Over 58969

Creation Politics

"Intelligent" Design -

GUESS WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA? - ^^^^This isn't job creation!!!

STaying home -


TAGS: obama job creation
Rating: 3.88/5

More politifakes by Ducktaped

GrouchoMarxist - September 6, 2012, 9:02 pm
He loses 300K plus jobs a week.

Church -

TAGS: church religion creationism conservative republican
Rating: 2.71/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

Renza - April 25, 2013, 6:04 pm
We could only be so lucky...
Curlyrocks - April 25, 2013, 4:12 pm
Now if only government could operate free of intrusion from them.

Bobby Jindal -

TAGS: jindal conservative republican creationism evolution
Rating: 2.4/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

ipaprime - April 27, 2013, 8:58 am
titian probably, Neptune no
PapaFox - April 25, 2013, 9:27 am
Sorry, but you insist on dodging the fact that ID/Creationism is based on religion. You really should read up on Kitzmiller v Dover.
Renza - April 25, 2013, 9:19 am
Easy solution, as I've asked, if ID as you are referring to it is in fact not from, or based upon religious beliefs, what is the basis for it? And if your answer is science, by what process has this particular variation been derived?
falconfan00 - April 25, 2013, 9:13 am
I never used it that way. YOu seem to be the one insistent on injecting religion here.
PapaFox - April 25, 2013, 9:11 am
Actually Intelligent Design is a religious-right buzzword that tries to mask religious belief behind a sciency-sounding term. Again, refer to Kitzmiller v Dover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
falconfan00 - April 25, 2013, 9:10 am
I understand you cannot review the data presented without bias. I say ID, you inject religion. It does not matter how the data is presented. You've made that clear. I cannot circumvent the prejudice of a closed mind. We agree to disagree.
Renza - April 25, 2013, 8:44 am
It's not that you hit some kind of buzzword, it's that you seem to be trying to confuse religion with science.
Renza - April 25, 2013, 8:37 am
Saying you didn't bring up a religious subject by bringing up ID, is like saying you didn't bring up religious subject by mentioning the bible, god, Mohammed, the church, priests, etc. What other basis is there for ID, as science is not one?
falconfan00 - April 25, 2013, 8:30 am
oh ok. I hit on a liberal buzzword apparently. If you guys could send me a list of all the words i can't use that's be great. The fact that i never once used religion in the argument is irrelevant, it's just there because you say it is. /SMH
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:20 pm
ID/creationism has always come from religions. Given that the idea is working off the opposite of the scientific theory, people took the end result and are choosing info to suit it. I'm aware of only one exception to this, and its pretty recent at that
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:15 pm
And since when has intelligent design ever not been based off a religious belief? Given the origination of creation based on this requires an intelligence with preexisting knowledge of how everything is supposed to work, you aren't left with many options
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 7:31 pm
You used "religious inflection," as you put it, the second you mentioned Intelligent Design. ID *is* Creationism, despite all the attempts hide it, such as in the Dover Area School District case. Their attempts to deny it were pretty feeble.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 7:14 pm
I'm not using religious inflection at all, am I? Creationism is specific to the religion, ID is not. It's the theory that 'some' design is in play, the origin unknown. Gods, aliens, Volgons...whatever. You know,So long, and thanks for all the fish.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 7:06 pm
It's hard NOT to place religious inflections in there when ID is simply re-hashed creationism, and has no scientific merit at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 7:05 pm
And at what point did i ever mention religion of any kind? Maybe you could point it out to me. Otherwise don't waste my time with this brand of petty circular redirection.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 5:04 pm
My bad, I thought you were suggest it to be more of a scientific theory rather than the religious belief aspect of it.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 5:02 pm
Though if you want to go on just the ideology of life being rare based on requiring specific environments etc, they basically already teach that, hence most people knowing the reference of the "goldilocks zone"
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 5:00 pm
Geez Renza scroll up and read for yourself. THat's my argument for it, and I believe it's valid. Maybe not enough for you, but then again it was posted there for the 'rational' audience.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 5:00 pm
The biggest thing that would hold that back is that unless you could get it acknowledged as a scientific theory rather than some misc fiction, you would need to teach basically every single origin belief out there, at least for christian version of ID.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:58 pm
I can see it being included in an optional religious course, what argument could you present for it to be a scientific theory (requiring factual evidence to support it) rather than any other random hypothesis?
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:55 pm
Oh i think it's all fascinating stuff, i really do. I just think ignoring it, especially in the places where we are supposed to sponsor and encourage ideas, isn't all that healthy. Let there be talk, debate. We shouldn't shut down the process.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:54 pm
well... someone's probably gotten a reasonable idea on the time frames of things. But still, for all we know dinosaurs could have already had raptor jesus before they got wiped out... it was really his second coming that ended them, hence the "rapture"
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:53 pm
Fair enough. But what i'm asking for here, remember, is for ID to not be ignored by schools completely. Nothing more. It only has religious inflections if they are placed there. From a pure scientific view, it becomes a conversation worthy theory.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:52 pm
I think it's entirely possible for there to be basically countless advanced life forms out there. Who's to say whether when our planet developed in relation to other worlds, or how many extinction level events have occurred here compared to others.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:48 pm
For example, water bears (Tardigrade) can survive in ridiculous environments, including extended periods of time in outer space. The reason this world is perfect for us, as pf noted, is that this is where we began, we've adapted to earth.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 4:48 pm
... given that it took a VERY long time for it to show up here, and took very specific conditions for it to develop.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 4:48 pm
Whatever the odds at abiogenesis, remember that there are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. That's a LOT of iterations. Now, I am much more skeptical about the existence of numerous intelligent, technologically advanced species out there...
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:46 pm
It probably couldn't survive on our planet given the vastly different ecosystem, but it would likely be well adapted to surviving there. They wouldn't need to fit our current biological design or habitat to exist and live...
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:43 pm
For example, there is liquid water on Titan, one of Jupiter's moons. There's liquid water, there's no doubt been electrical occurances there, and odds are there are base material. So somewhere in the past few billion decades, life probably started there
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:41 pm
...From judging this world as it is currently, to judging the likeliness of something happening at all. Going by the likeliness that life will happen given the appropriate circumstances (electricity, water, base material) life will then occur and adapt
Renza - April 24, 2013, 4:39 pm
