Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
I, as a republican, cordially request that the conservative trend in America stop, and you all pull your heads out of your collective asses.
Comments
NAME: El Scientifico
Friday, August 18th, 2006 @ 04:24 pm
And Jason, when spiritual discovery is applicable to the scientific method the scientists will agree that it is similar to science in more than just "spirit". When there is an invisible-man-in-the-sky-o-meter the scientists will buy it. Until then let's leave it to the confines of subjective opinion(which is separated from the confines of bullshit by a very fine line).
NAME: El Scientifico
Friday, August 18th, 2006 @ 04:10 pm
You really can't put it better than this:
http://www.hardgeus.com/index.php?npageid=16
It seems like the two should be completely separate. The problem is not scientists attacking religion; they are simply presenting possible theories. The problem is the conservatives continually trying to integrate religion and science. And religion is not a scientific undertaking. It is, how you say, "spiritual".
NAME: brent
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 11:58 am
I have no idea what is even being argued here. We seem to have jumped aboard the metaphor train and forgot to get off at the actual argument stop.
NAME: scott
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 10:39 am
So do you honestly mean to suggest that a laptop that is purchased today is a literal evolution from a laptop that was purchased five years ago?
NAME: jason
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 04:11 am
viruses don't breed with one another. they replicate themselves using a host cell and have random mutations that create new strains. So are you saying they don't evolve?
there are obviously differences in definition between organic evolution and inorganic evolution. the commonality between both is the development of change through successive generations.
NAME: scott
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 02:27 am
That laptop didn't evolve, period. Not unless you bred that one with another one.
NAME: mc
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 01:58 am
That's right bitches I'm a force lovin' Jedi!
NAME: mc
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 01:56 am
Jason, I've been screwed around over my faith too...
I just smile and keep my mouth shut now, I've realized that faith can't be explained, you have to open yourself up to it to truly have an opinion.
NAME: jason
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 12:41 am
El Scientifico,
Taking drugs against DRUG RESISTANT viruses and bacteria seems hopeful at best. I can tell you the creationists loophole: it's called praying.
NAME: jason
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 @ 12:26 am
Oh, sugar honey ice tea!
I guess I'll weigh in here too. I'm religous (as I'm sure most of you know by now), and I'm from the south. Let the stereotypes begin.
One conversation that I believe to be a COMPLETE and TOTAL waste of time is the entire evolution vs creationist arguments that people make a personal vendetta out of "proving" their beliefs to the "other" side. What is this? Grade school?
I think the true spirit of science is in discovery, admitting that we don't know everything, but that we are striving to understand more about the world around us.
I think the true spirit of religion is in spiritual discovery, admitting that we don't know everything, but that we are striving to understand ourselves and our purpose.
Seems pretty similiar, huh?
Let's break it down like this: I'm using a laptop to write this post. Do I need to dismantle it, examine all the pieces - the cpu, the motherboard, the circuits themselves to make sure that they aren't powered by "magic" and to understand that it was created by a factory and not a fairy? Um, no.
Along the same lines, if I look at a 486 clunker laptop from a couple years back, versus my slimmer, bigger screen, larger hard drive, current laptop... do I need to infer that it evolved from the 486?
Oh wait, it DID evolve. Oh wait, it WAS created.
Hmmmm.
Do I need to have a bunch of heated discussions with various people to "prove" it was created or "prove" it evolved?
I'd rather use the laptop. Let the people who "know" everything argue.
I don't think they'd be capable of drawing the corollary between evolution and drug-resistant viruses...And those that CAN already have an answer for that:
The trend among the more educated creationists is to state that microevolution exists and can be proven (drug resistant bacteria, minor changes within a species) but MACROevolution does not exist, cannot be proven, is crap (basically, speciation)
It's an unwinnable argument. If a person chooses not to believe something, no amount of proof will change their mind.
NAME: El Scientifico
Tuesday, August 15th, 2006 @ 04:08 pm
I think if you don't belive in evolution you shouldn't be alowed to take drugs against drug resistant viruses and bacteria. I bet the creationists have a loophole for that one though.
NAME: Brent
Sunday, August 13th, 2006 @ 01:57 pm
Yeah, I suppose I actually am, but I find it funny proclaiming that when I've never actually voted for a Liberterian candidate.
