Well, a search on the phrase on alta vista gave 807 hits.
National Geographic, Sun Microsystems, Credit Union Times, USA Today, just to name a few of the top ten hits that used this phrase in no connection to coverage of this particular quote.
I’m glad you aren’t running for President!
There is supposed to be liberty, truth, justice and the American way for all too, the Golden Rule, Good Will and Peace and Harmony… none of these are law though.
Talk about bullshit… what lovely propaganda you have learned. Most public schools do teach evolution. This cite is near-psychotically pro-evolution. They indicate six states that “avoid evolution in their state standards altogether”, not their curriculum, but their state standards. Some others have disclaimers, but teach evolution as a theory.
http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/evolution.html
It is interesting to me that the pro-evolution ‘scientists’ are so supremist on their theory that they refuse to let any others be presented.
Science is:
“1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”
I am sure you will all correct me where I error…
As a precedent to your responses, I am not personally affronted by or attempting to personally affront anyone else on this issue, it isn’t very emotional to me, because whereever we came from… here we are… so try to keep it civil please.
The Bible was written over a period of thousands of years by people who supposedly spoke directly to God. God watched creation and through human hands wrote down what He witnessed.
Observation:
No humans were there to witness either creation or evolution. In man’s eternal quest for knowledge, he assented that he existed and tried to explain it.
Identification: A Deity spoke to Man and told him how the Earth and all living things were created by Him.
Description: Through the Deity’s words, Man wrote down how the Earth and it’s inhabitants were created.
Experimental Investigation: Man is incapable of creating life. Evidence has not been lent over the last 2,000 years that man is evolving, which would be the logical result if man evolved from something other than man. Nor are any apes giving birth to cromagnums, nor are apes growing less hair. It is impossible to experiment with what was done thousands or millions of years ago.
Theoretical Explanation of the Phenomena: That is the easy part.
On the Evolution side of the bill… what came first? The archealogical digs or the theory?
Some ‘proof’ I have read is that some moths have changed colors because the lighter ones were eaten by birds and the darker ones were then allowed to procreate. Say again?
Scientists, digging through dirt to prove their theory, dated this dirt at XXX million years old. Based upon what exactly? Based upon normal building of dirt deposits? Couldn’t all land masses being covered by water for several months conceivably change the entire face of the Earth?
Carbon dating doesn’t work beyond about 50,000 years. What else?
http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/noah.htm
Yes, I can point to that one all day, petrified wood deposits on top of a mountain in the shape of a humungous boat. Scientific evidence always refuted by scientists because it disproves their theory. Yet, they claim this is the position of Creationists, that they refute scientific evidence solely because it opposes the theory of creation.
Scientists, on a mission to prove their theory, dug up some bones at the varying ‘dated’ levels in the ground and ‘dated’ the bones at XXX million years old. Since the bones are different from existing creatures today, the ‘logical’ deduction was evolution, not extinction.
In the purest sense of the science of evolution… that creatures change over time, adapting to their environments, most people will agree, people and animals do adapt. But the Creationists do not believe we all started from an ocean of single cell organisms. Even some Evolutionists don’t believe that.
How is one theory superior to another? And please don’t respond with 200 page papers on evolution, I have skimmed through a few of them. Summarize your cites and points, I am willing to learn, but not willing to read 100 pages of big words guaranteed to put me to sleep. Not looking for a degree, but willing to get a schooling.
I don’t oppose the Theory of Evolution being taught in school, however, if you believe you have evidence that would forward that the theory is a fact, I would disagree. I also don’t personally have a problem with Creationism not being taught in science class. Although I think Christian Creationism has as much right as Greek or Roman mythology to be in the public school curriculum, I acknowledge that they are not taught in science class, but perhaps neither should the Theory of Evolution.
Science and Mathematics tend to be based on irreputable evidence. I don’t believe the theory of evolution qualifies. If the Theory of Evolution is taught as a fact, it is an offense to religion and thus a violation of the First Amendment as surely as those who oppose it believe Creationism to be an affront to the Theory of Evolution and thus a violation of the same amendment.
My apologies, I meant if the Theory of Evolution that was taught to me in Middle School in 1979 is taught as a fact… blah blah blah …
That was the version where XX billion years ago a cell popped into existence and teamed up with other cells to create water life … then amphibians … then dinosaurs … then monkeys … then man. (it was roughly taught that way, I understand there are newer versions but are they taught correctly in the classrooms?)
Make sure you understand the scientific, rather than colloquial, usage of the word “theory.”
