Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..

[Carthoris]

In the bolded, the correct first word would have been "hypothesis". I'm not trying to bug you, but imo the distinction is important. Hypothesis is the guess. Theory is the established fact or correlation. cn

Agreed in scientific lingo it would be. Henceforth, we will no longer refer to AGW as a theory. It is a hypothesis as it is unproven.

 

[Heisenberg]

I have never seen evolution or AGW referred to as 'The hypothesis of'. Evolution is not a proven fact and neither is AGW. Scientists shouldn't use words in the incorrect way and then expect me to not use them the same way.

A theory needs some support to move beyond hypothesis, it doesn't need to be proven beyond a doubt. To dismiss evolution with a hand-waiving phrase like 'just a theory' is to display your ignorance of science. You have been shown the definition of theory, a definition which evolution fits, yet rather than process the information and update your worldview, you struggle to reconcile your original position. Evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science. It has considerable explanatory power, it's backed by mounds of empirical evidence, and consistently makes verified predictions. It at no point pretends or aspires to become a fact, science doesn't work that way. Can you name one theory which has graduated to fact?

 

[UncleBuck]

Agreed in scientific lingo it would be. Henceforth, we will no longer refer to AGW as a theory. It is a hypothesis as it is unproven.

no theory is really ever proven, only disproven.

and the theory of anthropogenic climate change has more evidence supporting it than any other leading brand.

but as this thread points out, republicans like yourself and science mix like dr. pepper and trout.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You could not be any more wrong about that. First, you are not understanding what the constitution is. It states a list of things that the federal government is in control of and gives all others that are unstated to the states and the People. This means the constitution encompasses everything that can possibly exist. We might fight over who the constitution gives power over certain things to, but it does in fact give power over them to someone.

Can you cite the clause it says this in the Constitution?

From my understanding, there have been quite a bit of confusion due to this very reason, which leads to the "live document" argument. Some people believe it's set in stone while others believe it isn't, since new technologies are created or existing moral arguments (abortion) are presented with new evidence which could render a 2 century old argument moot.

Second, the SCOTUS can rule whatever it wants, it doesn't make it legal or constitutional and later courts strike down the rulings of previous courts.

It does actually make it legal, as the Supreme Court is the highest legal institution of the land. What they say, pretty much goes. It might not make it constitutional, but it absolutely makes it legal.

You never know what will happen. Once medical technology makes it so a person can be born the moment they are conceived and still survive then it will be entirely possibly they will rule unborn children. It has already begun. Never heard of "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" have you? It isn't hard to see that the next step now that you can be charged with murder if you kill an unborn baby is to declare that if that law is constitutional then the unborn must be considered people before you can murder them.

Are you 100% against abortion under all circumstances?

What you propose will definitely not be available in my lifetime, so it's meaningless to discuss in this situation. Entertaining hypotheticals is a waste of time.

Why is it better to carry a pregnancy to term if you are financially unable to support it, or aren't in a committed relationship, or have a transmittable disease? All of these things will lead to a much greater cost on the rest of society. There are plenty of instances where abortion is the much smarter, more humane decision to make. This is the reason I believe it will never be illegal. Those that oppose it also generally oppose helping the poor (foodstamps, universal healthcare, etc.), so are you suggesting we let these people be born under a false pretext of objective moral authority "because it's the right thing to do!", then just let them become uneducated, fatherless, homeless parts of society? Will you help them once they're born into a world which they were never meant to be born into in the first place? Do you feel it's justified because the parents of said child should accept the 'consequences' of their decision to fuck each other?

You need to accept the reality of the situation. Stop looking at it through an emotional blinder. Look at the facts. It will cost MUCH MORE to have these unwanted kids, more to you, more to me, more to everyone, and THEY will be the ones who suffer the most. Is that a moral decision you can live with?