If you look at the limitless possibilities of existence, yes, it is statistically impossible for us to exist as we are currently, yet we do, we happen to be the one out of infinity that worked out on this world. However, if you change your perspective...
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:32 pm
sorry for repeated post. Stupid lag.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:31 pm
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the right one. It was religiously motivated, and therefore I understand the decision. However, I continue to support ID as noteworthy because of the severe mathematical strains required to arrive at life today.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:31 pm
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the right one. It was religiously motivated, and therefore I understand the decision. However, I continue to support ID as noteworthy because of the severe mathematical strains required to arrive at life today.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:31 pm
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the right one. It was religiously motivated, and therefore I understand the decision. However, I continue to support ID as noteworthy because of the severe mathematical strains required to arrive at life today.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 4:24 pm
As the puddle said, "Look! This hole is perfectly designed to fit me!" Intelligent Design was clearly shown to be religion-based in Kitzmiller v Dover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:14 pm
Limited to 250 characters, it's difficult to lay a complex argument, but I think the point is made that intelligent design goes beyond theology. It's odds-defying math at it's greatest.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:11 pm
All of these things are 'perfect' for us to have life. The random chance of it working out this perfectly is a fantastic. Yet it has. Thus, I argue, deserving of honorable mention in the classroom.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:10 pm
before we even launch ourselves into the abilities to attempt to replicate life, you have to acknowledge that the planet, solar system, galaxy, etc. all have to be in order for the chance of life to exists.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:08 pm
A galactic habitable zone, circumstellar habitable zone, the right oxygen/nitrogen atmospheric mix, a proper sun, a(near) circular orbit, proper planet mass, a moon for stabalization, a terrestrial planet, a carbon base, etc. etc. etc.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 4:05 pm
Wow. Throw a lot at a brother why don't you? Aight, lemme see. Let's do your belief that requirements for life are not all that complicated. From a simple astrological sense, i'll list some prerequisites....
Renza - April 24, 2013, 12:03 pm
There is one potential viable argument I've heard for what's basically creationism, I'll let the fundies search desperately rather than openly mentioning it again.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 12:01 pm
next, relative statements are relevant to the scope of the statement. I say it's probably extremely common on a galactic scale. As for the legitimacy of intelligent design, what's your scientific basis? I've heard of one, but its related to religion.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 11:56 am
Creationism is based on a particular religious belief, and thus has no scientific basis. It has no more place in a classroom than discussion of other pseudosciences like crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle or astrology.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:56 am
Also, the experiments I'm referring to are not the creation of complex organisms, but simple amino acids or single celled organisms. Science can, and has created living things.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:52 am
Not to mention, there have been high end organism successes as well, such as cloning. Simply put, if you want people to consider your opinion/beliefs, you should consider doing the same rather than blindly rejecting them.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:49 am
From there, your opinion of what life is, is not the basis for the definition. Small scale organism and organic matter have been created, which if you don't blindly disregard evolution, is easily argued as a base for what we are today.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 11:45 am
I have, you should consider doing the same. I also suggest reading entire sentences rather than just a couple of the words. fairly high is a relative term, and life doesn't need to be 'perfect', look at pandas, they're lazying themselves into extinction
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 11:00 am
And your a**umptions about the mathematical odds of life existing being 'fairly high' are outright comical. The requirements for life as we know it are astronomically complex. They must be, in a word, perfect. Go and read, young padawan.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:50 am
Wow, are you wrong. Science cannot create life. The experiments you refer to are the combining of organic materials to create a more complex representation, not life itself. Try doing it from scratch. And you worry about me mudding up science class?
Renza - April 24, 2013, 10:37 am
Seems overall to be that all you need to create life is basically some base materials and energy. So far I believe we've only had conclusive results with various materials combined with water and electricity specifically, still pretty interesting.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 10:34 am
On top of that there have been quite a few successful experiments to create life, some using extremely basic things, like crystals with prolonged exposure to electricity, or amino acids with sand water and electricity. its apparently pretty easy to start
Renza - April 24, 2013, 10:26 am
I think the odds on life existing are guessed to be fairly high, we've already seen *possible* fossils on mars, and there's liquid water on both titan an I believe neptune...
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:21 am
I also agree that presentation is everything in this case. All i'm saying is that it has its place, from a mathematical stanpoint, to draw mention as an existing alternative theory.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:18 am
That said, i'd like to see it garner mention in the classroom, if only to bring up these fantastic odds of life that have somehow prevailed in this universe. I'd hate to see this kind of thing repressed. It's not something to fear, i wouldn't think.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 10:13 am
I wouldn't say 'no scientific basis', but I agree inconclusive and wide open to scrutiny. The arugument is based on mathematical complexities which prove that the odds of a living universe is, for all practical purposes, infintesitmally minute (small).
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:56 am
if they did offer courses to explain misc religions on an educational level though, it would need to either be fairly comprehensive, or offer a large variety.
Renza - April 24, 2013, 9:52 am
The only reason I could see is scientific theory vs religious belief, so it would need to be taught in a religious class. However I see no reason why we couldn't incorporate *optional* courses on religions or religious belief on an educational level.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 9:51 am
OTOH, if one wants to include it in a class on comparative religions, that would probably be acceptable (?) as long as no single religion was stressed over the others.
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 9:51 am
(Besides the fact that it's ridiculous to teach pseudoscience in a science class.)
PapaFox - April 24, 2013, 9:51 am
Which sounds perfectly reasonable, except that Intelligent Design 1) has no scientific basis, and 2) is just Creationism with a different label. Thus, as a religious belief, it has no place in public schools.
falconfan00 - April 24, 2013, 9:39 am
Not exactly sure why you'd 'slap him in the face' with the Constitution... If schools are to be a marketplace of ideas, i wouldn't see why 'Intelligent Design' couldn't be included as one of those ideas.
Cannabal - April 16, 2013, 9:18 pm
Better throw in a copy of "The Origin of Species" for good measure.
PapaFox - April 16, 2013, 8:44 pm
Someone needs to mail him a copy of the US Constitution. Or slap him across the face with it a few times.

