Those people need to read Richard Dawkins' books on evolution

  • Thread starter Republican Party Reptile
  • Start date
R

Republican Party Reptile

Guest
> There is even less evidence for God.

Tell a farmer who deal with insects becoming immune to pesticides that there's no evidence!

I'm kinda shocked there are people here so ignorant about evolution. And I'm saddened that they're doing so without going to the science section of their bookstore to read about it first. I'd recommend the popular science books of Richard Dawkins as the best place to start (and people shouldn't get put off by his arrogance - he's a dick as a person, but he's brilliantly good at writing about evolution). But even just a casual read of any of the leading books on the subject would answer all of these people's comments, and that's how I know they haven't bothered to. Evolution is pretty simple and easy to understand as scientific theories go, fully graspable to the lay person, and the only reason millions of Americans deny it is because their high schools failed them.......
 
RPR, can I ask you a question, unrelated to Darwin.

I can't find the death penalty thread, but why do you believe OJ should have gotten the death penalty if he was found guilty, but you wouldn't support Scott Peterson being sentenced to death.
 
The need to read. NM

On this issue, I agree with you but I'm kinda sad that there are people here so ignorant that they voted for Bush. I'm saddened that they're did so without going to the politics section of their bookstore to read about it first.

Knowing your high schools failed you,I'd recommend you read.




bush_thief.jpg
 
Re: The need to read. NM

> On this issue, I agree with you but I'm kinda sad that there are people
> here so ignorant that they voted for Bush. I'm saddened that they're did
> so without going to the politics section of their bookstore to read about
> it first.

> Knowing your high schools failed you,I'd recommend you read.

incase you missed it......




http://www.f***thesouth.com/
 
> Ok Mr Know it all"

It all began with a seed, it all began with the big bang,it all began with cheap supermarkets...

For God sake, you really don't know, just admit it for once in your life, science really can't answer everything.

You say.. no evidence for God.
No evidence against him either....
You prove there isn't one.
My money is on the opposite...
Going over the obvious here...
But nature would not conform so perfectly without a higher entity
Could you have worked such a perfect plan out?
I don't think so.

> I'm kinda shocked there are people here so ignorant about evolution. And
> I'm saddened that they're doing so without going to the science section of
> their bookstore to read about it first. I'd recommend the popular science
> books of Richard Dawkins as the best place to start (and people shouldn't
> get put off by his arrogance - he's a dick as a person, but he's
> brilliantly good at writing about evolution). But even just a casual read
> of any of the leading books on the subject would answer all of these
> people's comments, and that's how I know they haven't bothered to.
> Evolution is pretty simple and easy to understand as scientific theories
> go, fully graspable to the lay person, and the only reason millions of
> Americans deny it is because their high schools failed them.......
 
> Tell a farmer who deal with insects becoming immune to pesticides that
> there's no evidence!

> I'm kinda shocked there are people here so ignorant about evolution. And
> I'm saddened that they're doing so without going to the science section of
> their bookstore to read about it first. I'd recommend the popular science
> books of Richard Dawkins as the best place to start (and people shouldn't
> get put off by his arrogance - he's a dick as a person, but he's
> brilliantly good at writing about evolution). But even just a casual read
> of any of the leading books on the subject would answer all of these
> people's comments, and that's how I know they haven't bothered to.
> Evolution is pretty simple and easy to understand as scientific theories
> go, fully graspable to the lay person, and the only reason millions of
> Americans deny it is because their high schools failed them.......
I've leafed though some of Dawkin's work before, and he is very good at explaining the possibility/probability of evolution. But, I am curious, Reptile, I assumed ALL conservatives believe the Earth was created in 7 days! I realize I shouldn't generalize here, but can you explain that for me, please? Thanks!
 
Re: RPR, can I ask you a question, unrelated to Darwin.

> I can't find the death penalty thread, but why do you believe OJ should
> have gotten the death penalty if he was found guilty, but you wouldn't
> support Scott Peterson being sentenced to death.