Once a theory is proven false, it is done away with. If you have to remove a part of a theory to replace it because it has been disproved then the theory is a new one, not the same one. If 'natural selection' was disproved then the entirety of Darwin's theory would be disproved. However, The theory of evolution itself which predates Darwin would not be. There is a reason that it is called "Darwin's theory of evolution". The reason is that it is different than other theories of evolution.

You are simply wrong on this. Existing theories are updated constantly as new data is presented. This is how science works. You believing something else does not change the way it actually is. Example, Peter Higgs came up with broken symmetry in electroweak theory in the 1960's but the technology to prove it wasn't available until 2012 at CERN. It was proved, and he was nominated by Stephen Hawking to receive the Nobel Prize in physics. A 52 year old theory, updated, and accepted before your eyes. He didn't change the name, he just changed the data.

Now stop with this claim, you're wrong, move on.

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

Darwin's theory of evolution which in my opinion tends to dispute gods hand based on natural selection has to be taken on faith since we have no proof of how it started, it is no different than the Creationist evolution where evolution is accepted but the result of Gods will.

Religion and Science have a lot in common, sadly.

Darwins theory says nothing about God. Not one word. Because it goes against traditional religious belief is irrelevant. It's not the scientists job to conform to dogma, it's their job to record the facts of reality, and the reality is, organisms evolve whether because of God or not. No mention in the Bible of evolution is just another nail in Christianity's (and indeed all organized religions) coffins. You would think an omnipotent being would include the mechanism for change in it's most important widely spread list of rules and regulations, but for whatever reason, it didn't...

There are over 1 million individual pieces of evidence collected since the 1800's confirming evolution via natural selection. As I said before, those that don't accept it at this point as fact don't understand it. It's as simple as that.

It's disingenuous to pretend you do.

I accept the theory of evolution. I have never stated otherwise. I have died before and seen the other side(or my brain shutting down, your call.) and I know what waits for me on the other side. It isn't the Christian fairy tale. My point isn't belief or non belief, I am pointing out that evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory. It could be wrong. God and Evolution could exist together in harmony. I never even began to state that God created the world or man a few thousand years ago and I am not Christian.

You are creating a straw man to beat up on. I never said I was Christian, I have repeatedly said I believe in evolution in the last 3 pages.

I never said you were Christian.

What awaits you on "the other side"?

Evolution is a fact, which, grouped together with all the thousands of other facts makes it a viable theory.

God and evolution could coexist, the only problem is there is no evidence to support the idea that they do. There is only evidence to support the theory of evolution. What you're proposing is no different than me saying "Zeus, Allah, Thor, Vishnu, etc. and evolution could exist together in harmony". What makes you use the word "God", instead of any of these other gods? Perhaps because you grew up and live in a western society which believes "God" automatically refers to the Abrahamic god of the Christian Bible?

 

[Carthoris]

A theory needs some support to move beyond hypothesis, it doesn't need to be proven beyond a doubt. To dismiss evolution with a hand-waiving phrase like 'just a theory' is to display your ignorance of science. You have been shown the definition of theory, a definition which evolution fits, yet rather than process the information and update your worldview, you struggle to reconcile your original position. Evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science. It has considerable explanatory power, it's backed by mounds of empirical evidence, and consistently makes verified predictions. It at no point pretends or aspires to become a fact, science doesn't work that way. Can you name one theory which has graduated to fact?

In reading about evolution in the past, I have never seen it referred to as a hypothesis. I did not mean today.

About half of the scientists who believe in evolution believe it is theistic evolution.

Theories are essentially things that most scientists take on faith. It is no different than a belief in God. This entire line of discussion came from this, which is still true:

Theories that are backed by facts can be refuted by 1 instance of proving that it isn't true. Theories are a lot like God. There is no proof that he doesn't exist, therefor he is a theory unless you can PROVE him. Theories are things that are not proved, therefor are not facts. Aside from that, what you just said is basically what I said the difference was. Don't repeat my post, claim it as your own, and pretend it is in conflict with my original post.



