30% of GOP Presidential Candidates do NOT believe in Evolution

Letter to the editor in today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Quote:
In the Republican presidential debate, some of the candidates actually admitted to believing in biological evolution. This is a great sign of progress. The party is slowly moving into the late 19th century, and should catch up to the present time by 2160.

Ornot, you have the best stuff in your newspaper. I should move to San Francisco. I love these people.
 
Ornotbitwise Quote:

This is one of the most basic tactics of the anti-intellectual and reactionary: deliberate conflation of dissimilar problems in order to provoke violent emotional responses. Rabble rousing, in other words.

Ornot, I love that comment; it's brilliant. May I borrow it? Please? :)
 
leaningright said:
Yep, sounds like something from California. You know we religious folks just walk around dragging our knuckles on the ground, slowly following the rest of the world but never quite catching up. Dang I wish we'd evlove. :)
Click to expand...


The knuckles dragging on the ground is a result of inbreeding. Not from stunted evolution. We're talking about Oklahoma afterall ;)
 
Thorn said:
Ornotbitwise Quote:

This is one of the most basic tactics of the anti-intellectual and reactionary: deliberate conflation of dissimilar problems in order to provoke violent emotional responses. Rabble rousing, in other words.

Ornot, I love that comment; it's brilliant. May I borrow it? Please? :)
Click to expand...
I'd be honored. :cof1:
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Again with the lie. Biology and ethics are two distinct fields. It is not membership in the species Homo sap sap that bestows personhood but rather one's condition as a sentient individual. A (hypothetical, at this point) truly sentient artificial intelligence would be a person. Teri Schiavo was no longer a person, though she was still a member of the human species.

This is one of the most basic tactics of the anti-intellectual and reactionary: deliberate conflation of dissimilar problems in order to provoke violent emotional responses. Rabble rousing, in other words.
Click to expand...

Except pro-choice murderers deny life exists where it clearly does, so people will accept their ethics. THIS is the conflation of ethics and science. Or rather, the denial of science to perpetuate an ethical position.

Life is a scientific concept. See biology
 
Your boutique definition of what constitutes PERSONHOOD is especially deplorable.
 
Last edited:
Except pro-choice murderers deny life exists where it clearly does, so people will accept their ethics. THIS is the conflation of ethics and science. Or rather, the denial of science to perpetuate an ethical position.

You are getting yourself confused. Are we talking about life, or being a human being, with human rights and duties? If it is life, then an ethical equivilence must be made to all other living entities. If it is about being a human being, then whether an entity is considered to be a human being isn't a matter of science, but philosophy. Science can tell us if something is human, but not a human being.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Except pro-choice murderers deny life exists where it clearly does, so people will accept their ethics. THIS is the conflation of ethics and science. Or rather, the denial of science to perpetuate an ethical position.

You are getting yourself confused. Are we talking about life, or being a human being, with human rights and duties? If it is life, then an ethical equivilence must be made to all other living entities. If it is about being a human being, then whether an entity is considered to be a human being isn't a matter of science, but philosophy. Science can tell us if something is human, but not a human being.
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely wrong. We, as humans, put a premium on human life. If it's parents are human, it's human. If it's alive, it's a living human being.

Your philosophical addendums are merely a bunch of crap designed to justify baby killing.
 
"This message is hidden because AssHatZombie is on your ignore list."


Sometimes I wonder what I'm missing.

But, then again I value my brain cells. I think I lost a point of IQ, for each Asswipe post I read in the past.
 
Cypress said:
"This message is hidden because AssHatZombie is on your ignore list."


Sometimes I wonder what I'm missing.

But, then again I value my brain cells. I think I lost a point of IQ, for each Asswipe post I read in the past.
Click to expand...


Your boutique little mind of idiocy cannot withstand the power of my truth. You're a moronic tool.
 
No. Absolutely wrong. We, as humans, put a premium on human life. If it's parents are human, it's human. If it's alive, it's a living human being.

Your philosophical addendums are merely a bunch of crap designed to justify baby killing.

Asshat, you are useless at debating.

All you do is state your point, then refuse to address anything brought up contrary to that point.

If its parents are human, then it is human, but to be a human being is different from being human. My toenail is human, but it isn't a human being.

What makes a human being a human being is a matter for philosophy. Science can tell us whether something is human or not, but not if that entity is a human being...

You claim that if it is alive, it is a human being. My toenail is alive, it regenerates and it is human. But it is not a human being...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top