Should we not have weeded out stupidity by now???
2007-02-20 13:28:08 · 16 answers · asked by Chester's Liver 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wow. How did someone as moronic as you figure out where the on button was on your computer?
Did you learn N-O-T-H-I-N-G in the last six years? Or were you too busy licking boots to listen to reality?
2007-02-20 13:34:12 · answer #1 · answered by wineboy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all, I think that this question is a bit out of hand. But it is just a theory, just like evolution, the big bang, and creationism. There are plenty of liberal people who are religious, and I'm sure some that believe in the intelligent design theroy. I'm sure that there is an equal sentiment to yours on the other side.
2007-02-20 13:36:10 · answer #2 · answered by Stefano 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ah! You've just proved intelligent design is hokum. Liberalism is moving UP on the evolutionary tree. Neo-cons are an offshoot (homo republicantus) and will soon go the way of all weak and diseased species: extinction!
2007-02-20 13:52:41 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And you disappear in a puff of your own flawed logic.
Yes we exist, thus proving intelligent design is bogus.
As for liberals being stupid - why are all the most successful cities and states in this country filled with liberals? California, New York, Boston, most major successful metropolitan areas. When you figure it out, you will have made great progress!
2007-02-20 13:38:14 · answer #4 · answered by Rob O'C 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Intelligent design- no, they are scientific and think that the universe came ex nihilo . They also believe the world is on the back of a turtle.
2007-02-20 14:20:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is not any "evidence", and "clever layout" isn't an fairly "theory." a medical theory is an exceptionally specific concern and it needs to fulfill specific standards: it should be logical (following the regulations of medical good judgment), it should be testable, and it should be in a position to predicting destiny phenomena of its style. the theory of gravity is a medical theory, creationism isn't. it fairly is to no longer say that creationism is inaccurate. in simple terms that it is not medical. technological know-how demands an empirical technique--demands evidence and a technique that interacts with the evidence. creationism, on the different hand, demands in simple terms faith. subsequently, creationism is a fabricated from religion, no longer technological know-how. those are 2 branches of human information: the single in line with empiricism (issues which could be experienced at as quickly as with the senses and the flaws that follow logically from that have), and the different in line with faith (issues which will no longer be able to be sensed with the actual senses and can't be shown). neither one, technological know-how or faith, is extra effectual than the different. they are for various purposes, in simple terms as a toothbrush and a frying pan are for various purposes. the confusion comes through fact fundamentalist christians do no longer desire their followers to have faith in evolution. they discover (by some potential) that evolution threatens human beings's faith. it fairly is bullshit, on the grounds that a lot of scientists are christians, yet fundamentalists are not properly-enjoyed for his or her openmindedness. their answer to this "concern" is to create a pretend medical theory, one that doesn't incredibly fulfill the standards of technological know-how, to compete with evolution. they might get away with this through fact our academic equipment in united statesa. has gotten so undesirable in the previous decade or 2, that maximum person individuals do no longer in all hazard comprehend what the standards of technological know-how are, and so could be fooled into thinking that "clever layout" is fairly technological know-how. it fairly is not technological know-how, it fairly is faith.
2016-10-16 03:33:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the latest judicial decisions, "Intelligent Design" is just another way of attempting to teach "Creationism". Not only is it invalid, but it's not legal to teach this in a science class.
2007-02-20 13:35:49 · answer #7 · answered by Sailinlove 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1) God has a sense of humor. How else do you explain the duck-billed platypus?
2) As it is written (Job) we were not their when God created the world therefore we can not know all of God's purposes.
2007-02-20 13:37:24 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because people like bush exist without him we would be 100 years ahead of the world
2007-02-20 13:50:04 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The God given freedom of human choice. To make smart choices or be a d*** doofus..........
2007-02-20 13:53:30 · answer #10 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