Theories become facts when they are proven. The world is round, it has been proven, it is no longer a theory, it is a fact. There is your theory that has graduated to fact. Once something is proven, it stops being a theory.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Nothing in existence, nothing, is proven.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty, and your assertion that science attempts to reach this unattainable goal allows you to dismiss anything science has ever accomplished as "not good enough" because it's not "proven".

It will benefit you to understand this.

The key of science is not to prove things right, but to prove things WRONG.


Now please, for the sake of... all of us... understand this, accept it, realize it, acknowledge it.

 

[Heisenberg]

In reading about evolution in the past, I have never seen it referred to as a hypothesis. I did not mean today.

About half of the scientists who believe in evolution believe it is theistic evolution.

Theories are essentially things that most scientists take on faith. It is no different than a belief in God. This entire line of discussion came from this, which is still true:

Evolution makes no attempt to explain how life began. As a theory, evolution does not rule out god, or concern itself with a creator. That is beyond the scope of the theory. Since you say you are a skeptic, you must be aware of Occam's razor and why it is important. God could be the author of evolution, but without any arrows pointing us there, God becomes superfluous.

Theories are transparent, they show their work, and thus require no faith when judging their truth value. Not unless you conflate different contextual meanings of 'faith'.

Theories that are backed by facts can be refuted by 1 instance of proving that it isn't true. Theories are a lot like God. There is no proof that he doesn't exist, therefor he is a theory unless you can PROVE him. Theories are things that are not proved, therefor are not facts. Aside from that, what you just said is basically what I said the difference was. Don't repeat my post, claim it as your own, and pretend it is in conflict with my original post.



Theories become facts when they are proven. The world is round, it has been proven, it is no longer a theory, it is a fact. There is your theory that has graduated to fact. Once something is proven, it stops being a theory.

Theories never become facts, they always remain models of explanation. The idea that evolution is happening is a fact, the explanation behind the mechanics and influences is a theory. Since the god myth has no objective empirical evidence, no logical foundation, and no ability to be falsified, it is best described as an unnecessary hypothesis.

Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

the scientific (as opposed to the vernacular) definition of theory refers to an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations and facts.

Facts refer to "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation. Facts exist independent of theory or knowledge of them. In science, however, a fact is not a statement of absolute certainty. Scientific knowledge necessarily abandons the concept of absolute certainty to remain consistently conjectural, hypothetical.

Again, can you name one theory which became a fact?

 

[Dr Kynes]

... not a theory. cn

marxism is definitely a theory, and an ideology.

discussion of marxist theory and how it can be put in practice was all the rage in the 80's.

admittedly it's not a good theory, or a sound theory but it is a theory none the less.

and of course being a POLITICAL theory it cannot be disproved no matter how miserably the experiments fail, so in that way its very much along the lines of intelligent design and panspermia.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Wouldn't you still have an orgasm?

orgasms are the peak of ecstasy when the stimulation becomes too much to bear, and even thoughts of baseball cannot stop the climax.

electroejaculation is just triggering a convulsion that coincidentally causes the release of semen, kind of like puking only about 3 feet lower.

i doubt youll enjoy it.

 

[Carthoris]

Can you cite the clause it says this in the Constitution?

From my understanding, there have been quite a bit of confusion due to this very reason, which leads to the "live document" argument. Some people believe it's set in stone while others believe it isn't, since new technologies are created or existing moral arguments (abortion) are presented with new evidence which could render a 2 century old argument moot.

The Tenth Amendment :"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This makes the entire Constitution a positive document in regards to the Federal Government. A new technology wouldn't change anything. Either they have the power to do something or they don't. If they don't and they should, then an amendment must be made or all federal actions not directly sanctioned by the Constitution are illegal.

It does actually make it legal, as the Supreme Court is the highest legal institution of the land. What they say, pretty much goes. It might not make it constitutional, but it absolutely makes it legal.