Like most people, I found the OJ Simpson trial absolutely disgusting. The majority of cases that end in convictions across the country have nowhere near as much evidence as they had on OJ! We wouldn't convict anybody unless there was a f***ing videotape showing the person doing it if every case had a judge and a renegade jury like that! So assume for argument that OJ's case wasn't the freak case it was. Then of course he surely would've been convicted. And yeah, he should've been snuffed out.

Scott's case was based on circumstantial evidence whereas OJ's had all kinds of blood and DNA evidence on top of massive, endless amounts of other stuff all pointing to guilt. There was only one argument for reasonable doubt for OJ, and that was the argument that perhaps there was a massive conspiracy by the government to frame him and so the jury should just throw out all the evidence out of lack of trust in it. We *have* discovered that the LAPD *has* framed people, but I didn't find it believable at all that the police conspired against OJ. All we had were the LAPD and prosecutor's office looking a bit sloppy when faced with a "Dream Team" of lawyers and their fine-toothed comb, something they aren't used to (which is why all defendants should have dream teams - to make the government clean up their acts!).

BAck to Scott...circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to convict someone, but juries often screw up the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard because of their emotions, and juries do sometimes convict innocent people and send them to death. When it comes to the death penalty I don't feel comfortable unless I see no possibility whatsoever that the person didn't do it. Some kind of "beyond a reasonable doubt, and we actually mean it this time" standard when the death penalty is in play.

Probably the main reason the jury found no reasonable doubt for Scott is because they could not imagine it possible that anyone else could've done it. And I think they made the right call. But in doing so, the jury relied in significant part on their guts. One's gut can be wrong, especially when you think the defendant is an asswhipe in general. I didn't follow the case closely enough to know all of the evidence for premeditation. From what little I heard, it seemed a tough call, and I might've dropped down to 2nd degree. But then, sometimes I find reasonable doubts where it's unreasonable to.
 
> It all began with a seed, it all began with the big bang,it all began with
> cheap supermarkets...

> For God sake, you really don't know, just admit it for once in your life,
> science really can't answer everything.

> You say.. no evidence for God.
> No evidence against him either....
> You prove there isn't one.
> My money is on the opposite...
> Going over the obvious here...
> But nature would not conform so perfectly without a higher entity
> Could you have worked such a perfect plan out?
> I don't think so.

Evolution doesn't necessarily mean there is no God. I don't think there's a God, but you're right, it can't be proven either way. If evolution meant that there cannot be a God, that would've been the end of religion except amongst the most ignorant people. But lots of well-educated people people have religion, and they simply have revised their faiths to account for evolution just like they had to when it was proven the world is not flat. Notice how it's always religion that has to change in the teeth of science, and not the other way around?

That evolution is a "theory" doesn't mean it's a hunch no better than any other hunch. Evolution is a proven fact; we just are still working out the details.

Arguing against evolution is just as silly as arguing that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Don't take my word for it. That's the conclusion anyone would come to if they go to the science section of their library...unless they decide beforehand that they will resist the facts no matter what.

As far as science in general, there is much science doesn't understand yet, and many scientists have been proven wrong. But the scientific method has error-checking built into it. You have to let facts in even when they don't conform to what you believed. Everything is scrutinized rather than simply going on someone's faith, say-so, or what some authority tells you. You must prove your case based on actual evidence. That's why science leads us towards better understanding how things actually are rather than how we wish they were. And that's why science works. Airplanes actually do fly. NASA actually did get to the moon. Carl Sagan's book "Demon-Haunted World" has a lot about the scientific method and why it works. It seems like a book you oughta read!
 
The Passion of the Republican Party Reptile

> I've leafed though some of Dawkin's work before, and he is very good at
> explaining the possibility/probability of evolution. But, I am curious,
> Reptile, I assumed ALL conservatives believe the Earth was created in 7
> days! I realize I shouldn't generalize here, but can you explain that for
> me, please? Thanks!

Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I can't recognize that liberals f***ing suck.

That's my short answer for those who don't wanna read much.

Here's the long answer....

