Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
- Thread starter Thor4140
- Start date
Munchkin Man
EOG Dedicated
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
The Munchkin Man has no problem with that, and all of the Munchkin Man's screws have been accounted for and are tightly in place.
Where is your scientific evidence to support your contentions that creationism is mythology and that evolution is fact?
If you can come up with this evidence, you could become a rich man:
http://worldsareapart.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/creation-vs-evolution-dr-hovinds-250000-offer/
Here are some additional links about creation science:
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
The bottom line is that there are scientific arguments to support both creationism and evolution.
There are also scientific arguments to dispute both creationism and evolution.
Until this matter is resolved, the Munchkin Man firmly believes that creationism deserves equal time in the classroom along with evolution.
What is wrong with presenting students with both sides of an argument, thus equipping them with the information they need to make up their own minds?
Munchkin Man
The Munchkin Man has no problem with that, and all of the Munchkin Man's screws have been accounted for and are tightly in place.
Where is your scientific evidence to support your contentions that creationism is mythology and that evolution is fact?
If you can come up with this evidence, you could become a rich man:
http://worldsareapart.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/creation-vs-evolution-dr-hovinds-250000-offer/
Here are some additional links about creation science:
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
The bottom line is that there are scientific arguments to support both creationism and evolution.
There are also scientific arguments to dispute both creationism and evolution.
Until this matter is resolved, the Munchkin Man firmly believes that creationism deserves equal time in the classroom along with evolution.
What is wrong with presenting students with both sides of an argument, thus equipping them with the information they need to make up their own minds?
Munchkin Man
Munchkin Man
EOG Dedicated
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Mr. Merlin is correct on the above.
You can read all about it right here.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html
It appears that Sarah Palin has completely taken the air out of Barack Obama's puny post-convention bounce and has decimated whatever bounce was left.
The fact that this this result has occurred during the weekend immediately following the Democratic National Convention makes it all the more remarkable.
Best Wishes,
Munchkin Man
Mr. Merlin is correct on the above.
You can read all about it right here.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html
It appears that Sarah Palin has completely taken the air out of Barack Obama's puny post-convention bounce and has decimated whatever bounce was left.
The fact that this this result has occurred during the weekend immediately following the Democratic National Convention makes it all the more remarkable.
Best Wishes,
Munchkin Man
Reno Paul
EOG Dedicated
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
If you look at the Zogby page at the bottom, it will show that Obama is at 43%, McCain at 42%, Barr at 5% and Nader at 2% in a 4 man race.....Still very tight......I may be part of the 5% come November........
I don't put too much credence in the Zogby poll. Zogby had Kerry ahead right before election time in 2004.
Oops! Zogby forgot about Cynthia McKinney :LMAOShe may have .003% of the vote.
If you look at the Zogby page at the bottom, it will show that Obama is at 43%, McCain at 42%, Barr at 5% and Nader at 2% in a 4 man race.....Still very tight......I may be part of the 5% come November........
I don't put too much credence in the Zogby poll. Zogby had Kerry ahead right before election time in 2004.
Oops! Zogby forgot about Cynthia McKinney :LMAOShe may have .003% of the vote.
The Seer
EOG Dedicated
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
There is a theory brought forth around 1958 about the origin of carbon. It is doctrine that hydrogen is fused into helium in the Sun with a loss of mass that gives off heat.
The new theory is that the helium is changed into carbon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process
This odds on this happening have been said to be likened to "hitting a bullet with a bullet, each fired from opposite of the Universe." This gives rise to the scientific theory of an intervention of a Higher Power.
This is a much debated idea. Democrat Party 0 -200 Bet Republican Party 0 +150 Bet
Any Other Political Party 0 +5,000
The GOP was up to +250 a month ago
There is a theory brought forth around 1958 about the origin of carbon. It is doctrine that hydrogen is fused into helium in the Sun with a loss of mass that gives off heat.
The new theory is that the helium is changed into carbon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process
This odds on this happening have been said to be likened to "hitting a bullet with a bullet, each fired from opposite of the Universe." This gives rise to the scientific theory of an intervention of a Higher Power.
This is a much debated idea. Democrat Party 0 -200 Bet Republican Party 0 +150 Bet
Any Other Political Party 0 +5,000
The GOP was up to +250 a month ago
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
People have a tendency to descredit polls which do not support their prejudices and quote extensively those which do.
People have a tendency to descredit polls which do not support their prejudices and quote extensively those which do.
wrigley
2
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Rasmussen polls dont take sides just do their state polls
http://electoral-vote.com/
Rasmussen polls dont take sides just do their state polls
http://electoral-vote.com/
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Very good, Seer....not to mention that The Big Bang theory implies that the universe had a beginning, ie. did NOT always exist, ergo, it was created!
Whether the Theory of Evolution is correct or not is irrelevant. Creationism can be described in one sentence...God created all things. God could have created all things with or without the process of Evolution.
Very good, Seer....not to mention that The Big Bang theory implies that the universe had a beginning, ie. did NOT always exist, ergo, it was created!
Whether the Theory of Evolution is correct or not is irrelevant. Creationism can be described in one sentence...God created all things. God could have created all things with or without the process of Evolution.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Oh no they are not:+textinb3
Oh no they are not:+textinb3
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
there is really but one certainity in Life and in that will come all the answers...
choose wisely, my friends....... there is no 2nd chance after death... be certain (while there is time) of your decisions..
there are plenty of tough guys on this forum but there are still no atheists in foxholes...
have a wonderful "Lord's Day"
there is really but one certainity in Life and in that will come all the answers...
choose wisely, my friends....... there is no 2nd chance after death... be certain (while there is time) of your decisions..
there are plenty of tough guys on this forum but there are still no atheists in foxholes...
have a wonderful "Lord's Day"
OMNIVOROUS FROG
EOG Master
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
She wears more make up than Biden and probably has nicer legs. Good enough for me.
