i read all nine million pages, and can report conclusively that the vast majority were conservatives pages.
Prove me wrong.
So a Google Vomit is your answer, you could not be more pathetic if you tried Starving Artist.
And… The first link right away claims that **evolutionists **have to come with the evidence, so much for dealing with leftists telling us for years that they are confusing terms.
And we can stop there, “evolutionist” is not a word used by scientists but by Creationists. Creationists tend to use the term in an attempt to suggest that the theory of evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate.
I know that you’re a moderator now and all, and while I hate to say this, I’m afraid I just don’t believe you. 
And besides, I don’t care. It was you guys who got your panties in a twist when I said it was lefties who’ve created the impression that evolution is thought to explain the origins of life and challenged me to prove it. The page I linked to is veritably fraught with examples of left-wing sites doing just that, as exemplifed by the Wiki entry as follows:
Why is this even in dispute? Clearly a great many people are of the somewhat vague belief that evolution is supposed either to account for the beginning of life or is alleged to do so and is therefore at odds with creationism, and as far as I know this has never been a position promoted by the right.
And so, in the words of the immortal Eric Cartman: “What’s the big fuckin’ deal, bitch?”
So, that’s how you “google”, huh? Well, I’ll be. Type it up in that empty spot, enter, and away it goes! Son of a gun! Learn something ever day!
So, once again you need to learn why it is called a Google Vomit, it also trows information that does not support your ideas at all.
And that would be because the National Academy of Sciences is where the average American gets the information that informs their views, right?
I think the Wiki cite is pretty clearly intended to illustrate that the controversy has become one of the origins of life, which it does, and not a contention that it is actively promoting that view itself.
And now I got other stuff to do, including perusing other threads and forums. I certainly don’t intend to spend the rest of the night gluing split hairs back together again. No sensible person could possibly contend that it is righties who’ve created the impression that evolution accounts for the origins of life, and I have no intention of spending the rest of the night gluing your desperately split hairs back together again.
Chow! 
And the whole context of the quote you mention is this:
Yep, they also mention the difference, and who is trying to frame it an origins debate thing?
When we check the debate section it is clear that it is the creationists who want to frame the debate that way.
As shown, you are really deluded that that is the case.
Nope, **Hentor **and others showed before that you are still wrong, but we should then see who else agrees with your pathetic ideas regarding evolution and creationism…
[Looks up on thread] So far, no one.
And in the end also your point that “No sensible person could possibly contend that it is righties who’ve created the impression that evolution accounts for the origins of life” is demonstrated to be a lie:
http://www.adn.com/2006/10/27/217111/creation-science-enters-the-race.html
Well, that’s all right, it is a theory. “Equal representation”? Can do, they present the Creationist evidence first, seems only fair. Besides, won’t take long at all.
Wow.
I’ve been critical of Starving Artist’s rather cavalier attitude to the issue of evidence, but even i never imagined that he would have the sheer hubris, the jaw-dropping gall, to actually offer a Google Search Results page as evidence for an argument.
The fact that he apparently truly believes that this link is somehow substantive, and supportive of his position, is even more staggering. But it does present a small complication to the question of whether he’s the dumbest piece of shit in existence, or the simply the most dishonest. It appears that there now might be a third possibility: that he is actually, clinically insane. And i don’t just mean Glen Beck-style loony, but completely detached from even the most basic reality.
I think we need to start retro-fitting the Dope to make it Starving Artist-friendly. All edges and corners need to to be covered with rubber or some other soft material. Please leave no sharp implements lying around where he might find them, and place all dangerous liquids in tamper-proof containers. We don’t want him poking his own eye out, or drinking a gallon of bleach because he’s convinced that it’s water.
And if you see him wandering alone late at night, just shepherd him gently toward the 1950s-themed padded room, making soothing murmurs about how the liberals are being rounded up right now so they can no longer ruin America. If we all work together, we can keep him safe.
Why, exactly? What’s so shocking about a total partisan talking point machine showing such utter contempt for those who disagree with him?
How do i get my secret Keith Olbermann decoder ring?
Assuming I’m the partisan talking point machine in question, I’m afraid you’re wrong about that contempt thing. There are plenty of posters on this board who are pretty much my political opposite whom I respect and sometimes even like.
They are not much in evidence in this thread.
Instead, what we have in this thread are posters like GIGObuster who split hairs like a mofo and apparently think that ferreting out the exception disproves the rule. Or like mhendo, who can with a straight face make insulting remarks about the chronology of comments he never made, boldly lie about what he said within the context of that chronology, and then has the gall and hubris to accuse me of dishonesty, gall and hubris.
And then we have elucidator, who, amusing though he sometimes but not always is, offers virtually nothing to the discussion but lame, faux-high-minded insults. (Though he can usually be arsed to respond in greater detail when faced with criticisms like this. :D)
So it isn’t that I’m contemptuous of posters I disagree with, it’s just that I’m not particularly interested in taking pains to show respect to posters who don’t deserve it.
Plus like I said, I’ve been busy off-board, I’ve largely lost interest in the thread in the meantime, and I have better things to do now than continue a pissing contest that will go nowhere it hasn’t already been.
So, Starve, why don’t you name a few of these posters whom you disagree with but respect? I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to come in here and politely explain to you the ways in which you’re acting like a dingleberry.
And I bet you would not want to bring it to their attention as it would be clear they will even like you less.
Nope, we concluded that throwing a Google Vomit was really idiocy, and you only want to tell others that is not the case.
Not fooling anyone.
When did I demand that you silly google vomiter? What it counts for me is what others do with the information provided, and it is showing to all that you are deluded and a liar.
Yeah right, keep also showing to all what a liar you are.
And no it was not an exception, the equation of evolution with an origin of life theory has been made by republicans also in Texas, Iowa and others.
Double lie then from Starving, not only on this, but in claiming that I only rely on a single exception.
Call me an optimist, but i’ve found that even partisans are often willing, at the most basic level, to at least follow the most basic requirements of rational discourse and rules of evidence.
I consider myself a partisan in many ways, particularly where certain causes and issues are concerned, but i also think that i have the capacity to sustain a rigorous defense of my factual (as opposed to merely moral or philosophical) assertions, and to pay attention when those with whom i disagree do the same. I am also happy to have intelligent conversation with those who disagree with me in cases where we can do that in good faith.
Take the issue of abortion, for example. My moral support for a woman’s right to have an abortion is unlikely to be changed or swayed by anyone else’s moral convictions, nor by any particular factual evidence they might be able to show me. But if an abortion opponent makes an assertion regarding (for example) the number of clinics willing to perform third trimester abortions, and that number conflicts with my current understanding of the matter, i’m willing to offer evidence for my own numbers, or concede that i was mistaken.
I’m also willing to discuss abortion with someone who is an unequivocal moral opponent of the practice, so long as we both understand that there are certain things we will never agree on, where our moral and philosophical worldviews are completely incommensurable and not really open to fact- or evidence-based arguments. And i’ve been able to have these sorts of discussions, on a variety of issues, right here on these boards.
But Starving Artist is sui generis. He is the one person who not only has a fundamentally different moral outlook, but who is completely indifferent, and actually actively hostile, to the fundamental requirements of basic debate and rules of evidence. (The late, unlamented milroyj gave SA a run for his money, though.)
He slides blithely between factual assertions and opinions, frequently confusing the two, and making no effort to support the former. When asked for evidence, his standard cry is that it’s no use providing any because (a) liberals just wouldn’t accept it anyway, (b) his factual assertion was just an opinion that doesn’t require evidence, (c) his claim is so patently true that no evidence is needed, or (d) there’s so much evidence out there that he can’t believe that anyone would ask him to provide specific examples. Or some crazy combination of all of those.
On the rare occasions when he actually deals with evidence in any sustained way, his use of it is so dishonest that it would make a Chicago politician blush, and makes any attempt at rational, considered debate completely useless.
I made a comment to Starving Artist a few years back that pretty much sums up his whole debating technique:
I think that still applies, and that it applies more closely to starving Artist than to just about anyone else on this message board.
Do you mean by this last paragraph to imply that I object completely and thoroughly to abortion and that I have been and am completely unwilling to look at the evidence and moderate my views on the matter if the evidence supports it? If so, then you may want to look up the thead in which I discussed the matter with several posters who presented evidence that not only were latter term abortions performed by only a very few doctors in the country (meaning that even though I view such abortions as reprehensible, at least fewer of them were occurring than I thought) and that 95% or so of abortions take place within the first trimester, which so far as I know is before an embryo develops thinking, feeling consciousness. I moderated my view of abortion considerably as a result of that thread. I don’t recall when the discussion took place but I do know that Dio was one of the main posters I had this opinion-changing discussion with. So you would be wrong about that.
As for the rest of your post, I continue to be astounded not only by the lies and dishonestly you’ve shown in this very thread but by the ability you’ve shown to soldier on as though they never happened, calling me dishonest instead. There’s a scene in an old comedy that these shenanigans remind me of. A man was having an affair and his wife walked in him and his lover while they were in bed together. The husband’s lover calmly dresses and leaves while the husband begins making the bed and acting all the while like he doesn’t know what his wife is talking about. Eventually, with the girlfriend gone, the husband dressed, the bed made, and to all outward appearances everything being normal, the cheater was finally able to convince his wife that she had imagined the whole thing. And that’s what you’re trying to do here. You simply ignore your own lies and pretend they never happened, insisting all the while that I’m the dishonest one! Now, I don’t expect for a minute that your partisan compadres in this thread are going to side with me and point to your dishonesty in this thread, but you aren’t fooling anyone and you’ve shown your ass for all to see, whether they’ll acknowledge it or not.
And as for my own honesty, I’ve challenged you more than once before to show where I’ve lied or been objectively dishonest about anything, and time and again you’ve been left holding an empty sack, arguing lamely all the while that while I may not be guilty of some specific, technical lie, you just don’t think I argue honestly. Well, where I come from that’s called an opinion. But I’ll issue that same challenge again: care to cite some instance where I’ve told a lie about anything or been objectively dishonest in some way? You know, something more than just your opinion? Or are you once again holding an empty sack?
I will admit to being “sui generis” however. (Gee, you’re like, so erudite and everything…and in such a casual way, too! I’m sure we’re all impressed. Still, it’s the internet now and you’re really going to have to do better than that if you really want to be a special snowflake.)