Originally posted by Seshmeister
If any of them are unable to understand evolution then he is a simpleton. A shallow thinker who cannot look at evidence but prefers superstition just because they were told it from an early age. Such a person is not fit for office.
If any of them are unable to understand evolution then he is a simpleton. A shallow thinker who cannot look at evidence but prefers superstition just because they were told it from an early age. Such a person is not fit for office.
The fact is, if their was evidence of it (not circumstantial evidence), they'd give that person a Nobel prize. Wouldn't they? Evolution seems to be a pretty important idea.
I understand evolution, but it takes just as much faith for a person to believe that as does for me to believe that God created the world. Evolution REQUIRES that the Big Bang theory be true. And the Big Band theory still has one massive hole: What makes the bang? If their is a bang, something has to cause it. And where does that thing, that causes the bang, come from?
And again, that's one of the reasons it's called the Big Bang theory.
I do have a more open ended question that I'd like to get some perspective on. We're all here from a lot of different places, and backgrounds and such. And I keep hearing people throw around the word neo-conservative. And watching Olbermann, I've heard two different people cite it, and be talking about two different things. So what is your definition of Neo-Conservative?
Comment