Best wishes...OF
arty
She is not on the ticket like Cheney to actually run the show. She is more Quaylish.
She wears more make up than Biden and probably has nicer legs. Good enough for me.
Best wishes...OF
artyShe is not on the ticket like Cheney to actually run the show. She is more Quaylish.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
1. Evolution is based on scientific research and it can be proven that animals have evolved over time into their current being. Sure, they cannot prove how it all started from day one, but based on what they can prove, a pretty solid case can be made on how it probably happened. Welcome to science.
Creationism relies on the teachings of an ancient book that is already proven to be wrong in other "scientific" areas (remember, this is the book that says the earth is 4,000 years old). There is no evidence, none, to support creationism. Nothing. There isn't even a starting point. To say that this is not based on mythology is ridiculous.
2.There are no scientific arguments that support creationism. Not one. If you have a shred of evidence that proves there is a supernatural being that created earth, please feel free to post it.
3. "Christian" scientists might dispute evolution, but their not scientists bro. I watched a guy debate Chris Hitchens who presented the argument that god planted the fossils in the earth to test our faith, not as proof of evolution. He had proof. He had a lot of other brilliant arguments that he could "prove" as well.
4. The matter is resolved. Creationism isn't science and deserves ZERO time in a classroom. Zip. If you give Christianity's creation story, are you going to give the 1000's of other religious creation stories equal time too? Or, are just kind of partial to this version of creationism because you had it force-fed to you since you were a child? Think about it bro.
5. Should we give students false information in mathematics, grammar, and anatomy and let them make up their minds for themselves which is correct???? HELL NO. That's absurd! Think about what you are saying bro.
Cheers.
1. Evolution is based on scientific research and it can be proven that animals have evolved over time into their current being. Sure, they cannot prove how it all started from day one, but based on what they can prove, a pretty solid case can be made on how it probably happened. Welcome to science.
Creationism relies on the teachings of an ancient book that is already proven to be wrong in other "scientific" areas (remember, this is the book that says the earth is 4,000 years old). There is no evidence, none, to support creationism. Nothing. There isn't even a starting point. To say that this is not based on mythology is ridiculous.
2.There are no scientific arguments that support creationism. Not one. If you have a shred of evidence that proves there is a supernatural being that created earth, please feel free to post it.
3. "Christian" scientists might dispute evolution, but their not scientists bro. I watched a guy debate Chris Hitchens who presented the argument that god planted the fossils in the earth to test our faith, not as proof of evolution. He had proof. He had a lot of other brilliant arguments that he could "prove" as well.
4. The matter is resolved. Creationism isn't science and deserves ZERO time in a classroom. Zip. If you give Christianity's creation story, are you going to give the 1000's of other religious creation stories equal time too? Or, are just kind of partial to this version of creationism because you had it force-fed to you since you were a child? Think about it bro.
5. Should we give students false information in mathematics, grammar, and anatomy and let them make up their minds for themselves which is correct???? HELL NO. That's absurd! Think about what you are saying bro.
Cheers.
trytrytry
All I do is trytrytry
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
i think it was a good pick for McCain in terms of having a chance now.
Man this was a sure lock for OBAMA, if he picks some white REB conservative clown like Pawlenty, huckabee, Ridge, etc. ..I had this line fair value in the -400 range.
Now with this VP choice, its less, at least as of today in my mind. Sort of a crazy wild card you never know how the American public will vote on this sort of a partner, remember Americans can be unpredictable (like in a football game were the weather changes suddenly you never know the favoritemight not like it) what such a strange pick its harder to say now this is a done deal... ....-200 now fair value for OBAMA in my mind.
i think it was a good pick for McCain in terms of having a chance now.
Man this was a sure lock for OBAMA, if he picks some white REB conservative clown like Pawlenty, huckabee, Ridge, etc. ..I had this line fair value in the -400 range.
Now with this VP choice, its less, at least as of today in my mind. Sort of a crazy wild card you never know how the American public will vote on this sort of a partner, remember Americans can be unpredictable (like in a football game were the weather changes suddenly you never know the favoritemight not like it) what such a strange pick its harder to say now this is a done deal... ....-200 now fair value for OBAMA in my mind.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
WhatsHisNuts,
There are plenty of scientific arguments that support "creationism"(defined as God created all things), for instance, see posts #7 and 10 in this very thread. Here's an article that offers more proof, please feel free to read both it, and the book, "The Devil's Delusion", which it reviews.
Delusions of Scientific Adequacy
By: Dan Peterson
The American Spectator
August 22, 2008
In recent years, the parade of authors brandishing fierce new tracts against God and religion has become, it seems, interminable. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, continues as head baton twirler, but now we also have Victor Stenger,Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett--naming them all would be nearly as tedious as reading their books.
As David Berlinski observes in The Devil's Delusion, the message of each of these writers is identical: "because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false." And the conclusion they generally draw is revealed in the title of an essay by Harris: "Science Must Destroy Religion."
Why must it do so? Because, Berlinski shows, there is a body of true believers, often scientists, who have faith that materialist scientific narratives are the only narratives to which rational men and women can devote themselves. "And like any militant church, this one places a familiar demand before all others: Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must go.
Berlinski, a Princeton Ph.D. in mathematics who has written a number of popular books on math and science, describes himself as a "secular Jew" and "agnostic" with "no religious convictions and no religious beliefs." He might thus seem a curious candidate to publish a book that, in his words, "is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment." But this is a defense that consists principally of a withering offense. The central question he addresses is not whether God exists, "but whether science has shown that he does not."
Science, of course, has shown nothing of the kind, as Berlinski demonstrates with wit, erudition, surprising passion, and the illumination of a powerful mind. It's not science itself with which he has any quarrel, but rather with those who cloak their personal beliefs in the mantle of science--atheism in scientific drag.