The scientific process involves formulating a hypothesis (either out of the blue or based on data) and then modifying or discarding that hypothesis as new data are added. Eventually, as hypotheses are changed based on the evidence, one will emerge that fits all available data, and is contradicted by none of it. When the body of evidence supporting the hypothesis is so large that there are no more simple scientific objections, that hypothesis becomes a theory.
An extremely simplistic example:
Hypothesis 1: The sun orbits the earth, which is the center of the Solar System.
Evidence: Duh. We see the sun moving.
Problem: If the Earth is the center of the system, then the other planets orbit the earth too, but it sure doesn’t look like they are. The figures just don’t work out.
Hypothesis 2: The Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun is the center of the system.
Evidence: Observed motion of other planets.
Problem: None–apparant motion of Sun in sky is explained withint the new theory.
There are no other scientific theories about speciation and the development of life on Earth–evolution is it.
Quote:
"How is one theory superior to another? And please don’t respond with 200 page papers on evolution, I have skimmed through a few of them. Summarize your cites and points, I am willing to learn, but not willing to read 100 pages of big words guaranteed to put me to sleep. Not looking for a degree, but willing to get a schooling. "
This is typical of creationists…“Explain it to me, but don’t go into detail.”
If you are not willing to read 100 pages of information, then you are by no means willing to learn squat! (Reading 100 pages of info may give you schooling and by no means will give you a degree.)
How is one theory superior to another? Simple, the supporitng evidence!
(The following is taken from: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Essays/Kansas.html and are by NO means my own words…but I do agree with them. All credit goes to Mike Wong; the author of this site.)
The Theory of Evolution uses the following Evidence:
Progressionism: Everywhere in the world, if you dig for fossils, you will find that as you get deeper and deeper, the fossils become simpler and simpler. This trend is known as progressionism and it indicates that animals have become more complex with time. This consistent, observed physical evidence is predicted by evolution theory but not by creation theory. If all of the world’s creatures came into being at once, why are fossils always progressively simpler as you dig deeper into the rock?
Homology: Profound similarities between different species (in conjunction with their geographical placement) were the original motivation for Darwin’s theory of evolution. To put it simply, when two species are so similar that they seem as if they’re related, then perhaps they are related. Evolution is based on “family trees”, hence the biological classification of species into larger groupings known as genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla. You can draw a “family tree” for any animal species on Earth, tracing its evolutionary ancestry. This is consistent with evolution theory because all species must have evolved from more primitive species. However, it is inconsistent with creation theory, since creationists propose that each species was “designed” separately. If they were designed separately, then why would each and every species on Earth just happen to have an ancestral “family tree” of remarkably similar but progressively less advanced organisms? There are several types of homology:
**Structural Homology**: There are fundamental similarities between divergent species within their families. For example, the forearm skeletal structure of hundreds of vertebrate species (including man and ape) are remarkably similar. The structure of the eyeball is remarkably similar among mammals. All flowering plants share structural aspects of leaves, stem, roots, etc.
**Behavioural Homology**: There are striking similarities between the behavioural instincts of different species. For example, different species of thrushes in Britan and South America line their nests in exactly the same way. Also, geographically separated different species of stickleback have similar mating rituals.
Biochemical Homology: As with structure and behaviour, there are profound similarities in the chemical makeup of numerous related species. For example, we share 98% of our DNA with apes. Human blood-precipitation agents are still 64% effective in gorillas. And at a more fundamental level, the protein enzyme known as cytochrome is part of the respiration process and is found in everything from plants to bacteria, fungus, and mammals. Minor differences in the structure of the enzyme constituents can actually be used to map the evolutionary development of entire “family trees” of species.
**Embryological Homology:** The embryos of different species are often indistinguishable from one another, even when the end product is markedly different, eg- lizards, birds, and mammals. Modes of formation of heads and torsos are often identical between different species.
Transformed organs: Some related species have similar organs in similar places, with subtly altered functions. For example, flies differ from most flying insects by having one pair of wings rather than two, but the rear pair of wings is not gone- it has been transformed into a pair of gyroscopic organs (halteres) which aid in directional control. Some fish have organs which produce an electrical discharge that can be used as a form of close-range radar, while others have the same organ in roughly the same part of their anatomy, but the electrical discharge is much stronger so that it can kill or paralyze predators and prey. This is consistent with evolution from one species to another, but a staggering coincidence if one believes in individual species design.