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, the Constitution itself is the top of the legal ladder. The SCOTUS screws up and fixes itself a lot, it does things that it knows are illegal but then rectifies them. Forced sterilization of stupid people for almost 100 years comes to mind(Buck vs Bell). If it isn't constitutional then it isn't legal. It becomes an illegal action sanctioned by the government. Still illegal, just sanctioned.

Are you 100% against abortion under all circumstances?

I am not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. I am pro-choice, this is one of the major issues I have with the Republican party(that and being statist bastards). I believe that abortion is immoral, as it is murder. However, eviction, even if it ends up in the same death is morally acceptable. The issue being the mother has no right to murder the child, but does have the right to remove it from her.

What you propose will definitely not be available in my lifetime, so it's meaningless to discuss in this situation. Entertaining hypotheticals is a waste of time.

Unless you are planning to die in the next 20 years, I disagree.

Why is it better to carry a pregnancy to term if you are financially unable to support it, or aren't in a committed relationship, or have a transmittable disease? All of these things will lead to a much greater cost on the rest of society. There are plenty of instances where abortion is the much smarter, more humane decision to make. This is the reason I believe it will never be illegal. Those that oppose it also generally oppose helping the poor (foodstamps, universal healthcare, etc.), so are you suggesting we let these people be born under a false pretext of objective moral authority "because it's the right thing to do!", then just let them become uneducated, fatherless, homeless parts of society? Will you help them once they're born into a world which they were never meant to be born into in the first place? Do you feel it's justified because the parents of said child should accept the 'consequences' of their decision to fuck each other?

You need to accept the reality of the situation. Stop looking at it through an emotional blinder. Look at the facts. It will cost MUCH MORE to have these unwanted kids, more to you, more to me, more to everyone, and THEY will be the ones who suffer the most. Is that a moral decision you can live with?

The issue here is that I consider them to be human beings. If you look at unborn children in this way, in terms of their cost or whether someone wants them or not then you can start to look at the mentally handicapped, the criminals, poor people, stupid people, ugly people, old people, sick people, ect in the same way. To me, killing these people is the same as ripping a child apart piece by piece. If you have ever seen how it is done, it is right up there with being racked apart or being drawn and quartered. Deliver the baby, let it die. The mother has the right to not have it in her, she does not have the right to have it murdered. If it is about cost whether or not we allow someone to live, then Obamacare wouldn't be needed. We would just go and shoot people who can't take care of themselves.

You are simply wrong on this. Existing theories are updated constantly as new data is presented. This is how science works. You believing something else does not change the way it actually is. Example, Peter Higgs came up with broken symmetry in electroweak theory in the 1960's but the technology to prove it wasn't available until 2012 at CERN. It was proved, and he was nominated by Stephen Hawking to receive the Nobel Prize in physics. A 52 year old theory, updated, and accepted before your eyes. He didn't change the name, he just changed the data.

Now stop with this claim, you're wrong, move on.

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

Having the ability to prove a theory and replacing parts of it aren't the same thing. Adding information, and changing it are not the same.

Darwins theory says nothing about God. Not one word. Because it goes against traditional religious belief is irrelevant. It's not the scientists job to conform to dogma, it's their job to record the facts of reality, and the reality is, organisms evolve whether because of God or not. No mention in the Bible of evolution is just another nail in Christianity's (and indeed all organized religions) coffins. You would think an omnipotent being would include the mechanism for change in it's most important widely spread list of rules and regulations, but for whatever reason, it didn't...

There are over 1 million individual pieces of evidence collected since the 1800's confirming evolution via natural selection. As I said before, those that don't accept it at this point as fact don't understand it. It's as simple as that.

It's disingenuous to pretend you do.

Not that I would ever quote Huffington Post and claim they are the most reliable people in the world, but it was the first study I came to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Only 15% of the population believes evolution happened without God there to make it happen. There is no proof that God didn't make evolution.