In the book's longest chapter, Berlinski sets the stage by examining the ethical implications of any belief system that dispenses with a creator and moral lawgiver. He quotes the 11th-century Arab philosopher Abu Hamid Muhammad AI-Ghazali, who predicted that if there is no system of divine justice by which life is to be regulated, then men and women will give way to "a bestial indulgence of their appetites." It's precisely the point made by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man. If there is no permanent and ordained moral order, then only will and appetite remain--a surefire formula for violence, hatred, inhumanity, emptiness, and degradation.
The human need for a moral order does not prove that God exists. But a chilling scene recounted by Berlinski provides a sense of what is at stake. In the early part of the Nazi advance into Eastern Europe, an SS officer who was part of an extermination squad watched, machine gun in hand, as an elderly, bearded Hasidic Jew dug what he surely knew was his own grave. "He addressed his executioner: 'God is watching what you are doing,' he said. And then he was shot dead." Berlinski continues:
What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing....That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.Against a background of moral seriousness often lacking in his opponents, Berlinski scrutinizes the gambits they have deployed to promote atheism in the guise of science. Then, in urbane, high-spirited style, he proceeds to demolish them seriatim.
The claim that science itself has somehow "disproved" the existence of God is on its face a canard. As Berlinski dryly notes, "Neither the premises nor the conclusions of any scientific theory mention the existence of God. I have checked this carefully." Rather, materialist assumptions are smuggled into the definition of science, or its atheistic proponents claim that science provides explanations to fundamental questions that are superior to and displace any resort to a designer or creator.
In the chapters that form the heart of the book, Berlinski turns his searchlight on central questions that have traditionally been the province of religion, but for which some scientific apologists now claim to have answers. He begins with an examination of the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God, as advanced by Aquinas. What caused the universe? Is there, and must there be, a "first cause" that made the universe begin?
Here, as it turns out, the answer of modern science is discomfiting to atheism rather than to theology. As recently as the middle years of Einstein's life, it was possible to believe, consistent with the scientific evidence, that the universe was eternal and may have had no beginning. The Big Bang theory, now almost universally accepted, changed all that. Traced backward in time, causative sequences do come to an end (or rather, a beginning). There is no infinite regress of causes, at least not in this universe. If science has in some way shown that God does not exist, it is certainly "not by appealing to Big Bang cosmology. The hypothesis of God's existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent," Berlinski observes.
Indeed, in the following chapter Berlinski recounts, and exposes, Stephen Hawking's attempt to get rid of the Big Bang singularity, with its uncomfortable religious overtones, by mathematically describing a "self-caused" universe. It's not that Hawking's math was bad, but that he front-loaded his theory with assumptions (which are not necessarily true) that allow him to reach the desired result (which is not at all surprising).
The chapter entitled "A Put-up Job" shows Berlinski at his best. According to physicist Paul Davies, scientists have been waking up "to an inconvenient truth--the universe looks suspiciously like a fix." It has been becoming more and more apparent that a host of central physical laws and phenomena in the universe are exquisitely "fine-tuned" to permit the existence of life--Berlinski cites the cosmological constant, the fine-structure constant, the ratio of neutrons to protons, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force, and even the speed of light in this regard. Astronomer and atheist Fred Hoyle grumpily concluded, "The universe looks like a put-up job."
As Berlinski notes, theologians have long offered an answer: "The universe looks like a put-up job because it is a put-up job. That this answer is obvious is no reason to think it is false." But because this answer is "emotionally unacceptable" to many physicists, they have worked long and hard to devise some extravagant theories to put chance, rather than design, back in the saddle.
One of their purported answers combines mathematical constructs known as the Landscape with the Anthropic Principle. The Landscape posits, if not an infinite number, at least an extremely large number of universes, an enormous "space of possibilities" in which multiple universes with entirely different physical laws could exist. The Anthropic Principle, in one of its several variants, may be summarized as: "Of course our universe is fine-tuned to support life-otherwise we wouldn't be sitting around commenting on it." Combine the two, and you've got a sure thing. Is the fine-tuning of physical laws in the universe uncannily precise and amazingly improbable? Then just assume a gazillion other universes (of which there is no proof, and which we can never see) where the laws are different. Lean back, crack a beer, and congratulate ourselves on our one-in-a-gazillion luck.
But which requires more faith: the conclusion that the design evident in our universe (the only one we know to exist) is actually the product of a designer. Or the assumption that there must be a gigantic, unseen, universe-generating machine, with a colossal number of universes completely unlike our own bubbling into being, and that we just happened to win the lottery against stupendous odds? And while we're asking, how does a mathematical theory get hold of a real universe to develop and control? Somehow, these otherworldly speculations, interesting as they are, do not seem to have solved the problem.
The chapter on Dawkins's alleged "new" proof that God does not exist is a special treat. As Berlinski shows, it's simply a prolix, 40-page version of a three-sentence argument presented by a third-century Chinese sage. Regarding Dawkins's extended explication, Berlinski comments, "Dawkins has failed only to explain his reasoning, and I am left with the considerable inconvenience of establishing his argument before rejecting it." He then does both, with devastating effect.
Berlinski also takes on the biologists, especially those who contend that there is little to distinguish men from apes and other animals. This is true enough--except for everything that matters. In response to the assertion that an extraterrestrial "would have a hard time seeing most of the differences we treasure between ourselves and the apes," Berlinski counters: "I suppose that if a fish were thoughtfully to consider the matter, she might have a hard time determining the differences we treasure between Al Gore and a sperm whale. Both of them are large and one of them is streamlined."
He has a field day with evolutionary psychology, which seeks to explain the human mind in terms of evolutionary imperative, and, because of its determinism, would "annihilate any claim we might make on behalf of human freedom." Yet its leading advocates, such as Harvard's Steven Pinker, cannot in practice bear its consequences. When Pinker asserts that "nature does not dictate what we should accept or how we should live our lives," he is expressing, Berlinski remarks, "a belief--one obviously true--entirely at odds with his professional commitments." So why pay attention either to evolutionary psychology or to Pinker?