CREATIONISM KILLING EDUCATION - Perhaps they might instead use a book written by Joseph Priestley OVER 200 YEARS AGO entitled "The History and Present State of Electricity" ... or just ask the neighborhood electrician.

How do you get an American conservative extremist to become a smarter person? -

TAGS: creationists birthers tea party idiots funny
Rating: 1/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

EmmaRoydes - August 6, 2014, 4:24 pm
fauxnews - August 6, 2014, 4:20 pm
lol...Funny one..Touche.
EmmaRoydes - August 6, 2014, 3:22 pm
Must be because Conservatives have genius IQs as opposed to room temperature IQs for liberals.

gun violence -

people paid to protest at his rallies -

A Republican't pretend Science is what they want it to be -


TAGS: spock science republican creationism inhofe
Rating: 2.33/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - March 15, 2015, 1:08 pm
The irony is that you yourself are using the argument from ignorance to say God doesn't exist andy our own argument even points out your own error. And don;t forget that strawman you're beating as it wasn't stated that God exists.
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 10:01 am
...when believing in God makes about as much sense as believing in the Easter bunny. Tell you what, Ipa, the better question is: Can you prove through scientific a***ysis and fact that God exists? When you do, I'm sure a Nobel prize awaits you. ;-) Cheers
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 9:56 am
...The burden, mate, is on you (not them) to provide evidence for God's existence and so far there has been insufficient evidence. The word "hoax" is used when people still make $$$ off of other's stubbornness to believe in it anyways...
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 9:49 am
...This represents a type of false dich**omy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false....
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 9:49 am
...the fallacy here is an "appeal to ignorance" (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It a**erts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)...
fauxnews - March 15, 2015, 9:48 am
*yawn* Science is pretty sure Santa doesn't exist either. Also a hoax - albeit a very cute and harmless one. However, they are not required to 'disprove it' anymore than they have to disprove there is a man living in the center of the moon....
ipaprime - March 15, 2015, 9:11 am
Can you prove through scientific a***ysis and fact that God is a hoax?

Evolution -

TAGS: republicans kkk gop creationism racism
Rating: 2.14/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

Cyberhagen - March 21, 2015, 2:32 pm
I should say, ".. "want" blacks under their control.." Just look at Detroit.
Cyberhagen - March 21, 2015, 2:31 pm
This is just BS. The Demorats keep blacks under control by promoting the victim mindset and pushing their dependence on government and a**istance. LB Johnson voted down the first civil rights act sponsored by the GOP for political reasons.
Bandit5906 - March 16, 2015, 11:29 pm
The democraps founded the KKK.


Bobby Jindal -