Vestigial organs: The human appendix serves no known function but it corresponds to the cecum of the alimentary canal of many other mammals (there has been some suggestion that it actually does serve some function, but it isn’t the same as the function of the corresponding organ in other mammals, so at worst, the appendix may be a transformed organ rather than a vestigial organ). Ostriches also serve as examples of vestigial organs, because their wings are obviously useless (ever seen a flying ostrich?) but they correspond in structure and placement to the wings of flying birds. Such structures could be evolutionary remnants of ancestral organs, but if one subscribes to creation theory, they can only be viewed as evidence that God was a lousy engineer.
Parasites and diseases: Most parasites have evolved to specialize so that they require another life form, sometimes retaining structural evidence of a previous, free-living evolutionary ancestor. It is easy to imagine organisms adapting to utilize other life forms for survival in a manner consistent with evolution theory. Once a life form becomes numerous, it behooves parasites to adapt in order to take advantage. However, if we are to believe that life was created in its current form as predicted by creation theory, then Adam and Eve must have been created with tapeworms in their stomachs and malaria parasites in their blood! In fact, Adam and Eve should have both died immediately from an astounding array of diseases, because every species of human-specialized parasite and bacteria must have been already present in their bodies or it would have promptly died for lack of a host.
Geographical distribution: If God made thousands of separate species which were coincidentally similar in every respect, why would he also locate them in such a manner that they appeared to spread outward from a single origin? Was he playing a practical joke? Similar species of flora and fauna can be found on the Cape Verde islands and Africa. Similar species of flora and fauna can be found on the Galapagos islands and South America. Similar species of tapirs are found in the seemingly distant regions of South America and the East Indies, but related tapir fossils have been found in the intermediate regions of North America, Asia and Europe, thus explaining the apparent discontinuity. Species are not located in a random fashion, even when environmental conditions favourable to their success exist in geographically separate areas.
Paleontology: The fossil record demonstrates that the structure of animals has historically been consistent with their environmental conditions. For example, the feet and teeth of horse fossils have changed in correlation with changing environmental conditions: 65 million years ago, the habitat of the horse’s ancestors was swampy and full of leafy plants. The horse ancestors (hyracotherium) accordingly had feet with four splayed toes so as not to sink in the swamp, and short teeth for eating the soft leaves. When the ground hardened and the leafy plants receded in favour of grass, more recent horse ancestor fossils had long teeth and smaller feet. This is quite a remarkable coincidence- according to the creationists, all of the fossils were put there as a practical joke by God, and they were coincidentally tailored to be consistent with evidence of appropriate environmental conditions for each era, which was also put there as a practical joke by God. This is a rather elaborate practical joke!
**Observed adaptation:[B/] It is hopefully common knowledge that bacteria have been constantly adapting to survive the antibiotic assaults of mankind. It is hopefully also common knowledge that successive generations of cockroach can become resistant to chemical pesticides, as can numerous other forms of insect. A more specific example is the British peppered moth. Before the nineteenth century it had only been seen in a gray variant, but in 1850 a black mutant variant was seen. The black variant was not successful because it was so easily spotted by predators, compared to its gray brethren which could blend into the tree bark. However, the black variant remained in the species as a recurrent strain due to a recessive gene, and when the Industrial Revolution caused the trees to darken, the black variant became dominant because its dark colouring was now an advantage in concealment from predators. This is a specific example of observed evolutionary adaptation, driven by environmental changes.
Creationists uses the following Evidence:
The Bible says so…
I think this is pretty self explanitory…
That still doesn’t make it correct usage, although I stand corrected in that I thought it couldn’t be in popular use. If the jury is out, the verdict is not in. That’s not the same as the verdict being out. However, with 807 hits, I can only shake my head in disgust.
Some of those uses of “verdict is out” were legitimate - ran the search myself.
Thing like referring to finally knowing a verdict by saying the verdict is now out.
Actually, I have been clicking through on a bunch of these, and have yet to see it missused as suggesting something was still undecided.
Ah hah! Maybe when Bush said, “the verdict is still out”, he meant that it is still absolutely clear that evolution has scads of scientific evidence and creationism is a matter of religious faith only!
…nah. He’s a twit.
**
As I said, I have read over the 100 page and 200 page essays of information, all the terms made up by the scientists that wrote the theories. It hasn’t proven anything. Now, if you have even a 1,000 pages of information that shows fossil digs or proves that scientists can age things beyond a guess based on how deep they are in the earth, I will be willing to skim through it. But the long essays of scientific words really don’t prove anything, that is what I meant.