Use of Darwinism to champion atheism receives its due as well. Within the English-speaking world, Darwinism is "the only scientific theory to be widely championed by the scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else....[T]he thing continues to elicit the same reaction it has always elicited: You've got to be kidding, right? ..f biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life, and if they are wrong about life, they are wrong about everything." It's becoming increasingly obvious that they are, in fact, wrong about Darwin--see book for details.
In a brief review, it's impossible to convey not just the complexity of some these issues, but the clarity, keenness, and breadth of learning that Berlinski brings to bear on them. He in turn assumes a certain level of background, mental agility, and sophistication on the part of the reader. This is not Science and Religion for Dummies. Although the book is lucidly written, he moves swiftly, occasionally makes leaps of logic or insight, and expects the reader to keep up with him.
A book that addresses issues of fundamental importance and timeless concern may be commended for that reason alone. One that does so with zest, style, and mordant humor, without losing sight of the profound implications of our ultimate beliefs, is rare indeed. A polemic that administers a capable drubbing to the arrogant and powerful also has its undoubted charms. But everything else aside, a book that simply permits one to spend some time in the presence of a first-rate, well-stocked, civilized mind, and to enjoy its workings, may provide the purest pleasure of all.
Berlinski's book supplies all these things in abundance, and I say God bless him.
Dan Peterson is a writer and attorney living in Northern Virginia. The views expressed are solely his own.
WhatsHisNuts,
There are plenty of scientific arguments that support "creationism"(defined as God created all things), for instance, see posts #7 and 10 in this very thread. Here's an article that offers more proof, please feel free to read both it, and the book, "The Devil's Delusion", which it reviews.
Delusions of Scientific Adequacy
By: Dan Peterson
The American Spectator
August 22, 2008
In recent years, the parade of authors brandishing fierce new tracts against God and religion has become, it seems, interminable. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, continues as head baton twirler, but now we also have Victor Stenger,Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett--naming them all would be nearly as tedious as reading their books.
As David Berlinski observes in The Devil's Delusion, the message of each of these writers is identical: "because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false." And the conclusion they generally draw is revealed in the title of an essay by Harris: "Science Must Destroy Religion."
Why must it do so? Because, Berlinski shows, there is a body of true believers, often scientists, who have faith that materialist scientific narratives are the only narratives to which rational men and women can devote themselves. "And like any militant church, this one places a familiar demand before all others: Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must go.
Berlinski, a Princeton Ph.D. in mathematics who has written a number of popular books on math and science, describes himself as a "secular Jew" and "agnostic" with "no religious convictions and no religious beliefs." He might thus seem a curious candidate to publish a book that, in his words, "is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment." But this is a defense that consists principally of a withering offense. The central question he addresses is not whether God exists, "but whether science has shown that he does not."
Science, of course, has shown nothing of the kind, as Berlinski demonstrates with wit, erudition, surprising passion, and the illumination of a powerful mind. It's not science itself with which he has any quarrel, but rather with those who cloak their personal beliefs in the mantle of science--atheism in scientific drag.
In the book's longest chapter, Berlinski sets the stage by examining the ethical implications of any belief system that dispenses with a creator and moral lawgiver. He quotes the 11th-century Arab philosopher Abu Hamid Muhammad AI-Ghazali, who predicted that if there is no system of divine justice by which life is to be regulated, then men and women will give way to "a bestial indulgence of their appetites." It's precisely the point made by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man. If there is no permanent and ordained moral order, then only will and appetite remain--a surefire formula for violence, hatred, inhumanity, emptiness, and degradation.
The human need for a moral order does not prove that God exists. But a chilling scene recounted by Berlinski provides a sense of what is at stake. In the early part of the Nazi advance into Eastern Europe, an SS officer who was part of an extermination squad watched, machine gun in hand, as an elderly, bearded Hasidic Jew dug what he surely knew was his own grave. "He addressed his executioner: 'God is watching what you are doing,' he said. And then he was shot dead." Berlinski continues:
What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing....That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.
The claim that science itself has somehow "disproved" the existence of God is on its face a canard. As Berlinski dryly notes, "Neither the premises nor the conclusions of any scientific theory mention the existence of God. I have checked this carefully." Rather, materialist assumptions are smuggled into the definition of science, or its atheistic proponents claim that science provides explanations to fundamental questions that are superior to and displace any resort to a designer or creator.
In the chapters that form the heart of the book, Berlinski turns his searchlight on central questions that have traditionally been the province of religion, but for which some scientific apologists now claim to have answers. He begins with an examination of the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God, as advanced by Aquinas. What caused the universe? Is there, and must there be, a "first cause" that made the universe begin?
Here, as it turns out, the answer of modern science is discomfiting to atheism rather than to theology. As recently as the middle years of Einstein's life, it was possible to believe, consistent with the scientific evidence, that the universe was eternal and may have had no beginning. The Big Bang theory, now almost universally accepted, changed all that. Traced backward in time, causative sequences do come to an end (or rather, a beginning). There is no infinite regress of causes, at least not in this universe. If science has in some way shown that God does not exist, it is certainly "not by appealing to Big Bang cosmology. The hypothesis of God's existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent," Berlinski observes.
Indeed, in the following chapter Berlinski recounts, and exposes, Stephen Hawking's attempt to get rid of the Big Bang singularity, with its uncomfortable religious overtones, by mathematically describing a "self-caused" universe. It's not that Hawking's math was bad, but that he front-loaded his theory with assumptions (which are not necessarily true) that allow him to reach the desired result (which is not at all surprising).
