaching of evolution, but only in the strictest sense of the term. If you look at the history, evolution has faced many attempts to ban/marginalize it because of the church. If today, these fanatics are only asking for equal respect/space for intelligent design it is because they see no hope of banning evolution altogether.  If questions about evolution are not settled (I don't really know the exact status of open questions), the intelligent design approach is far worse ... which is why scientists don't like them. I think there is no doubt where the opposition for evolution is coming from, and it bothers me that someone like you (who does not have those reasons to hold beliefs against evolution) would jump on the bandwagon, that misrepresenting (ie. giving evolution and ID equat space) the situation is OK.

I don't agree with any bans or marginalization of evolution theory. Why should I do that? Yes, there may be people who did not believe in science and chose to marginalize scientists of their times. That's bad. But what is equally bad is to say that only views of scientists should be accepted, no other views should be even heard. Isn't that the same marginalization that you just spoke against?

I am confused. Whose views do you think should be considered. This is not rhetorical and I promise to attempt (maybe with time) to answer you seriously. Do you mean people (from religious sides) who explicitly say the Bible has to be right? Or the people who claim that they are scientists (but have alternative theories)?

[ruchir]

You have seen that happen when you have done so before. That does not imply that it will happen again. By saying it will, you are extending what you have seen, by thinking why would it not happen again. In other words, you have a theory, that things should work in a sensible way.

What you are saying is that you look at historical facts to explain things happening today. How does that apply to the beginning of life on earth? There was no life of earth before that single cell organism. So what exactly would you look at to form a theory about the origin of life on earth?

OK I am quite confused about what you want to say. In fact in your previous post too, I was a bit confused:
a) Evolution (ie. simple organisms evolved to complex organisms) ... you seem to say you believe and don't believe in it?

Believe.

b) single cell organism (I actually don't know what you are refering to, but assume you mean the first simple forms of life from which other life evolved according to evolution)

Believe that life started from single cell organism. The point of discussion has been Aunty contention that Republicans want to ban evolution study in schools. The history of this so-called ban is that some parents wanted schools to have a class in the curriculum that talked about god or higher power planting life on earth and then evolution happening. Schools said they can't allow that because that thought is not supported by science. Parents said science also can not explain how life STARTED... not evolved but started... so what the issue in having a class where the higher power stuff is discussed.

c) You believe the theories about how this single cell organism emerged (Don't know what these are ...but OK)

Not sure what you are referring to here.

d) You believe in alternate theories (which explain how these single cell organisms evolve?)

You are reading this wrong. The alternate theory is not about how single cell organism evolved. It is about how it happen to occur on earth in the first place.

I am confused. Whose views do you think should be considered. This is not rhetorical and I promise to attempt (maybe with time) to answer you seriously. Do you mean people (from religious sides) who explicitly say the Bible has to be right? Or the people who claim that they are scientists (but have alternative theories)?

I don't know what is written in bible, so I can't comment on that. I have been trying to keep my comments on a narrow path of scientific explanation (or non-explanation) of how single cell organism come to life on earth from which life sprouted via evolution.

I am saying there is no concrete scientific explanation of how life started on earth, meaning how that single cell organism come to life. Since there is no concrete scientific explanation, I say all theories should be given equal respect... something that Aunty and Dex don't seem to do. That's all I am discussing. I believe in evolution, but the point of discussion WRT Aunty's point on republicans is before evolution. It is about how life started (not evolved).

[dextrous]

Ruchir,
There's frankly only two explanations for the "first" cell:
a) Through a random act of nature
b) Through an act of God, Alien, spaceship bringing a cell, etc.

However, Darwin's main contribution is not in explaining the first cell but in evolution from that first cell. I don't know what your opinions are (and that's not important) but the Republican base does not believe there's a co-relation between monkeys and humans. Under the new guise of Intelligent Design (same people who were Creationists...and that movement didn't quite take off) some are being more accomodating towards Darwin (oh, we are just trying to say that something intelligent helped the process) and I suspect you're from the latter group of controlled radicalism. However, school is no place to be teaching Adam & Eve or Devas creating the planet. Every group has its own highly imagined theory on the world's start and unless we assign believability ratings to each one, school has no business teaching mythology (unless it is a mythology class, of course).

[dextrous]

Ruchir,
There's frankly only two explanations for the "first" cell:
a) Through a random act of nature
b) Through an act of God, Alien, spaceship bringing a cell, etc.

However, Darwin's main contribution is not in explaining the first cell but in evolution from that first cell. I don't know what your opinions are (and that's not important) but the Republican base does not believe there's a co-relation between monkeys and humans. Under the new guise of Intelligent Design (same people who were Creationists...and that movement didn't quite take off) some are being more accomodating towards Darwin (oh, we are just trying to say that something intelligent helped the process) and I suspect you're from the latter group of controlled radicalism. However, school is no place to be teaching Adam & Eve or Devas creating the planet. Every group has its own highly imagined theory on the world's start and unless we assign believability ratings to each one, school has no business teaching mythology (unless it is a mythology class, of course).