I have, meanwhile, explained the Creationism as a science and you come back with ‘cause it’s in the Bible’. I encourage you to open your mind a little as I respond to each of the below and try to open my mind:
First question of course is Proof?
How do I know scientists, bent on their own theories, are not making that evidence up? How do you know? Have you ever observed a dig? Does the author ‘know’ this?
Second question…
Are there also simple fossils at the higher levels?
If not shouldn’t there be?
Is it possible that the larger creatures simply lived ‘millions’ of years while the smaller ones did not?
Today insects have a much shorter life expectancy than humans and Methusula reportedly lived nearly a thousand years.
Since Creationists do not believe that the world is millions of years old and there is no proof that it is, is it possible we are talking about creatures dying in water covered mud and sinking down hundreds of feet while the larger creatures simply lived longer because their heads were above sea level?
This can also prove Creationism. If the same Creator is creating all creatures, it would make perfect sense that they would have similarities amongst them.
Similar to the homology argument for Creationism, but definately an interesting subject that I will look into.
Regarding the appendix… we don’t know and I am not lining up to have mine removed, nor my tonsils. One day, it may be clear, but Man may well never know everything about everything.
The thought that God was a lousy engineer is why Creationists tend to get uppity with Evolutionists… I know, not your words. Have you ever seen ostriches dance or raise their wings in self-defense? Have you ever seen penguins use their wings to propel themselves out of the water, through the air to the safety of land? That can be evidence that God was an incredible engineer, Man is just quicker to judge than to observe sometimes.
And for all I know, parasites serve a very explicit and useful purpose. Further evidence that a Creator was a wise Creator.
Parasites and bacteria are a good argument. My first inclination would be to suggest, from a ultra-religious background, that parasites were the creation of Satan, or a post Eve-fooled-Adam creation of God. Surely, if you accept that a Creator created all creatures, He might have continued creating creatures after the initial bunch. It is also believed by Creationists that there were no meat eating animals upon Creation. So it lends that following Adam and Eve’s deception, that God would, in a rage, throw down with some parasites, meat eating animals, and the like.
It is also possible that after Creation, there was evolution. But I will go into that later.
It is a well documented fact that mankind takes many things with them wherever they go. Plants, pets, you have heard of the problems of the Florida wetlands due to a human introduction of plant life (I’ll try to find the cite) that has overrun the place and threatens it’s inhabitants. This happened just in this century. It has nothing to do with evolution.
But, referring to the Ark… since land was quite probably transformed at the Flood (Ice Age) and all creatures left a common area to procreate and make a home for themselves, it follows that they would now all go in the same direction.
Plus, when you create a flower bed, for example, you don’t put all your oranges together, you spread them out with blues and yellows and reds. Why do you think a Creator would not disperse their creations about?
Are these same fossils found directly above one another or in the same area? I was always told that fossils are a rarety, I would be interested, and will further search for sites on fossils. There seems to be significantly more evidence than I recall being taught about.
This is a rather elaborate misquote of creationists. I have never heard any creationist attest that fossils are a joke by God. I’m sure an omniscent Creator can come up with better ways to laugh at us… like giving us an appendix and laughing as we spend year after year trying to figure out what it is for. Just kidding, I don’t believe the fossils are a joke by God though.
Like the British moth, I suggest that the ones that survived reproduced, the others died out. Not evolution just survival of the fittest. But the bacteria and cockroaches do offer a good argument for evolution.
I am actually open to the idea of evolution. Of course, my belief would be that the Creator made animals, fish and birds and man and some species were created later, based on need, or the Creator made the species with the ability to evolve.
Paraphrasing the above post. “Scientists are really working against God, and how do I know they just didn’t make all that stuff up? Why use reason and logic to explain things when magic works just as well?”
There’s nothing inherently wrong with teaching Creation Theory in public school, so long as it is not advocated as being “the correct theory.” I took a Greek and Roman Mythology class at my high school and enjoyed it thoroughly.
It has no place at all in a Science class, however. Comparing and contrasting the Theory of Evolution with the Theory of Creation might be an interesting intellectual exercise, but it has no place in the scientific community. This is because the Theory of Creation does not fit the scientific definition of a thEory at all. (at least, not the Creation Theory I know, i.e. In the beginning… and God said ‘Let there be light’ and there was light…). We would be comparing apples to oranges. Scientific theory starts with a statement of hypothesis and then tests this hypothesis against gathered evidence and observation. The reasoning then is that if the hypothesis fits gathered evidence, then this hypothesis can be considered to be a reasonable model of the way in which a particular aspect of the world operates, a theory. Science says nothing of objective truth. It only attempts to claim that such-and-such a theory is consistent with the observation that Y is a consequence of X, and that it can reasonably predict the a future consequence given a set of initial conditions.