The chapter entitled "A Put-up Job" shows Berlinski at his best. According to physicist Paul Davies, scientists have been waking up "to an inconvenient truth--the universe looks suspiciously like a fix." It has been becoming more and more apparent that a host of central physical laws and phenomena in the universe are exquisitely "fine-tuned" to permit the existence of life--Berlinski cites the cosmological constant, the fine-structure constant, the ratio of neutrons to protons, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force, and even the speed of light in this regard. Astronomer and atheist Fred Hoyle grumpily concluded, "The universe looks like a put-up job."
As Berlinski notes, theologians have long offered an answer: "The universe looks like a put-up job because it is a put-up job. That this answer is obvious is no reason to think it is false." But because this answer is "emotionally unacceptable" to many physicists, they have worked long and hard to devise some extravagant theories to put chance, rather than design, back in the saddle.
One of their purported answers combines mathematical constructs known as the Landscape with the Anthropic Principle. The Landscape posits, if not an infinite number, at least an extremely large number of universes, an enormous "space of possibilities" in which multiple universes with entirely different physical laws could exist. The Anthropic Principle, in one of its several variants, may be summarized as: "Of course our universe is fine-tuned to support life-otherwise we wouldn't be sitting around commenting on it." Combine the two, and you've got a sure thing. Is the fine-tuning of physical laws in the universe uncannily precise and amazingly improbable? Then just assume a gazillion other universes (of which there is no proof, and which we can never see) where the laws are different. Lean back, crack a beer, and congratulate ourselves on our one-in-a-gazillion luck.
But which requires more faith: the conclusion that the design evident in our universe (the only one we know to exist) is actually the product of a designer. Or the assumption that there must be a gigantic, unseen, universe-generating machine, with a colossal number of universes completely unlike our own bubbling into being, and that we just happened to win the lottery against stupendous odds? And while we're asking, how does a mathematical theory get hold of a real universe to develop and control? Somehow, these otherworldly speculations, interesting as they are, do not seem to have solved the problem.
The chapter on Dawkins's alleged "new" proof that God does not exist is a special treat. As Berlinski shows, it's simply a prolix, 40-page version of a three-sentence argument presented by a third-century Chinese sage. Regarding Dawkins's extended explication, Berlinski comments, "Dawkins has failed only to explain his reasoning, and I am left with the considerable inconvenience of establishing his argument before rejecting it." He then does both, with devastating effect.
Berlinski also takes on the biologists, especially those who contend that there is little to distinguish men from apes and other animals. This is true enough--except for everything that matters. In response to the assertion that an extraterrestrial "would have a hard time seeing most of the differences we treasure between ourselves and the apes," Berlinski counters: "I suppose that if a fish were thoughtfully to consider the matter, she might have a hard time determining the differences we treasure between Al Gore and a sperm whale. Both of them are large and one of them is streamlined."
He has a field day with evolutionary psychology, which seeks to explain the human mind in terms of evolutionary imperative, and, because of its determinism, would "annihilate any claim we might make on behalf of human freedom." Yet its leading advocates, such as Harvard's Steven Pinker, cannot in practice bear its consequences. When Pinker asserts that "nature does not dictate what we should accept or how we should live our lives," he is expressing, Berlinski remarks, "a belief--one obviously true--entirely at odds with his professional commitments." So why pay attention either to evolutionary psychology or to Pinker?
Use of Darwinism to champion atheism receives its due as well. Within the English-speaking world, Darwinism is "the only scientific theory to be widely championed by the scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else....[T]he thing continues to elicit the same reaction it has always elicited: You've got to be kidding, right? ..f biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life, and if they are wrong about life, they are wrong about everything." It's becoming increasingly obvious that they are, in fact, wrong about Darwin--see book for details.
In a brief review, it's impossible to convey not just the complexity of some these issues, but the clarity, keenness, and breadth of learning that Berlinski brings to bear on them. He in turn assumes a certain level of background, mental agility, and sophistication on the part of the reader. This is not Science and Religion for Dummies. Although the book is lucidly written, he moves swiftly, occasionally makes leaps of logic or insight, and expects the reader to keep up with him.
A book that addresses issues of fundamental importance and timeless concern may be commended for that reason alone. One that does so with zest, style, and mordant humor, without losing sight of the profound implications of our ultimate beliefs, is rare indeed. A polemic that administers a capable drubbing to the arrogant and powerful also has its undoubted charms. But everything else aside, a book that simply permits one to spend some time in the presence of a first-rate, well-stocked, civilized mind, and to enjoy its workings, may provide the purest pleasure of all.
Berlinski's book supplies all these things in abundance, and I say God bless him.
Dan Peterson is a writer and attorney living in Northern Virginia. The views expressed are solely his own.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Let's just get this out in the open: There is no proof that god exists so you cannot use him/it as part of any reasoning to support an argument of any kind.
I'm going to read the article and report back.
Let's just get this out in the open: There is no proof that god exists so you cannot use him/it as part of any reasoning to support an argument of any kind.
I'm going to read the article and report back.
texansfan
EOG Master
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Pioneer: I've taken a few exerpts from the article you provided and will offer my 2 cents after each:
This is a painful argument. Essentially, he is placing the burden on the accusers (those who say their is no god). That is a ridiculous premise. The burden of proof is on the believers, as it should be. If you think about it, the fact that believers can't produce even a shred of evidence should be proof enough. To quote Christopher Hitchens "Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence."
I love the fact that people try to prove god's existence through the moral argument. If we need god to have moral order, how come all the atheists aren't running amok? How many atheists populate prisons? Interesting questions, huh? This argument is absurd. We don't need the "fear of god" to live a moral, just life.
Perhaps the reason life exists on earth is because the environment supports it? I know that's a mind blowing thought, but it's not that hard to come up with. The default is NOT "must be a supernatural creator or designer". That is ANCIENT thinking. We are living in 2008, not 1008. We have been able to answer a lot of the questions that were once answered by "god must have done it" via science and discovery. Using the "god must have done it" response in 2008 is laughable.