A Republican Party Reptile (which is the title of a book by PJ O'Rourke) is not that kind of religious right type. To me it means something along the lines of a "South Park Republican." Trey Parker and Matt Stone are my kind of people. Andrew sullivan of www.andrewsullivan.com is my kind of people. Arnold Shwarzenegger would be my kind of president.

So I'm mostly libertarian, which is what CLASSICAL liberalism is! But I guess I'm a "neo-conservative" on foreign policy...whatever that means.....

As the South Park guys said in an interview promoting Team America, Americans have become the dicks of the world just like cops are dicks. And people understandably are gonna hate us for it. But the world needs dicks because there are assholes on the loose out there (bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, Saddam...), so quit being such pussies (Michael Moore...).

If I'm a "conservative" it is because I want America to be AMERICA, guided by and aspiring towards our founding principles. It is those principles I wanna conserve. I don't want us to be like other countries. We didn't get to the top of the heap with that kind of "Lets fall back into the pack and be as lame as everyone else" attitude.....

I made a screenname with republican in it because it's such an unfairly demonized label in some circles. I find the level of hatred directed at Bush to be disturbing and hysterical, possibly mass mental illness.

I found the way half the democrat party didn't even seem to understand we were at war, or if we were, our side was the one to root AGAINST, absolutely mad.
Every time I walk into a book store they have a table set up with like a f***ing thousand "I Hate Bushitler" type books. It mostly makes me laugh, but when I look thru those books I get ill at the thought of such people getting their hands on the wheel of power.

So I found it amusing to finally just embrace the "republican" label in this time of mass anti-Bush hysteria, and post on boards with many liberals. And let them hate me and crucify me for it.

The passion of the republican party reptile.

The thing of it is, the "republican" label, just like the "democrat" label, doesn't mean much, so I'm like, what's the big whoop about it. Half of the the most diverse country in the world votes Republican. 60 million people voted for a Republican. What do you really know about a person from one of those labels? How can 60 million people be stereotyped? You thought I was some kind of creationist. I think that Christian fundamentalists are from the dark ages and should've been left in the dark ages. And I don't worry about immoral lifestyles or a sick pop culture. People should be left alone to live whatever lifestyle they want and enjoy whatever entertainments they like. It's fine to try persuasion, not fine to use government power.

The Christian right does not want to leave people to live the lifestyles they choose and like, and neither does the socialist left.

As it happens, most of the infringements upon my life and my rights have come from the nanny-state left. The hardcore Christians talk big but don't get very far. The liberal nanny-state is taking over everywhere.

On top of that, the government wants to take ever-larger shares of MY income from me without even trying to cut out their waste first, which is highly uncool.....

There's a lot to be said for a Democrat in the White House with a Republican congress keeping his more socialist tendencies in check. That is often the type of balance in which South Park Republicans get more things to go our way.

And PERHAPS one could say something for electing a Democrat commander in chief to force that party to be more serious in the war (would've felt better with Gephart if I'd have gone that way).

However, Kerry and his party became aliens to me in their campaign, with an unhinged mentality infecting the base with respect to the war. I was more worried about those people than the religious types who are a part of Bush's base. We have a constitition protecting me from Christians forcing their ways!!

As someone wrote at slate.com last week, I'll take a modest, god-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky over the mentality I saw on the left the past couple years, thank you. Their demented reactions to the election results only underscores the rightness of my judgment.

All of my life it has been the liberal intelligentsia and other socialist types who have been, not merely highly annoying, but the biggest threat to my life, my rights, and my country's security.

So...at the end of the day, I am in fact a red stater not just in geograpy but at heart. I have a growing contempt for the "Liberal Elite," and you don't have to be a Christian to feel that way.

Liberals just totally suck. When they can't convince the people to accept their agenda democratically they either try and con us or they try and force it through undemocratically. The way of the liberal is, when you don't get your way, you pretend not to be as liberal as you are, or you hire lawyers to sue everyone into submission, or you find ideological judges to try and dictate your agenda.

