899 replies to this topic

[Time_Traveller]

2012 US Presidential Election ← You Are Here!
2016 US Presidential Election
2020 US Presidential Election
 

Michele Bachmann enters 2012 presidential election

Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann has become the latest Republican to announce a bid for the US presidency in 2012.

From BBC

I thnk she has a chance to become the next president and the would be the first women president, What do members think?

Edited by Yuli Ban, 03 July 2017 - 08:49 PM.

[Craven]

http://blogs.discove...o-check-her-id/ I think not.

[OrbitalResonance]

Least she said "when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.*"

Course i have no doubt about one side.

I hate it, but students should be allowed to plug their ears and go lalalalalal. Liberty to be what you want and all.

[jjf3]

What are you people talking about???

If students had the power to not pay attention in class do you know what will happen to the education of our country?? It will go downhill fast, but not like the system is working these days. But most kids turn their minds off to subjects they don't like anyway, I know I did! Who knows what would happen, if they knew they had that power?

I think she made a fair point, you do know that there are crazy people out there who believes in Creationism? Right? And just because she raised that issue does not mean she believes in it. She is trying to appeal to all sides no matter how extreme they are. And that's what a good campaign does.

And is creationism or evolution for that matter really science? Neither has been proven. I don't believe in creationism but many do, and I have issues with the current theory of evolution.

Besides, I like Bauchmann. I am keeping a close eye on her. It's a shame that the media is trying all their might to shatter her nearly perfect record to make her look like a new Sarah Palin. I hope Sarah Palin has not hindered any women's chance to equally run for president!

[Prolite]

Besides, I like Bauchmann. I am keeping a close eye on her. It's a shame that the media is trying all their might to shatter her nearly perfect record to make her look like a new Sarah Palin. I hope Sarah Palin has not hindered any women's chance to equally run for president!

Does her near perfect record also include overt racism?

[jjf3]

I don't know what she means by anti-american. But I think racism and Anti-american are different things. Maybe she can explain what she thinks the definition of being American is. Everyone has their reasons for not liking certain people. I hope that she will clear up what she meant.

[Craven]

It's just a small bit but she somehow reminds me of our opposition leader, who is pretty much spending 90% of his time on throwing insinuations and saying who is not a real citizen, who is not patriotic, who is anti-polish and crap like that.

[jjf3]

And besides, I don't care what she thinks about members of congress! That's not one of the main issues of the election. If her definition of being anti-american is people only working for themselves, being greedy, and not caring about anybody else then yes, I am sure some members of congress are anti-american. You will find people like that anywhere not just in congress. (For example on wall street) Obama's certainly not like that, he is eating out of the hands of the government and doing whatever they tell him to do. So maybe she's saying that she is tired of how big and controlling the government has become. Big Government is anti-american to the far right!

[Caiman]

And is creationism or evolution for that matter really science? Neither has been proven.

I have to take issue with this statement, sorry. Evolution is a fact beyond any reasonable doubt, underscored by the formidable scientific theory which is weighted with more and more evidence with every passing year. To label it as unscientific, or even couple it with a fairy tale like creationism is fallacy, as is the sentiment that 'it hasn't been proven'. I can only assume that the issues you have with evolution must be based on a lack of knowledge or understanding, but please feel free to show otherwise.

[wjfox]

And is creationism or evolution for that matter really science? Neither has been proven. I don't believe in creationism but many do, and I have issues with the current theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. The evidence is utterly overwhelming. It has withstood over 150 years of peer-reviewed testing and research, from multiple fields of science. It has even been witnessed at first hand, in laboratory fruit flies for example. Why would you doubt such an elegant and plausible theory anyway?

[mic of orion]

Besides, I like Bauchmann. I am keeping a close eye on her. It's a shame that the media is trying all their might to shatter her nearly perfect record to make her look like a new Sarah Palin. I hope Sarah Palin has not hindered any women's chance to equally run for president!

Does her near perfect record also include overt racism?

It only goes to show how racist and ignorant the whole Republican Party and Teabagger moment is. FFS these ppl believe there are talking snakes, that earth is 6000 years old, I mean any reasonable logical discourse with these ppl (teabaggers and right wing rebs) is waste of time. A proof there's no God, if God created men in his image, I am sure he'd be ashamed of being associated with that bunch of loonies and have them all castigated.

[jjf3]

While yes, many republicans do believe in Christianity only a small portion actually believe everything in the Bible. And this I know from talking with people that i went to church with before I stopped going. I actually find that more people in the south believe everything in the Bible to be true.

I was raised by republican parents but i consider myself independent because i look at both sides of the issue unbiased. I like some things about the democratic party, and I like somethings about the republican party. I have very liberal views on technology and religion and have conservative views on government because I don't want them controlling my life!!!!

The Tea Party of course is a very small percentage of the Republican party. So think about doing some research before you throw the parties into one extreme category. I could as easily say that the liberals are all Satanic, PETA supporting gay hippies, but now that's not true is it?

