Welcome to PatsFans.com

Christine O'Donnell's provocative question

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Sep 25, 2010
  2. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    It's like she's there to make Sharron Angle look less crazy. What's great though is that we can witness Christine devolve into a monkey before our very eyes!
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    The playbook of the right, it is not important what she said or what she says, it is not important in her belief that what she desires is sometype of "chaste" theocracy.. what is important is that by electing her that congress will be more fiscally responsible...

    Anyone who believes that is incredibly stupid and or incredibly naive. O'Donnell is about 4.5 cans short of a six pack.. on a good day.
  4. voorter

    voorter Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    crazy shcik
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    She should take a close look at Al Franken, he looks just like f-cking baboon.
  6. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Interesting choice of words, and I defer to your expertise on that subject.
    It's poorly worded and I doubt she understands what she is talking about, but the problem is her question raises a good point. First of all, I should point out the modern evolutionary theory does not hold that man evolved from apes (or monkeys). Rather, it claims that men and apes share a common ape-like ancestor. Nevertheless, there are some legitimate "missing link" questions in evolutionary theory, which even proponents of evolution agree are not fully explained. Not to mention that evolution does absolutely nothing to address the biggest question of them all: How did life get started in the first place? Nobody has any clue how that very first life form appeared out of nothingness. I mean there are all sort of theories involving amino acids to electricity to panspermia but there really is still no consensus whatsoever.

    A lot of the liberals in this group have made repeated bigoted and ignorant assumptions about me and my beliefs. Apparently their mothers never told them what happens when you assume. I'm sure the above post will only produce more of the same.
  7. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

  8. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Ha ha, good one.
  9. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    As much as I believe there is evolution, there is no proof of real evolution yet.

    So that clip is just Bill Maher ( I like Bill ALOT ) just taking someone opinions, and blowing them out as a looney.
  10. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    A better question would've been:

    "Why haven't giraffes evolved into a human like creature, and why did some monkey's choose NOT to evolve?"

    Didn't this lady believe in witchcraft not too long ago? Reminds me of a teenager and their many phases....

    Just when you thought someone from Deleware couldnt put their foot in their mouth more than Biden.....the Tea Party gpoes to the polls! The funny thing is that somehow they tea-baggers are proud of this lady-clown?

    should be an interesting election.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0


    What do you want as proof? Are there specific reasons you may be skeptical about the evidence supporting evolutionary theory?
  12. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    There is no evidence of one species turning into another one. You can cite dogs, and other animals as changing and micro evolution, but there is no proof or missing link to show that one species as defined by DNA, turned into another one.

    I probably believe it has happened, but there is no proof, it's only a theory, and she's entitled to her opinion on it.
  13. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    There is plenty of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. That is why it is a theory. In science, something being a theory isn't "only a theory" -- it means there is a good amount of evidence supporting it and that it hasn't been disproven.

    Given the timespan of evolution, I don't know if there could be "proof" (I'm not a biologist or geologist, etc)

    But saying that she's entitled to her opinion doesn't make her opinion reasonable. If you disagree with that, just ask her to support that opinion -- if she offers any response (yes, I realize this is hypothetical), I'm confident it, unlike evolutionary theory, would be riddled with mistakes.
  14. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    All im saying is there is no proof her view is incorrect as well... and via that clip she was attacked and not given a chance to explain. There are tons of examples in science where theories are held as truths only to be proven wrong hundreds of years later.

    Watch any show on discovery about the cosmos, and it's funny listening to them talk in facts as if they are there on those other planets and know as a fact how things billions of miles away work and act...

    So overall, my point is, people are entitled to their equally unproven opinion.
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Did I say she isn't entitled to her opinion?

    She's entitled to her opinion, but she's not entitled to avoid questioning or criticism of her opinion. Has she explained her view at all? Because if she does try to support an anti-evolution view, there will be plenty of evidence that she is wrong, and I'll guarantee that pretty much anything she claims will be demonstrably incorrect.