Pioneer: I've taken a few exerpts from the article you provided and will offer my 2 cents after each:
The central question he addresses is not whether God exists, "but whether science has shown that he does not."<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Science, of course, has shown nothing of the kind, as Berlinski demonstrates with wit, erudition, surprising passion, and the illumination of a powerful mind. It's not science itself with which he has any quarrel, but rather with those who cloak their personal beliefs in the mantle of science--atheism in scientific drag.
This is a painful argument. Essentially, he is placing the burden on the accusers (those who say their is no god). That is a ridiculous premise. The burden of proof is on the believers, as it should be. If you think about it, the fact that believers can't produce even a shred of evidence should be proof enough. To quote Christopher Hitchens "Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence."
In the book's longest chapter, Berlinski sets the stage by examining the ethical implications of any belief system that dispenses with a creator and moral lawgiver. He quotes the 11th-century Arab philosopher Abu Hamid Muhammad AI-Ghazali, who predicted that if there is no system of divine justice by which life is to be regulated, then men and women will give way to "a bestial indulgence of their appetites." It's precisely the point made by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
I love the fact that people try to prove god's existence through the moral argument. If we need god to have moral order, how come all the atheists aren't running amok? How many atheists populate prisons? Interesting questions, huh? This argument is absurd. We don't need the "fear of god" to live a moral, just life.
The chapter entitled "A Put-up Job" shows Berlinski at his best. According to physicist Paul Davies, scientists have been waking up "to an inconvenient truth--the universe looks suspiciously like a fix." It has been becoming more and more apparent that a host of central physical laws and phenomena in the universe are exquisitely "fine-tuned" to permit the existence of life--Berlinski cites the cosmological constant, the fine-structure constant, the ratio of neutrons to protons, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force, and even the speed of light in this regard. Astronomer and atheist Fred Hoyle grumpily concluded, "The universe looks like a put-up job."<o
As Berlinski notes, theologians have long offered an answer: "The universe looks like a put-up job because it is a put-up job. That this answer is obvious is no reason to think it is false." But because this answer is "emotionally unacceptable" to many physicists, they have worked long and hard to devise some extravagant theories to put chance, rather than design, back in the saddle.
Perhaps the reason life exists on earth is because the environment supports it? I know that's a mind blowing thought, but it's not that hard to come up with. The default is NOT "must be a supernatural creator or designer". That is ANCIENT thinking. We are living in 2008, not 1008. We have been able to answer a lot of the questions that were once answered by "god must have done it" via science and discovery. Using the "god must have done it" response in 2008 is laughable.
texansfan
EOG Master
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Why even argue about religion? I guess we'll all find out in the end who was right or wrong. I choose to believe in God and take my family to church every week.
If someone chooses to believe they came from a monkey then that's their right to do so.
Why even argue about religion? I guess we'll all find out in the end who was right or wrong. I choose to believe in God and take my family to church every week.
If someone chooses to believe they came from a monkey then that's their right to do so.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
More on Troopergate
Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is formally under investigation for potential abuse of power. TPM has a timeline of what happened when. The Washington Post is now also investigating the story. with reporters up in Alaska talking to the principals. First reports show that Palin was much more deeply involved in trying to fire her brother-in-law (who was engaged in a bitter child custody dispute with her sister) than she previously admitted.
The Republican-controlled state legislature has appointed a former prosecutor, Steve Branchflower, to investigate. What started out as a scoop in the blogosphere is now becoming major national news.
If it turns out that Palin abused her gubernatorial power and then lied about it, it will hurt her reputation and raise questions about McCain's judgment. If she is entirely innocent, it is in her interest to get the facts out as fast as possible, volunteer for lie detector tests, and get this story out of the way immediately. At the very least, it is black cloud hanging over her head until it has been resolved.
The story doesn't end here. After firing Monegan, Palin appointed Charles Kopp, the Kenai chief of police to be the new commissioner of public safety. Kopp lasted two weeks, resigning July 25, 2008 in a swirl of charges relating to a 2005 complaint that he sexually harassed a woman and was reprimanded for it.
The facts will no doubt be dribbling out in the coming weeks as they always do in cases like this, but at the very least two things stand out. First, the charges about Palin trying to fire her brother-in-law were serious enough for the Republican-controlled legislature to hire a heavyweight retired prosecutor to look into them.
Second, Palin didn't do a very good job of vetting Kopp if whatever he did in 2005 was serious enough that he lasted only two weeks on the job. What does that say about her ability to make appointments?
While pundits of all stripes on national TV who never heard of Palin until Friday are blathering all manner of nonsense about her, both good and bad, the power of the Internet allows you to get a jump on them. Alaska newspapers have been following her closely for a year and a half, of course.
The most respected source is the Anchorage Daily News (www.adn.com). It has many stories on her, for example, this one. If you want to know what the Lyda Green, the president of the state senate and a Republican and John Harris, the speaker of the state house and also a Republican, think about her, check out this story.
http://electoral-vote.com/
More on Troopergate
Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is formally under investigation for potential abuse of power. TPM has a timeline of what happened when. The Washington Post is now also investigating the story. with reporters up in Alaska talking to the principals. First reports show that Palin was much more deeply involved in trying to fire her brother-in-law (who was engaged in a bitter child custody dispute with her sister) than she previously admitted.
The Republican-controlled state legislature has appointed a former prosecutor, Steve Branchflower, to investigate. What started out as a scoop in the blogosphere is now becoming major national news.
If it turns out that Palin abused her gubernatorial power and then lied about it, it will hurt her reputation and raise questions about McCain's judgment. If she is entirely innocent, it is in her interest to get the facts out as fast as possible, volunteer for lie detector tests, and get this story out of the way immediately. At the very least, it is black cloud hanging over her head until it has been resolved.
