Senate Derp, DERP. Derpitimus Maximus. Derpity deeeeeeerp...

Nice personal attack on somebody you don't even know.

 

And you went even further back. You can have a legal ruling on what is taught in school. How do you think ToE ever got taught in schools and kept away from creationism to begin with? It is all a huge legal battle through this past century. But you are still ignoring what I actually said. They could have gotten caught on a tennis court rather than a legal court. They got caught admitting publically more than onc emany times that they have no research. Got it?

 

This. There is not one shred of evidence supporting the idea of creationism. When a wise man encounters information that contradicts his previously held beliefs, he will change those beliefs in order to adapt to the new information. Clinging to an old belief in the face of overwhelming evidence is childish.

 

Yeah, I'm just going to ignore everything you ever say again. You're obviously not worth the brainpower.

For the record: Never struck a woman. Never been married. **** Off.

 

Okay, one last thing before I go.

First, sorry, if you really know so little of basic rhetoric and argument that you don't recognize when someone uses one of the most common, famous, and old-trope examples used to illustrate a logical fallacy on you, then having a rhetorical debate with you is a waste of time. Derp indeed.

Second, I appreciate that many of you would like to have a fine debate on intelligent design vs. evolution. I'm not interested in having that debate, nor do I need to do so to prove my point. We all understand that it is entirely possible to make a bad argument in favor of a valid point; my assertion was that saying that intelligent design has been debunked because a court said so is a bad argument. Proving this assertion does not require me to prove whether or not evolution or creationism is true; it merely requires me to prove that this is a bad argument regarding it. So trying to drag me into a wider evolution vs. intelligent design debate is to try to drag me off into what is, for the purpose of proving my assertion, an irrelevancy.

As for my actual assertion, of course that's a bad argument. Courts and lawyers are not a valid way to prove a scientific point, and there's a huge difference between making a ruling on what can and can't be taught in schools and determining what is scientific fact. If the court had ruled the other way, which was entirely possible - many people forget that the creationists actually won the "Scopes Monkey Trial" - you'd be saying the same thing that I am, which is that courts are completely unqualified to make scientific pronouncements, and that just because a court says that something is or isn't scientific doesn't make it so.

Lord Vivec - if you really either 1) don't understand the distinction I laid out above or 2) can't parse a basic rhetorical argument well enough to figure out what I was actually saying, then pardon me if I retain some reservations about leaving things to "science professionals" like yourself.

 

vlm said that certain theories had been "debunked" in the courts. To debunk means to "expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)."

Narutikin's point is that theories are not debunked in courts; they are debunked by scientists.

So this whole argument is about an imprecise usage of the word "debunked"... Great way to spend your time, huh?

GO OUTSIDE

 

Stop beating a dead horse. Enough.

 

They were debunked by scientists....in court.

I have never seen someone say nothing of value in so many words.

 

NRA wants guns in public housing.

 

Oh, Ray, you are a never-ending source of amusement and ridicule. If only you weren't corrupting so many people in the process...

 

*sighs* Women can't win at all these days it seems.

 

So it seems.

 

I have noticed the disclaimer that gets thrown up is the same across the board when it comes to right wing sexism, "I know I'm gonna get in trouble for this but...".

 

By definition, you're not going to be able to "prove" intelligent design scientifically. Intelligent design is in the province of faith, not provable facts. The most you can get is a bunch of derpmeisters going "this has got to be designed". Why? Because they say so.

 

Yep, the War on Women is back just in time for the GOP to get it's butt kicked in Mid - terms too.

 

Are these sexist old men dead yet?

 

They'll just get replaced by sexist younger men, unfortunately. That's why I know that when Pat Robertson dies, even though I'll be celebrating, he'll just get replaced by someone just as awful. Ray Comfort seems to be poised to succeed Robertson as the eminent Christian Idiot Everybody Loves To Hate (tm).

 

I have a feeling they already are if the Tea Party is any indication.

 

Every so often you read a headline and you know it's hyperbole to get attention. And then sometimes the content happens to be worse than the actual headline.

Hannity, young girls, sex etc[/ur]

On his radio show, Hannity hyped a CNS News article that claimed a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website, girlshealth.gov, informs girls age 10 to 16 "about birth control, gay sex, and mutual masturbation." Hannity described the website as "spreading the wonders of anal sex and mutual masturbation courtesy of the Obama administration."

As I have lamented before, regardless of what the electoral college votes tunred out to be, keep in mind only a few million votes eparated Obama and Romney. Half the people of the U.S. go with this crap.

 

Not necessarily. It only appears as such because we are, for all intents and purposes, stuck with a two party system.

And as long as people keep voting for "the guy with the best chance to beat that bastard", instead of examining the wide range of candidates and voting for the person that most closely matches their views, we aren't to see any improvement.