Myself, I believe in evolution. It seems a very logical and reasonable explanation of how the world came to be like it is.

I never said you were Christian.

What awaits you on "the other side"?

Loss of ego. It is pretty daunting. I would compare it to the type of LSD trips where you can't do anything but lay there laughing and sweating. God exists but not as a person or anything like that. God is like existence itself, and when you die, you get to be a part of existence. You don't get to be yourself anymore. There are no punishments or rewards for a life of evil or good, just existence.

Evolution is a fact, which, grouped together with all the thousands of other facts makes it a viable theory.

God and evolution could coexist, the only problem is there is no evidence to support the idea that they do. There is only evidence to support the theory of evolution. What you're proposing is no different than me saying "Zeus, Allah, Thor, Vishnu, etc. and evolution could exist together in harmony". What makes you use the word "God", instead of any of these other gods? Perhaps because you grew up and live in a western society which believes "God" automatically refers to the Abrahamic god of the Christian Bible?

There is no evidence that God and evolution don't coexist, and in fact, a huge amount of scientists believe in Theistic Evolution(40% was a number I saw). When I say God, I mean all incarnations of God on the planet. I use the word God because it is a general term in English. I suppose god(s) would be more suiting, but it is what it is. By the way, Allah is the same exact God as the Christian bible. Christians, Muslims, and Jews are all sects of the same religion.

 

[Carthoris]

Evolution makes no attempt to explain how life began. As a theory, evolution does not rule out god, or concern itself with a creator. That is beyond the scope of the theory. Since you say you are a skeptic, you must be aware of Occam's razor and why it is important. God could be the author of evolution, but without any arrows pointing us there, God becomes superfluous.

Theories are transparent, they show their work, and thus require no faith when judging their truth value. Not unless you conflate different contextual meanings of 'faith'.



Theories never become facts, they always remain models of explanation. The idea that evolution is happening is a fact, the explanation behind the mechanics and influences is a theory. Since the god myth has no objective empirical evidence, no logical foundation, and no ability to be falsified, it is best described as an unnecessary hypothesis.



Again, can you name one theory which became a fact?

I gave the theory, and you ignored it.

 

[Dr Kynes]

That isn't what I was saying and you know it. I was saying that a theory that is proven to be wrong in whole or part is incorrect and has to be scrapped and started over. The theory of evolution doesn't state what causes evolution. Darwin's theory was natural selection, not evolution as that was not his theory. If you changed a base tenant of the theory it is no longer the same theory, it becomes something else. It is like cooking.

I am making spaghetti, but I am not using noodles, but potatoes. Instead of using tomato sauce I am going to make a paprika sauce, and instead of Italian sausage I am going to use chunks of beef.

It is no longer spaghetti since I completely changed everything, and calling it that is disingenuous. I have made Hungarian goulash instead.

If I just change the pasta to potatoes and leave the sausage and tomato sauce it still isn't spaghetti. It might be related, but it is a new dish, and calling it spaghetti is disingenuous.

If I another ingredient to spaghetti but leave it unchanged otherwise, it is still spaghetti.

I am not a evolution expert, but the basics of it are pretty simple to understand, and I agree evolution was, is, and will happen.

whoah now homey, lets not get crazy!

spaghetti is just the long straight round profile semolina pasta. you could use macaroni, shells, bow ties or even rotini but it would still be pasta just in different shapes.

the sauce would still be a ragu if you used tomatoes, and the sausage/beef/meatball choices are all completely separate from the ragu base. personally i like a ragu with chicken or even cubed pork but they are all still ragus.

if you put cream sauce or alfredo sauce or garlic butter on spaghetti its still spaghetti. or my favorite, a shrimp garlic herb butter sauce.. fuck, now im hungry.

 

[Carthoris]

orgasms are the peak of ecstasy when the stimulation becomes too much to bear, and even thoughts of baseball cannot stop the climax.

electroejaculation is just triggering a convulsion that coincidentally causes the release of semen, kind of like puking only about 3 feet lower.

i doubt youll enjoy it.