The story doesn't end here. After firing Monegan, Palin appointed Charles Kopp, the Kenai chief of police to be the new commissioner of public safety. Kopp lasted two weeks, resigning July 25, 2008 in a swirl of charges relating to a 2005 complaint that he sexually harassed a woman and was reprimanded for it.
The facts will no doubt be dribbling out in the coming weeks as they always do in cases like this, but at the very least two things stand out. First, the charges about Palin trying to fire her brother-in-law were serious enough for the Republican-controlled legislature to hire a heavyweight retired prosecutor to look into them.
Second, Palin didn't do a very good job of vetting Kopp if whatever he did in 2005 was serious enough that he lasted only two weeks on the job. What does that say about her ability to make appointments?
While pundits of all stripes on national TV who never heard of Palin until Friday are blathering all manner of nonsense about her, both good and bad, the power of the Internet allows you to get a jump on them. Alaska newspapers have been following her closely for a year and a half, of course.
The most respected source is the Anchorage Daily News (www.adn.com). It has many stories on her, for example, this one. If you want to know what the Lyda Green, the president of the state senate and a Republican and John Harris, the speaker of the state house and also a Republican, think about her, check out this story.
http://electoral-vote.com/
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
There are many proofs that God exists, did you read posts #7 and 10 in this very thread? Or try Googling "proof of God's existence"....I got about 1.1 million results....that should keep you busy for awhile.
There are many proofs that God exists, did you read posts #7 and 10 in this very thread? Or try Googling "proof of God's existence"....I got about 1.1 million results....that should keep you busy for awhile.
4625
2
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
My, look how pious and holy HE is!!
Who claims that they "came from a monkey"? If you are attempting to make a sharp comment regarding evolution, you are merely displaying your ignorance. . . .A wise man once said that "it's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt". . . .
My, look how pious and holy HE is!!
Who claims that they "came from a monkey"? If you are attempting to make a sharp comment regarding evolution, you are merely displaying your ignorance. . . .A wise man once said that "it's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt". . . .
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
I read posts 7 and 10. Please explain how that proves the existence of god. You must think I'm a moron if you think I'm going to read through websites that prove god exists. If there was a shred of evidence, it would be plastered all over the news and thrown in the face of every community of non-believers. Alas, no proof exists. People saying that because things are improbable, yet occur, god exists, doesn't quite cut it.
I read posts 7 and 10. Please explain how that proves the existence of god. You must think I'm a moron if you think I'm going to read through websites that prove god exists. If there was a shred of evidence, it would be plastered all over the news and thrown in the face of every community of non-believers. Alas, no proof exists. People saying that because things are improbable, yet occur, god exists, doesn't quite cut it.
texansfan
EOG Master
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Sorry, evolutionists believe that man and apes shared a common ancestor.
I forgot what a perfect person you like to portray yourself as. Bottomline, you may have something in common with monkeys, not me.
If you don't believe in God, then oh well, you'll burn in hell for an eternity. Enjoy! 12io4j2w90
Sorry, evolutionists believe that man and apes shared a common ancestor.
I forgot what a perfect person you like to portray yourself as. Bottomline, you may have something in common with monkeys, not me.
If you don't believe in God, then oh well, you'll burn in hell for an eternity. Enjoy! 12io4j2w90
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Is this where you want to be when Jesus comes back? 91023i2ndw;l
By the way, which god am I supposed to believe in? Since the message is the same across the board (believe in the one true god or burn in hell), it sure seems like an important "choice".
While we're trying to figure out the god lottery, perhaps you can tell me why you believe in your current religion. If possible (and I'd bet it's not), don't mention that you're parents raised you that way.
Is this where you want to be when Jesus comes back? 91023i2ndw;l
By the way, which god am I supposed to believe in? Since the message is the same across the board (believe in the one true god or burn in hell), it sure seems like an important "choice".
While we're trying to figure out the god lottery, perhaps you can tell me why you believe in your current religion. If possible (and I'd bet it's not), don't mention that you're parents raised you that way.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Suspend it, or reject it?
Suspend it, or reject it?
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
WHN,
The Seer made post #7; I must admit that I am not a theoretical physicist and don't understand the link that The Seer provided; he will have to explain his post for you.
I added the part about the Big Bang, which I think is easier for us mere mortals to understand. The gist of the Big Bang theory is that the universe had a beginning, that it did not always exists (Steady State theory) as was thought by many before the acceptance of the Big Bang theory. If the universe had a beginning, then it must have had a causitive agent to induce it to begin; that causitive agent is known as God(not god).
Actually, I think you are quite intelligent, after all, you knew exactly what I was thinking..."You must think I'm a moron". Yes, why indeed would you read through websites that prove that God exists? Afterall, you have already proven that God doesn't exist, haven't you? Of course you do realize that it is impossible for finite little man to prove that God, (defined as the Supreme Being, the Creator of all things), does not exist? If you really believe that you have proven this, then a moron would be a very generous description of you. You know, WHN, most intelligent people go through a period of questioning whether God exists or not. It's the most important question that has ever been asked or will ever be asked. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that you CANNOT disprove God's existence and you will continue searching for evidence of His existence. If you sincerely search for the Truth, God will find you...that I guarantee you.
O, and here's a website that correlates the Big Bang theory with religion...
Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory)
WHN,
The Seer made post #7; I must admit that I am not a theoretical physicist and don't understand the link that The Seer provided; he will have to explain his post for you.
I added the part about the Big Bang, which I think is easier for us mere mortals to understand. The gist of the Big Bang theory is that the universe had a beginning, that it did not always exists (Steady State theory) as was thought by many before the acceptance of the Big Bang theory. If the universe had a beginning, then it must have had a causitive agent to induce it to begin; that causitive agent is known as God(not god).
