ZRX1200

did you see o"donnell debate the first amendment today. she did not know it was the separation of church and state.

how can you even consider her literate.

RICKAMAVEN wrote:

Yeah. And then I listened to Mark Levin on XM Patriot try to say she was the correct one while everyone else in that room were idiots who knew nothing. His argument was that because the separation of church and state is the official interpretation of that amendment and was a supreme court ruling that it means nothing because the supreme court has been wrong in the past. Really? Then why does he listen to ANY decision by the supreme court?

That guy is so far up her ass I'm surprised he can still breath.

tweoijfoi wrote:

Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."

fishinguitarman wrote:

The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."

fishinguitarman wrote:

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."

fishinguitarman wrote:

Indeed it was if you want to call it what we had 1,000 years ago a "scientific community." Indeed the that that time current ideas about nature and science were put into the bible. Science then moved on once new and better theories surfaced. It took hundreds of years for the religious leaders to accept these changes as legitimate and not heresy--many scientists were branded as such and excommunicated or outright killed.

tweoijfoi wrote:

1. Do you believe in DNA?
2. Do you believe in gene inheritance?
3. Do you believe that mutations in living things do occur?
4. Do you believe that certain mutations provide benefits?
5. Do you believe that these benefits would change how likely that living thing is to survive?
6. Do you believe that this increased likelihood of survival makes some creatures more likely to reproduce?
7. Do you believe some of the offspring would inherit these benefits?

tweoijfoi wrote:

ZRX1200

did you see o"donnell debate the first amendment today. she did not know it was the separation of church and state.

how can you even consider her literate.

RICKAMAVEN wrote:

This is probably some of the stupidest questions I've seen.

jpotts wrote:

First, the whole point and purpose of the double-helix construction of DNA is to prevent mutation the first place. This is the reason why millions of cells divide daily in our bodies without the vast majority of them going tumorous. It is also the reason why many viral strains, whose makeup consists of single-ended RNA strands, tend to mutate frequently. It is the reason why after years of vaccination science, they cannot eliminate things like influenza and the common cold.

jpotts wrote:

Second, the vast majority of mutations that occur are generally fatal.
Third, just because a mutation occurs in a host doesn't mean that it is passed on to subsequent generations.

jpotts wrote:

Finally, many cross-bred, and "mutated" species tend to be sterile. Furthermore, those creatures who survive their mutations tend to not be selected as compatible mates, and often do not pass on their genetic material to the next generation.

jpotts wrote:

This "challenge" is being laid down by someone who obviously knows very little about basic biology.

jpotts wrote:

This is probably some of the stupidest questions I've seen.

First, the whole point and purpose of the double-helix construction of DNA is to prevent mutation the first place. This is the reason why millions of cells divide daily in our bodies without the vast majority of them going tumorous. It is also the reason why many viral strains, whose makeup consists of single-ended RNA strands, tend to mutate frequently. It is the reason why after years of vaccination science, they cannot eliminate things like influenza and the common cold.

Second, the vast majority of mutations that occur are generally fatal.

Third, just because a mutation occurs in a host doesn't mean that it is passed on to subsequent generations.

Finally, many cross-bred, and "mutated" species tend to be sterile. Furthermore, those creatures who survive their mutations tend to not be selected as compatible mates, and often do not pass on their genetic material to the next generation.

This "challenge" is being laid down by someone who obviously knows very little about basic biology.

jpotts wrote:

That is pretty much what I said, yet I get accused of having the brain of a 10 year old.

gringococolo wrote:

That is pretty much what I said, yet I get accused of having the brain of a 10 year old.

gringococolo wrote:

You would think you at least deserved teenage status....:-k

fishinguitarman wrote:

I thought you were calling me gay homo. Even if you weren't it was a complete tangent. We're talking about evolution here, not the reason behind the existence of gay people.

tweoijfoi wrote:

I did call you a gay-homo, but here at CBid it's like a term of endearment, more like a salutation.

gringococolo wrote: