Could you vote for someone who refuses to publicly acknowledge evolution?

Could you vote for someone who refuses to publicly acknowledge evolution?

Yes

People who refuse to acknowledge well established scientific facts have absolutely no business being in leadership positions.

Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

PkrBum wrote:Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

The statement that you made isn't an example of a fact. If you don't know what the word 'fact' means, you probably shouldn't use it.

Just when you think he has hit rock bottom...

Other than his status as a classic empty suit, there are better reasons not to vote for Walker...his track record as governor.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/06/economy-killer-scott-walker-takes-wisconsin-49th-country.html

John Doe investigation into corruption in Wisconsin? What John Doe investigation?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/21/a-scott-walker-friendly-chief-justice-in-wisconsin.html

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

The statement that you made isn't an example of a fact. If you don't know what the word 'fact' means, you probably shouldn't use it.

Just when you think he has hit rock bottom...

The big bang is the scientific version of creation... theories are just a means to explain the observable circumstances.

Are those that have different scientific theories of the creation of the universe kooks and crazy too? It's settled huh?

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

The statement that you made isn't an example of a fact.  If you don't know what the word 'fact' means, you probably shouldn't use it.

Just when you think he has hit rock bottom...

The big bang is the scientific version of creation... theories are just a means to explain the observable circumstances.

Are those that have different scientific theories of the creation of the universe kooks and crazy too? It's settled huh?

The big bang is merely an idea deduced directly from what we observe, and it has nothing to do with "creation".  And that idea only takes us back so far in time.  We can speculate about what happened prior to our field of vision and there is nothing crazy about that.  What would be crazy, is if someone refused to acknowledge the fact that we live in an expanding universe.  

Applying this to evolution.  We do observe the evolution of biological life forms over time.  We see it in the fossil record, in DNA, in the structure and classification of living organisms, etc.  It wouldn't be entirely crazy to speculate about how that change comes about, even though Darwin has already provided us with fairly air tight explanation.  It would, however, be crazy to not acknowledge the fact that biological life forms do evolve over time - which is what Scott Walker, a potential republican presidential nominee, has done.

It is also crazy - or, stupid - to make broad, oversimplified statements like "collectivism fails" and "capitalism works" and then refer to those statements as "facts".

Then you should have no trouble explaining what sparked the big bang... and what existed before the spark.

The current theory has to abandon many of our physics theories... even so elemental as time and speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/inflation.html

PkrBum wrote:Then you should have no trouble explaining what sparked the big bang... and what existed before the spark.

I have no idea what happened before the big bang or what existed prior to the farthest point back in time that we can see. Being that the case, that serves as an incentive to actually find out the correct answers to those questions. Welcome to the end of the thought process.

Lol... you know so little about the science that you are just a fool condemning anyone's theory... including religious.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/the-universe-is-not-expanding-an-alternate-theory-to-big-bang-cosmology.html

Why are you talking about Big Bang Theory when the subject at hand is evolution? Do you adhere to creationism? In other words, do you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old and humans co-existed with the dinosaurs?

PkrBum wrote:Lol... you know so little about the science that you are just a fool condemning anyone's theory... including religious.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/the-universe-is-not-expanding-an-alternate-theory-to-big-bang-cosmology.html

Captain Monetary Inflation is now lecturing me about my knowledge of science, and apparently feels as if he has debunked the expanding universe by linking to a blog named after a fictional Star Wars newspaper and an article that has a spelling error in the opening paragraph.  And that somehow makes it less crazy that a guy whose name is being thrown into the ring for president does not acknowledge a well established scientific fact.

Hmm.  I see.


There is no rational argument that I can make to someone who is simply an irrational dumbass, which PkrBum clearly is.

All this artificial hoo haw about a punted question. It's not difficult for a rational person to separate their personal beliefs from policy considerations.

Obama is personally against gay marriage but not from a policy perspective.

Walker is 10 million miles and about 600 million dollars from being President and is highly unlikely to get an inch or penny closer so why all this hilarious outrage?

gatorfan wrote:Walker is 10 million miles and about 600 million dollars from being President and is highly unlikely to get an inch or penny closer so why all this hilarious outrage?

Because isn't it ridiculous that a political candidate - in the year 2015 - can still be taken seriously even though he refuses to answer a question as soft-ball as "Do you belief in evolution?"

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Walker is 10 million miles and about 600 million dollars from being President and is highly unlikely to get an inch or penny closer so why all this hilarious outrage?

Because isn't it ridiculous that a political candidate - in the year 2015 - can still be taken seriously even though he refuses to answer a question as soft-ball as "Do you belief in evolution?"

So don't take him seriously, I don't. Personally

He scares the leftists... obviously.

PkrBum wrote:Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

I don't remember that in any of my science courses . . . Ask middle class America how capitalism is working for them right now ... LOL!

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

I don't remember that in any of my science courses . . . Ask middle class America how capitalism is working for them right now ... LOL!

I'd call our economy and corp/monied interest/govt collusion closer to fascism... there's just a pretense of capitalism.

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

I don't remember that in any of my science courses . . . Ask middle class America how capitalism is working for them right now ... LOL!

I'd call our economy and corp/monied interest/govt collusion closer to fascism... there's just a pretense of capitalism.

Hell, I'd call it outright Fascism. Why not join with me in chanting:

Down with Amerika Inc.! Corporate control of our government through campaign financing.

Once again: DOWN WITH AMERIKA INC!

We just have a different idea as to how to solve it... I would make it illegal for a govt employee to have illicit contact.

You have prescribed limiting the private sector to meet the same end... the subversive relationship must be stopped.

My way is perfectly constitutional as they work for us... your way is unconstitutional and curbs private liberty.

You SHOULD CARE about the condition of your party...it's on a roller coaster slide.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Like the fact that collectivism fails and capitalism works?

The statement that you made isn't an example of a fact.  If you don't know what the word 'fact' means, you probably shouldn't use it.

Just when you think he has hit rock bottom...

The big bang is the scientific version of creation... theories are just a means to explain the observable circumstances.

Are those that have different scientific theories of the creation of the universe kooks and crazy too? It's settled huh?

Catchy isn't it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTFD5DZwK7g