Actually, I think you are quite intelligent, after all, you knew exactly what I was thinking..."You must think I'm a moron". Yes, why indeed would you read through websites that prove that God exists? Afterall, you have already proven that God doesn't exist, haven't you? Of course you do realize that it is impossible for finite little man to prove that God, (defined as the Supreme Being, the Creator of all things), does not exist? If you really believe that you have proven this, then a moron would be a very generous description of you. You know, WHN, most intelligent people go through a period of questioning whether God exists or not. It's the most important question that has ever been asked or will ever be asked. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that you CANNOT disprove God's existence and you will continue searching for evidence of His existence. If you sincerely search for the Truth, God will find you...that I guarantee you.
O, and here's a website that correlates the Big Bang theory with religion...
Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory)
texansfan
EOG Master
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
I guess we'll see whose right in the end won't we?
I guess we'll see whose right in the end won't we?
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Define what you mean by "creationism". I posted my definition in post #10. Of course, depending on how you define it, by some definitions of "creationism", you would have to suspend reality to believe in it. For instance, the young earth creationists or those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. But Genesis is not a scientific text; it is right as far as it goes when it says that God created all things.
Define what you mean by "creationism". I posted my definition in post #10. Of course, depending on how you define it, by some definitions of "creationism", you would have to suspend reality to believe in it. For instance, the young earth creationists or those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. But Genesis is not a scientific text; it is right as far as it goes when it says that God created all things.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
WHN.
You're relatively new to this forum...I've gone over this about 18 million times, but here goes again. God is defined as the Supreme Being, the Creator of all things. As such, there can only be One God. If there are two or more gods, there is no God. Once again, your innate intelligence shines through your ignorant posts....yes, indeed it not only seems like an important choice but it also is the most important choice you will ever make.
WHN.
You're relatively new to this forum...I've gone over this about 18 million times, but here goes again. God is defined as the Supreme Being, the Creator of all things. As such, there can only be One God. If there are two or more gods, there is no God. Once again, your innate intelligence shines through your ignorant posts....yes, indeed it not only seems like an important choice but it also is the most important choice you will ever make.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Thanks for the personal attacks on my intelligence. Let's not forget that you're the one who believes that a man in the sky created everything and, if we believe in him, we'll get to meet him when we die.
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic HS, and Jesuit University. I probably know the Bible better than you and I guarantee I've read more books on religion and philosophy than you've probably looked at. I've had the information presented to me, I've shaken off the indoctrination, and I've learned to think for myself. Once you understand the purpose(s) of religion, and it's inherent dangers, it's easy to live without. If you'd be honest with yourself, look at the lack of evidence and the multitude of different religions that exist and have existed, you'd start to see things in a different light.
Thanks for the personal attacks on my intelligence. Let's not forget that you're the one who believes that a man in the sky created everything and, if we believe in him, we'll get to meet him when we die.
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic HS, and Jesuit University. I probably know the Bible better than you and I guarantee I've read more books on religion and philosophy than you've probably looked at. I've had the information presented to me, I've shaken off the indoctrination, and I've learned to think for myself. Once you understand the purpose(s) of religion, and it's inherent dangers, it's easy to live without. If you'd be honest with yourself, look at the lack of evidence and the multitude of different religions that exist and have existed, you'd start to see things in a different light.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Keep making personal attacks on my inteligence when you can't respond with anything worth saying. You're a great debater.
Why does there only have to be one true god? Can you prove it wasn't a joint effort? Hmmmm. Sucks when you only have other peoples thoughts to go by, doesn't it? Let's say there is one true god who created everything....who created him/it? A different supernatural being? Remember, everything has to come from somewhere.
Keep making personal attacks on my inteligence when you can't respond with anything worth saying. You're a great debater.
Why does there only have to be one true god? Can you prove it wasn't a joint effort? Hmmmm. Sucks when you only have other peoples thoughts to go by, doesn't it? Let's say there is one true god who created everything....who created him/it? A different supernatural being? Remember, everything has to come from somewhere.
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
I remain disappointed in our country's inability to come up with candidates that have even a chance at galvanizing our disfunctional country. What ever happened to the true leaders that were willing to put their personal lives aside in the hope that they could truly make a difference in the world?
Our current choices would not be realistic candidates to manage a major corporation, much less sit as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in world history. Does anyone believe that Palin's two years of gubenatorial experience and her prior mayorship of an Alaskan town of 8,000 qualifies her to take over the reigns of the federal government if McCain is unable to?
I have no interest in joining the debate over the theological aspects of this thread but the choice of Palin for a running mate of a 73 year old presidential candidate that certainly has a shot at becoming the leader of the most powerful country in the world, is nothing short of irresponsible.
I remain disappointed in our country's inability to come up with candidates that have even a chance at galvanizing our disfunctional country. What ever happened to the true leaders that were willing to put their personal lives aside in the hope that they could truly make a difference in the world?
Our current choices would not be realistic candidates to manage a major corporation, much less sit as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in world history. Does anyone believe that Palin's two years of gubenatorial experience and her prior mayorship of an Alaskan town of 8,000 qualifies her to take over the reigns of the federal government if McCain is unable to?
Re: Hey Munchy here is something about your wonderful VP choice
Judger, to answer your question: Hell No!! Its depressing that people are actually defending this laughable choice. She is involved in a scandal involving abuse of power. Does not beleive in evolution. Has publically stated that she cannot comment on the Iraq war because she has not paid any attention to it.
She is incredibly ignorant as evidence of her stating that she will fight for the use of the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. If its good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me, she said. There was no Pledge of Allegiance when the founding fathers were alive.
Judger, to answer your question: Hell No!! Its depressing that people are actually defending this laughable choice. She is involved in a scandal involving abuse of power. Does not beleive in evolution. Has publically stated that she cannot comment on the Iraq war because she has not paid any attention to it.
She is incredibly ignorant as evidence of her stating that she will fight for the use of the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. If its good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me, she said. There was no Pledge of Allegiance when the founding fathers were alive.