It still sounds pretty cool. I had an ejaculation where I didn't have an orgasm once. It was pretty interesting. I thought you meant something that did this:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Orgasmotron-Orgasms-at-the-Push-of-a-Button-79636.shtml

I remembered reading about the orgasm button a few years back. Still waiting for wal-mart to stock them.

 

[Carthoris]

whoah now homey, lets not get crazy!

spaghetti is just the long straight round profile semolina pasta. you could use macaroni, shells, bow ties or even rotini but it would still be pasta just in different shapes.

the sauce would still be a ragu if you used tomatoes, and the sausage/beef/meatball choices are all completely separate from the ragu base. personally i like a ragu with chicken or even cubed pork but they are all still ragus.

if you put cream sauce or alfredo sauce or garlic butter on spaghetti its still spaghetti. or my favorite, a shrimp garlic herb butter sauce.. fuck, now im hungry.

I am making hungarian goulash right now. I threw some sweet potatoes, carrots, and a dozen red potatoes in it. I hope the sweet potato doesn't make the flavor off, but I had to try it.

 

[Dr Kynes]

In reading about evolution in the past, I have never seen it referred to as a hypothesis. I did not mean today.

About half of the scientists who believe in evolution believe it is theistic evolution.

Theories are essentially things that most scientists take on faith. It is no different than a belief in God. This entire line of discussion came from this, which is still true:

Theories that are backed by facts can be refuted by 1 instance of proving that it isn't true. Theories are a lot like God. There is no proof that he doesn't exist, therefor he is a theory unless you can PROVE him. Theories are things that are not proved, therefor are not facts. Aside from that, what you just said is basically what I said the difference was. Don't repeat my post, claim it as your own, and pretend it is in conflict with my original post.



Theories become facts when they are proven. The world is round, it has been proven, it is no longer a theory, it is a fact. There is your theory that has graduated to fact. Once something is proven, it stops being a theory.

but the earth is oblate....

 

[Dr Kynes]

I am making hungarian goulash right now. I threw some sweet potatoes, carrots, and a dozen red potatoes in it. I hope the sweet potato doesn't make the flavor off, but I had to try it.

hmmm sounds fascinating. sweet potatoes might add a little something to the spicey paprika flavour but they tend to get mooshy when cooked unless you like them stringy and tough.

my auntie used to make goulash with parsnips and potatoes and that was the bomb. but i never managed to duplicate her results.

 

[Heisenberg]

Theories become facts when they are proven. The world is round, it has been proven, it is no longer a theory, it is a fact. There is your theory that has graduated to fact. Once something is proven, it stops being a theory.

The world being round is an observable fact, which supports a theory. The round earth theory is still that, a theory, it just happens to have made a very verifiable prediction that we now have the ability to say coincides with fact. The theory is still there. The round earth theory is contested by The Flat Earth Society as being 'just a theory', putting in the same boat as evolution. It may have stopped being a theory in your mind, but not in the eyes of science. Science doesn't work that way.

 

[Heisenberg]

electroejaculation is just triggering a convulsion that coincidentally causes the release of semen, kind of like puking only about 3 feet lower.

i doubt youll enjoy it.

There's a few hundred people over at http://www.smartstim.com/ that would disagree with you.

 

[Dr Kynes]

There's a few hundred people over at http://www.smartstim.com/ that would disagree with you.

well thats my mind blown right there. the horses and bulls dont seem to be fans. they used to be all happy on collection day, then when we started shocking the calf batter out of them they became trepidatious and reluctant. later we mostly used "artificial vaginas" to fleshlight them to release and they seem to like that better. cleanup was a bitch though. those pocket pussies just saved up the smegma in all the nubular nooks and crannies. you had to go to town with a bottle brush and insdustrial degreasers to lift the spunk funk out of the interiors.

i havent been in the Jizz Biz in some time so maybe thees a new version of the electrojismonator-inator thats easier on the caboose.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The Tenth Amendment :"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This makes the entire Constitution a positive document in regards to the Federal Government. A new technology wouldn't change anything. Either they have the power to do something or they don't. If they don't and they should, then an amendment must be made or all federal actions not directly sanctioned by the Constitution are illegal.