I did not vote in the last election because i did not feel that anybody was worth it enough to become President. Certainly not Obama! Although at the time he did seem good. That was my first election. I don't think you will find many high school graduates look at the issues and candidates as fairly as I did. I got anger from both sides of politics asking why i didn't vote! Why would I vote for people I don't like???

I'm not saying Bachmann is the best choice for President. But the media has to realize that not every republican women is Sarah Palin! When Obama has radical views, and he does, it is not as big as a story as they are turning this one into. Truth is everybody has radical views about some issues. That being said my next post will be about the problems I have with evolution!

[jjf3]

The Problems with The Theory of Evolution and the scientific version of the creation of life: I remember learning back in middle school that the reason we had life was because two single celled micro-organisms decided to mate and make a multi-cellular organism. That theory has never stuck with me for multiple reasons. Reason number 1: How do the scientists even know that the two micro-organisms were compatible and what stopped them until that point in time? Reason number 2: If the single celled molecules mated for the first time to create a multi-celled organism why didn't they just create another single celled organism. Even conjoined twins are rare among human births. Twins are more common but twins are different people nonetheless. Reason number 3: Earth was a very dangerous unstable place these molecules didn't appear out of nowhere so where did they come from? Many scientists now speculate that a comet from somewhere else in the universe came covered with frozen microbes and crash landed in the lava pools. Reason number 4: Divine intervention? Did God force the two microbes to mate? How did it just happen, as the scientific community likes to say? If so, this is pretty much the same as creationism. Reason number 5: Extraterrestrial impact. Were our microbes the last strand of DNA from our dying neighbor Mars? Scientists have proven that Mars could have supported life before our planet was ready. Reason number 6: What made the microbes to continue mating afterwards? Why did they continue getting bigger and more complex? Reason number 7: We cannot trace our own timeline from apes to homo-sapiens without encountering holes how could this theory be a fact if there are holes??? Also I cannot see how any type of environment would enable apes to adapt to become as smart as we are today. There has to be other factors involved!!!! I would like the scientific community to somehow create life out of nothing, and create more complex forms of that life in a number of years eventually creating intelligent life and cute little animals! A fact has to be able to be recreated under the same conditions time and time again. If you can't do this or fail to do so, then it is not a fact! Whatever the reasons we have given for the creation of life on our planet, we can never be sure. The fossil record is incomplete as it is. There is not enough evidence to link evolution to the early beginnings of life!

[Prolite]

jjf3, your reasoning as to why you don't believe in evolution based on the principles you set above is a similar sort of reasoning as to why many people believe in a god; it is because they are unable to answer difficult questions, so the reasoning is always, "well, I don't know why so it must have been a God that did it". Mankind has been thinking like this since the dawn of mankind's existence. It's the same sort of reasoning as to why people believe in a "sun god" or a God of the oceans or the seas. It's because they can't explain things, so they take the easy way out and claim it was a God. In my opinion, this sort of thinking is destructive to mankind's very own existence as a species. Religion brings war, death , segregation, prejudice, and ignorance. My hope is that some day in the distant future, ALL of mankind will follow science as if it was the blueprint of life - - which it is.

[jjf3]

Ok yes. in the distant future religion may be gone. But billions of people believe in some sort of religion these days, so what about now? And it isn't likely going anywhere for at least another 100 years or more. Can science answer these questions now??? If God didn't force the mircobes to mate then what did??? If you can answer these questions I sure would like to hear the 'scientific' answers. But i do partially agree with you about how evil religion can be. And I am not saying creationsm is the alternative answer I am just saying that Evolution cannot be the entire story.

[Shimmy]

The Problems with The Theory of Evolution and the scientific version of the creation of life:

I remember learning back in middle school that the reason we had life was because two single celled micro-organisms decided to mate and make a multi-cellular organism. That theory has never stuck with me for multiple reasons.

Reason number 1: How do the scientists even know that the two micro-organisms were compatible and what stopped them until that point in time?

Reason number 2: If the single celled molecules mated for the first time to create a multi-celled organism why didn't they just create another single celled organism. Even conjoined twins are rare among human births. Twins are more common but twins are different people nonetheless.

Reason number 3: Earth was a very dangerous unstable place these molecules didn't appear out of nowhere so where did they come from? Many scientists now speculate that a comet from somewhere else in the universe came covered with frozen microbes and crash landed in the lava pools.

Reason number 4: Divine intervention? Did God force the two microbes to mate? How did it just happen, as the scientific community likes to say? If so, this is pretty much the same as creationism.

Reason number 5: Extraterrestrial impact. Were our microbes the last strand of DNA from our dying neighbor Mars? Scientists have proven that Mars could have supported life before our planet was ready.

Reason number 6: What made the microbes to continue mating afterwards? Why did they continue getting bigger and more complex?

Reason number 7: We cannot trace our own timeline from apes to homo-sapiens without encountering holes how could this theory be a fact if there are holes??? Also I cannot see how any type of environment would enable apes to adapt to become as smart as we are today. There has to be other factors involved!!!!