By the way, if point (a) is taken to be mere speculations by nerdy scientists, then you cannot believe in the big bang theory either, which, will make any debate on the matter devoid of any logical footing

[ruchir]

Ruchir,
There's frankly only two explanations for the "first" cell:
a) Through a random act of nature
b) Through an act of God, Alien, spaceship bringing a cell, etc.

However, Darwin's main contribution is not in explaining the first cell but in evolution from that first cell. I don't know what your opinions are (and that's not important) but the Republican base does not believe there's a co-relation between monkeys and humans. Under the new guise of Intelligent Design (same people who were Creationists...and that movement didn't quite take off) some are being more accomodating towards Darwin (oh, we are just trying to say that something intelligent helped the process) and I suspect you're from the latter group of controlled radicalism. However, school is no place to be teaching Adam & Eve or Devas creating the planet. Every group has its own highly imagined theory on the world's start and unless we assign believability ratings to each one, school has no business teaching mythology (unless it is a mythology class, of course).

I am not from any group so there is no need to give me that credit.

Show me where is it written that Creationists are republicans? That is what my objection is toward. Bringing republicans in this for no reason.

Okay, so you think schools are no place to teach kids about Adam & Eve and Devas. That's fine. But who assigns this so-called believability rating? Is there a body who assigns or should assign this rating? What are the criteria for calculating believability rating?

If you want to talk about believability rating of the course material, then lets talk about it.

1. How should this rating be calculated? Is there a formula?
2. Who decide how to calculate this rating?
3. Who should have the authority to apply this rating.
4. Should this rating be applied to all materials equally?

By the way, if point (a) is taken to be mere speculations by nerdy scientists, then you cannot believe in the big bang theory either, which, will make any debate on the matter devoid of any logical footing

You saved the best for the last.    So, you don't have an answer to how the universe started. However you chose to believe a theory called big bang theory because of what, exactly? Because it came from a person of science? That person was handsome?

Have you ever tried to apply your believability rating on big bang theory? What was the rating? I would like to know.

If you can not apply your own believability rating to big bang theory then yes, this debate is devoid of any logical footing.

If you are choosing to apply a rating on intelligent design, then be ready to apply it to all of your unproven scientific theories too and let us see if unproven scientific theories fare any better. If you think that believability rating should be applied only to non-scientific theories then yes, there can be no debate on any logical footing.

[dextrous]

Ruchir,
Until and unless you understand/acknowledge what a "theory" is in science, it is not possible to have a debate with you.

And yes, creationists are a subset of the Republican Party.

[ruchir]

Ruchir,
Until and unless you understand/acknowledge what a "theory" is in science, it is not possible to have a debate with you.

I know what theory mean in science. I was talking about your believability rating.

And yes, creationists are a subset of the Republican Party.

Is that one of your theories?

[WicketView]

You have seen that happen when you have done so before. That does not imply that it will happen again. By saying it will, you are extending what you have seen, by thinking why would it not happen again. In other words, you have a theory, that things should work in a sensible way.

What you are saying is that you look at historical facts to explain things happening today. How does that apply to the beginning of life on earth? There was no life of earth before that single cell organism. So what exactly would you look at to form a theory about the origin of life on earth?

No, the point I was trying to make was that even for the simple thing that we all believe, there are a number of assumptions, and indeed it is a theory, which can still be proved wrong. Highly unlikely though! It was meant to stop the denigration of evolution as a "theory", even though it is at a much lower standing. In any case, while I stand by those comments, it is probably irrelevant after your current answers, so simply look below.

Let me summarize your position quickly ... if I am wrong please correct me.

You believe in evolution. You want to be open minded about how the first life forms emerged on the earth.

Great. I don't have issues with how you choose to think of a phenomenon which no one agrees on.

Believe that life started from single cell organism. The point of discussion has been Aunty contention that Republicans want to ban evolution study in schools. The history of this so-called ban is that some parents wanted schools to have a class in the curriculum that talked about god or higher power planting life on earth and then evolution happening. Schools said they can't allow that because that thought is not supported by science. Parents said science also can not explain how life STARTED... not evolved but started... so what the issue in having a class where the higher power stuff is discussed.

...
You are reading this wrong. The alternate theory is not about how single cell organism evolved. It is about how it happen to occur on earth in the first place.

Two things:
1. As I have said, I have no issues with people who, today, want to believe that a higher power placed life on earth.  I would feel that neither this nor other controversial scientific theories should not be taught ... because the answer is we do not know much about this.  And it is important that children learn that we do not know everything.
2. Could you show a link etc. where this parents' movement was? Because, most movements (likely the ones Dex and CP refered to) are ones where they argue for also teaching a replacement of evolution. Note the word replacement, where-as you are not talking about replacement.