So whatever the Constitution doesn't federally allow is up to each state to decide?

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, the Constitution itself is the top of the legal ladder. The SCOTUS screws up and fixes itself a lot, it does things that it knows are illegal but then rectifies them. Forced sterilization of stupid people for almost 100 years comes to mind(Buck vs Bell). If it isn't constitutional then it isn't legal. It becomes an illegal action sanctioned by the government. Still illegal, just sanctioned.

This is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Start another thread on how corrupt you believe the SC is to discuss these issues.

Those in charge don't seem to really give a damn if it's Unconstitutional so long as they can pass it off as legal. If it's sanctioned by the government, then I'm afraid it becomes legal, that is the very implication of utilizing the SC.

I agree, most of the government is corrupt.

I am not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. I am pro-choice, this is one of the major issues I have with the Republican party(that and being statist bastards). I believe that abortion is immoral, as it is murder. However, eviction, even if it ends up in the same death is morally acceptable. The issue being the mother has no right to murder the child, but does have the right to remove it from her.

I don't understand the distinction.

Unless you are planning to die in the next 20 years, I disagree.

20 years is conservative.

The issue here is that I consider them to be human beings. If you look at unborn children in this way, in terms of their cost or whether someone wants them or not then you can start to look at the mentally handicapped, the criminals, poor people, stupid people, ugly people, old people, sick people, ect in the same way. To me, killing these people is the same as ripping a child apart piece by piece. If you have ever seen how it is done, it is right up there with being racked apart or being drawn and quartered. Deliver the baby, let it die. The mother has the right to not have it in her, she does not have the right to have it murdered. If it is about cost whether or not we allow someone to live, then Obamacare wouldn't be needed. We would just go and shoot people who can't take care of themselves.

Huge slippery slope which I don't agree with, at all.

Mentally handicapped, criminals, poor people, stupid people, ugly people, old people, sick people - all people. Fetuses, are not people.

"ripping a child apart piece by piece" is completely inhumane. Fetuses do not feel pain, do not consider the implications of termination. You're attributing physical characteristics and projecting them onto beings that are incapable of such things to support your point, which does nothing but negate it completely.

"deliver the baby, LET it die" - more humane than terminating the pregnancy months earlier.. The longer you wait, the more inhumane it becomes. The mother, does in fact have the RIGHT to TERMINATE the pregnancy, and in no way is she murdering a child if she decides to do so. Cost is considered when living people aren't being considered. And I'm certain you acknowledge this distinction.

Not that I would ever quote Huffington Post and claim they are the most reliable people in the world, but it was the first study I came to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Only 15% of the population believes evolution happened without God there to make it happen. There is no proof that God didn't make evolution.

Argument from authority. I couldn't care less if 99.99999999999999% agreed with that bullshit. As I mentioned 3 times before, it doesn't matter if you believe it, it doesn't rely on your acceptance, it's true regardless.

Enjoy attempting to prove a negative.

There is no evidence that God and evolution don't coexist, and in fact, a huge amount of scientists believe in Theistic Evolution(40% was a number I saw). When I say God, I mean all incarnations of God on the planet. I use the word God because it is a general term in English. I suppose god(s) would be more suiting, but it is what it is. By the way, Allah is the same exact God as the Christian bible. Christians, Muslims, and Jews are all sects of the same religion.

We don't waste time proving negatives. So unless you have a positive claim for the existence of God, carry on.

Another argument from authority. It wouldn't matter if 100% of scientists believed in creationism, it still wouldn't make it true.