I would like the scientific community to somehow create life out of nothing, and create more complex forms of that life in a number of years eventually creating intelligent life and cute little animals! A fact has to be able to be recreated under the same conditions time and time again. If you can't do this or fail to do so, then it is not a fact!

Whatever the reasons we have given for the creation of life on our planet, we can never be sure. The fossil record is incomplete as it is. There is not enough evidence to link evolution to the early beginnings of life!

This post has proven beyond any doubt that you know nothing about evolution and hence renders all your criticisms of it completely irrelevant.

[Caiman]

The Problems with The Theory of Evolution and the scientific version of the creation of life:

I remember learning back in middle school that the reason we had life was because two single celled micro-organisms decided to mate and make a multi-cellular organism. That theory has never stuck with me for multiple reasons.

If you remember being taught that single cell organisms mate, you had bad teachers. Single celled organisms don't mate. In turn, single celled organisms themselves are life. Finally, abiogensis i.e. the emergence of life, is not evolution.

There has to be other factors involved!!!!

By introducing other factors, whether it's a god or ancient aliens, all you're actually doing is increasing the complexity by having life and it subsequent development require something more complex in the first place. Eventually it then boils down to... who created the creators?

I would like the scientific community to somehow create life out of nothing, and create more complex forms of that life in a number of years eventually creating intelligent life and cute little animals! A fact has to be able to be recreated under the same conditions time and time again. If you can't do this or fail to do so, then it is not a fact!

Whatever the reasons we have given for the creation of life on our planet, we can never be sure. The fossil record is incomplete as it is. There is not enough evidence to link evolution to the early beginnings of life!

I was going to reply to each of your points one by one but they are so full of inherent misunderstanding that it is difficult to do so. I'll repeat once more that abiogenesis is not evolution, so referring to how life was created is a fallacy in trying to dismiss how it has proceeded to evolve since it emerged.

[Craven]

jjf3 - way you phrase problem is inaccurate. It sounds like there were freely floating single-celled organisms and just out of blue they decided to mate. It's not like that It all started with colonies of same single-celled organisms, that benefited from sticking together. Thanks to evolution - random mutations, and natural selection those who evolved to deepen this "cooperation aspect" (by making long strings of cells, bigger, heavier lumps of cells, or something) survived because it worked well. So first step is many identical cells. No problem with your problem numer 1. Also no problem with number 2, since first they just spawn single-celled organism that had tendency to aggegate. Problem number 3 is abiogenesis. It's entirely diffrent thing than evolution and passage from single- to multicellular organisms. Abiogenesis is still unsolved issue (but we have some ideas). Exploration of Titan may give us some answers, since it's kinda like young Earth. Panspermia has it's charm, but it's not likely to be the case. Due to timing of emergence of life it's much more likely that life emerged on surface of Earth, and didn't come from outer space. Problem number 4 is... well "G" word is just an easy answer. Scientific community doesn't say it just happen, it's evolution. Thanks to some errors some bacteria started conjugation, and it worked. Bacteria that performed conjugation survived and spreaded this mechanism. Problem number 5 - as I said, it seems unlikely (but it's possible for life to travel like that, and survive trip and entering atmosphere) Problem number 6 - Evolution baby, evolution. Problem number 7 - By holes you mean that there are no fossils. It takes lot of luck - organism must die in very convinient conditions to be fossilised, and we have to be lucky enough to dig it out. Serious problems may be present when there's no idea of what would intermidiate organism look like, how it could change from say... thin to paw, but there are pretty much no holes like that anymore (say hello to Ichthyostega). Once enemies of evolution pointed eye as something that couldn't evolve "just like that". But we found organisms with light sensitive cells, and discovered whole process how in tiny steps very complex eye emerged. Actually it turns out eye evolved many times independently, and that makes it very strong indication, than extraterrestial life, that has access to visible light will too use that. So don't you worry, evolution tree is pretty much figured out, and we're filling holes as we speak. General thing is - evolution is being proven over and over, while "scientific creationism" is just called "scientific" for no reason, since it's just talking out of ass. No scepticism, no review of errors, no self-checking.

[jjf3]

Who created the creators? So what? who created GOD? I don't really care! I want to know how we were created exactly!!!! If the scientific community cannot recreate the exact environments which leads to evolution than it isn't a fact and still a theory. How could the formation of life NOT fall into the category of evolution??? Isn't that the whole point? I don't really understand how some life could 'emerge' and then the rest follow the pattern of evolution? Ok so I am not a biology major or anything sorry if i got the single cell formation mixed up. It's been a while since I looked at any biology textbook. But your still going on about oh, they just decided to stick together for some reason or another! We don't really know this and cannot prove it! I want to know the point where It Just happened (eg. The emergence of life) becomes evolution.

[OrbitalResonance]

Evolution describes the diversification of life. " i want to know the point where it just happened" not for a while You are right, it is a theory, not a fact. They were wrong to call it a fact. But it is THE theory. Based off observables and continually tested by the environment(genetics, breeding). All scientific theory and laws never quit being tested. There reaches a point where it has tested positive so many times you stop adressing it. Like gravity.