Many liberals don't even seem to wanna accept election results anymore. Look at all the shit from liberals acting like they won't concede this election. Republicans know what it's like to lose, and they do so far more gracefully. I guess that's because they respect our democracy more. And they're not a bunch of cry-babies who threaten to move to Canada because the election wasn't close enough to take to court. (What's stopping 'em from going to Canada?)
 
the best evidence for the existence of God is to find a pot plant with a monotheistic religion and a book of prayers.
 
Re: RPR, can I ask you a question, unrelated to Darwin.

> Like most people, I found the OJ Simpson trial absolutely disgusting. The
> majority of cases that end in convictions across the country have nowhere
> near as much evidence as they had on OJ! We wouldn't convict anybody
> unless there was a f***ing videotape showing the person doing it if every
> case had a judge and a renegade jury like that! So assume for argument
> that OJ's case wasn't the freak case it was. Then of course he surely
> would've been convicted. And yeah, he should've been snuffed out.

> Scott's case was based on circumstantial evidence whereas OJ's had all
> kinds of blood and DNA evidence on top of massive, endless amounts of
> other stuff all pointing to guilt. There was only one argument for
> reasonable doubt for OJ, and that was the argument that perhaps there was
> a massive conspiracy by the government to frame him and so the jury should
> just throw out all the evidence out of lack of trust in it. We *have*
> discovered that the LAPD *has* framed people, but I didn't find it
> believable at all that the police conspired against OJ. All we had were
> the LAPD and prosecutor's office looking a bit sloppy when faced with a
> "Dream Team" of lawyers and their fine-toothed comb, something
> they aren't used to (which is why all defendants should have dream teams -
> to make the government clean up their acts!).

> BAck to Scott...circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to convict
> someone, but juries often screw up the "beyond a reasonable
> doubt" standard because of their emotions, and juries do sometimes
> convict innocent people and send them to death. When it comes to the death
> penalty I don't feel comfortable unless I see no possibility whatsoever
> that the person didn't do it. Some kind of "beyond a reasonable
> doubt, and we actually mean it this time" standard when the death
> penalty is in play.

> Probably the main reason the jury found no reasonable doubt for Scott is
> because they could not imagine it possible that anyone else could've done
> it. And I think they made the right call. But in doing so, the jury relied
> in significant part on their guts. One's gut can be wrong, especially when
> you think the defendant is an asswhipe in general. I didn't follow the
> case closely enough to know all of the evidence for premeditation. From
> what little I heard, it seemed a tough call, and I might've dropped down
> to 2nd degree. But then, sometimes I find reasonable doubts where it's
> unreasonable to.
LOL, thanks for your response. I was just wondering because both killed two people. OJ was disgusting. Lange and crew are going to throw away their police pensions to frame OJ, yeah right. But this is the same jury who go on TV and say "oh DNA don't mean nothin' to me" or "everyone has blood". That case was lost at the Jury selection. If those were the people who were picked what were the people like who weren't.
Since there were no camera's allowed in I was wondering too what evidence there was. The only thing I know was Scott was "fishing" the same place his wife and unborn son washed up, his disguise, and his 4 cell phones.I think that Connor was second degree murder. Im thinking the jury may go with death because they went with first degree with Lacy. Can you imagine what the sentencing hearing is going to be like. What do you think Scott's chances are on appeal?
 
< I'd recommend the popular science
> books of Richard Dawkins as the best place to start (and people shouldn't
> get put off by his arrogance - he's a dick as a person, but he's
> brilliantly good at writing about evolution).

Why do you say Dawkins is a dick? Is it just his politics? I know he was involved in that Clark County thing.

Have you read "A Devil's Chaplain" - there's some personal stuff in there that shows him in a good light.




pic227140.jpg
 
> Why do you say Dawkins is a dick? Is it just his politics? I know he was
> involved in that Clark County thing.

> Have you read "A Devil's Chaplain" - there's some personal stuff
> in there that shows him in a good light.

Is he related to that other guy in the wheelchair?
No, not superman.
 
Back
Top Bottom