    I haven't followed this O'Donnell / Maher thing, but my understanding is that she has in fact been given a chance of explain -- I think she has an open invite to come on the show again. Understandable that she may not want to, but the claim that she doesn't have the opportunity to explain herself is false. (especially given that she could addres it any time via the prss, now that she's a candidate)

    I don't think you'll find many scientists speaking in terms of "truths" and "facts" regarding theory -- maybe I'm wrong overall, but the scientists I've known have been much more aware of what is proven, or provable, than laymen.
  16. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,226
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    I remember in a Biology class many years ago we went over the strength of the different terms such as hypothosis, theory, and law.

    If something is termed a law it is 100% correct and provea
    ble, such as Boyles law concerning gas and absolute pressure and volume.

    A theory is around 98% of certitude that the idea is correct. So there is enough evidence to say your 98 % certain that evolution is correct and explains how we got to were we are.

    I know its confusing but at the moment i have writers block and can't explain it any more clearly.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  17. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Again, THROUGH OUT all of history, more theories have been proven incorrect, rather than correct.

    So that 2% sure does come up quite a bit then eh?
  18. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    How many of those were actual scientific theories, subjected to any kind of systematic testing and scrutiny?

    But, yes, theories can be incorrect. Nobody disputes that. Your repetition of this is a strawman that in no way validates O'Donnell's opinion.
  19. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Sigh. I have gotten into many arguments with people from church about this. Unfortunately, I think there is fear that being open to the accepted science will undermine faith. I think it is hard to argue with the idea that evolution happened and is happening. The question is: is the mechanism of evolution sufficient to explain the diversity of all life? I think the jury is still out on that.

    I think that one example of theories that were later invalidated is Newton. To be fair, his theories were really refined by Einstein, who showed that Newtonian mechanics were incomplete.

    Science is never really "settled", as new knowledge or better means of measuring and observing natural phenomena lead to further refinements. I think that there is a vast amount of stuff that we still do not know.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Good post, Brandon.

    I'm not religious, but I don't see any inherent conflict between science and faith.
  21. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  22. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    If you believe in God by definition science cannot 'discover' anything that was not created by God.
  23. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Following that line of logic you would also have to believe that God created everything - including science and scientists and that He did so for a reason. Perhaps to explain things to us.
  24. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,226
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    Im curious can you post some.
  25. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Theory of Gravity for one, and countless other, the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, the list is very very long dating back throughout history. Just becuase we "seem" more advanced, in 4000 years humans will look back at us, and laugh their ass off on what we thought were how things worked...
  26. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    Prior to Einstein & Browning people didn't believe there were vacuums that the universe was permeated by an Ether.


    People thought atoms were solid prior to Rutherford.
  27. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Right - which could include creationism, as well.

    Just saying.

    I, personally, have no problem with accepting there is a God, He did create the world, and He did it through evolution.

    I just don't see the problem there. It's not quite the Garden of Eden, but it's still a possibility and it dovetails nicely with what I want to believe and what may or may not have happened. And that's all anyone's looking for, isn't it? Something that justifies what they, personally, believe, dam what anyone else wants to think.
  28. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Were those scientific theories, or just hypotheses, or ideas?


    I certainly hope that's the case, and expect it will be if we're still around 4000 years from now.

    Of course, that's irrelevant to O'Donnell rejecting science in this matter and, apparently, having absolutely no objective rationale for doing so.
  29. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The most brilliant men throughout history who made some of the most important discoveries usually also made huge mistakes that we would laugh at today. Aristotle said heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects and it literally took almost 2,000 years for people to figure out he was wrong, thanks in large part to a fellow named Galileo. That same Galileo made tremendous contributions to the field of astronomy, discovering sunspots, Jovian moons and the phases of Venus. But he also steadfastly maintained that the rotation of the Earth caused tides, and it had nothing to do with the moon. Einstein originally believed the universe was static (i.e. not expanding) and he created the infamous "cosmological constant" which he later called his biggest blunder.

    History has proven that even men of unmatched genius still sometimes get it wrong.
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2010

Share This Page