Scientific methods cannot be used to scrutinize Creation Theory because, while there is a hypothesis (God created everything), there is no observable evidence available to test this hypothesis and there is only one piece of gathered evidence, the Bible. Thus, the scientific process would require that one research the Bible to determine the sources of the passages in the Bible, determine their accuracy, and then determine if a divine being communicated with the being that originally uttered those Bible passages. Since, at the least, the last two are not currently possible to determine, it is neither possible to prove nor disprove what should more rightly be called the Hypothesis of Creation.
So, wait a minute – if the verdict is out, then the jury has reached a verdict. If the verdict is in, then the jury has reached a verdict too?
Here’s National Geographic:
752 hits on “the verdict is still out.”
How about an entire article title used a a reference in this library of congress link?
Can we stop with the politics of personal destruction now? 
::sniffs armpits::
Am I invisible here, or what?
Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no “Theory of Creationism” to compare to a “Theory of Evolution.” It’s apples and oranges. No, actually, it’s more like apples and '65 Impalas.
JustAnotherGuy, just a question and a couple points. You said:
Why? I expect nature to be limited, but why would you want to limit God like that?
Ultimately, this is the crux:
I know that no scientist works in a vaccuum, that science as a whole is self-correcting. That’s how I know this.
If you do not accept this, there will never be a common ground, and you will never be open to a non-Biblically-based point of view. No harm, no foul. But it means abandoning ALL science. You cannot tell me that the Earth is round. After all, NASA has its own agenda.
Arms Control Today – an article by Senator Joseph Biden
I could do this all week!
andros: What do you expect from a guy who posts a link to a site whose author claims that Noah’s Ark has been found? (Their “evidence” is a boat-shaped rock formation on Mount Ararat. Yeeesh!)
JustAnotherGuy: Please answer the following questions about the Flood:
Where did the water go afterwards? (It didn’t go underground; if it had, seismographs would record the presence of that water with every major earthquake.)
Was it fresh or salty? How did all the marine and aquatic life survive after the salinity of the water was drastically altered? How did fresh-water fish like sturgeon survive if their lakes were flooded with salt water? How did salt-water fish like sharks and marlins and tuna survive if the oceans were flooded with fresh water?
Why didn’t the polar ice caps float away?
Reconcile ANY supposed dates of the Flood with the fact that no other ancient civilization records a great Flood as having happened on that date. And reconcile it with the fact that no civilization can be found to have been totally wiped out by a flood. (Many cultures have flood myths. But most ancient cultures were founded near reliable sources of water where small, local floods are likely to happen.)
Well, every D&D player knows that God could have simply opened a portal to the Elemental Plane of Water to create the Flood and then opened another portal to send the water back.
It was fresh, since pure Elemental Water contains no salt. However, the Guide to the Inner Planes specifically states that the supernatural qualities of the plane of Water allow both fresh water and salt water fish to survive there normally.
You see, fundamentalists? D&D isn’t evil; it actually SUPPORTS the Bible! It’s your Christian duty to go out and buy all the D&D books you can. Then, the next time some evolutionist mocks you, you can show them proof that elves were created, since they aren’t affected by the Articus’s devolutionary warrior spell! Of course, humans are affected by this spell, but that’s obviously just a plot by the pit fiends of Baator to corrupt the faithful and gain more souls for the Blood War.
I suppose that you already know that lack of evidence of one thing (apes giving birth to proto-humans) does not, by itself, constitute evidence of anything.
I also suppose that you already know what “Historical Sciences” are.
I also suppose that you have a good idea that most everyone here (with the possible exception of Jack Dean Tyler) is capable of creating life. Or did the stork bring you?
“As I said, I have read over the 100 page and 200 page essays of information, all the terms made up by the scientists that wrote the theories. It hasn’t proven anything. Now, if you have even a 1,000 pages of information that shows fossil digs or proves that scientists can age things beyond a guess based on how deep they are in the earth, I will be willing to skim through it. But the long essays of scientific words really don’t prove anything, that is what I meant.“
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! I love this!!!
Hey! Because I don’t understand the science words, that means that it proves nothing!!! God you creationists are a hoot!!!
I suggest that you learn a little more about how the scientific method works! And if you don’t understand the words, LOOK THEM UP!!!
**“First question of course is Proof?
How do I know scientists, bent on their own theories, are not making that evidence up? How do you know? Have you ever observed a dig? Does the author ‘know’ this? **
This again is a rather typical response…first he says he wants to learn, then he says he doesn’t want a lot of details, then he asks for the details.
Making it up? You can go see for yourself. The findings are public records. But I have a feeling that is not enough for you. So go on a dig with them. I have, and it’s a hell of an experience…but something tells me you’ll say they planted the evidence.
That’s the key there…whether you understand it or not, the evidence is there…Creation “theory” has NO evidence apart from what the bible says…and the bible is NOT a credible scientific source.
“Second question…
Are there also simple fossils at the higher levels?
If not shouldn’t there be?”
Sure there are…no one said there wasn’t.
“Is it possible that the larger creatures simply lived ‘millions’ of years while the smaller ones did not?
Are you saying that the dinosaurs actually had a lifespan of a milling years? Interesting hypothosis…but again, and rather typical…you have no proof and are just making things up. The evidence that we have actually shows this is not the case.
“Today insects have a much shorter life expectancy than humans and Methusula reportedly lived nearly a thousand years. “
To my knowledge, insects have ALWAYS have shorter life spans.
Methusula?? My god! You’re killing me!!! Are you for real? (For those that don’t know Methusula is a biblical character that lived for 900 odd years…JAG is, once again, trying to use biblical references as an argument.
“Since Creationists do not believe that the world is millions of years old and there is no proof that it is, is it possible we are talking about creatures dying in water covered mud and sinking down hundreds of feet while the larger creatures simply lived longer because their heads were above sea level?”
Sure there is proof that the world is that old, again, just because you don’t understand the data doesn’t mean it’s false.
You are only showing your ignorance my friend. I think it is best that you actuall READ up on this and not just skim…it hasn’t don’t you any good because you have no clue as to what you are talking about….
I’ve read through your comments and don’t know where to start…my brain is actually in pain from nonsense you are coming up with.
“…that parasites were the creation of Satan”
Sheesh! You keep trying to shoot down these types of evidence by pulling out sections from the Bible…Again, the Bible isn’t a valid scientific source, and hence the arguments don’t hold water.
You claimed that “…land quite probably transformed at the Flood (Ice Age)”. Where are you getting this? Who says that the “Great Flood in the bible (the one that involved Noah) was the “Ice Age”? There are no scientific texts that I am aware of that show this! Also are you aware that there have been many Ice Ages?
“It is also believed by Creationists that there were no meat eating animals upon Creation.”
HAHAHAHAHAH! What a crock! What sort of evidence is this??? This isn’t mentioned ANYWHERE in your source of ‘scientific info’!!! The bible makes NO mention of this!!!
So people, as you can see, if a Creationist can’t explain something, or there is something that isn’t make PERFECTLY CLEAR, they MAKE IT UP!!! LOLOLOLOLOL
“Like the British moth, I suggest that the ones that survived reproduced, the others died out. Not evolution just survival of the fittest.”
Are you for real??? What do you think the Theory of evolution is all about??? THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!!
LOLOLOL HAHAHAHAHAHAH!! HOHOHOHOH!!! Sorry guys…I’ve had enought for now…I gotta stop laughing…I’m gonna get a coffee…hahahahaha…
Scylla said:
Funny. That’s why I’ll be voting against him…
Not may. Does.
Yes, and he will be in a position to take both of those personal opinions and try to give them the force of law as president – or appoint Supreme Court justices who share that opinion.
Do you really want to fight creationists in a state-by-state battle? I mean, even more than we do already?
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
Well, at least there’s some good news in this post! Did you tell them that you subscribed 'cus of me? I’m trying to get a discount for all the people I refer from the SDMB. 
Davidb:
I don’t know what Gore beleives because I don’t think he’s ever shown us his opinions. Like Clinton, I think Gore’s main motivation is to become President, and his opinions will change with what will accomplish that goal. I think he’s fundamentally dishonest.
I don’t think we’d need to fight creation science in schools state by state. We need one Supreme court case to declare it unconstitutional, and that’s it. States will still decide what to teach, they just can’t choose creationism.
I also want to clarify becuase you may have unintentionally taken a quote of mine out of context. I am personally against abortion, but I support a woman’s right to choose no matter how much I may disagree with that choice.