Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

[Ernie S.]

who gives a shit about creation or evolution. You all believe in evolution because you claimed, Obama EVOLVED on his lies when he said marriage is between a man a women then lied again to say he's for homosexual marriage

give us a break. the people aren't as stupid as Gruber believes you people are. well he might be right about the Democrat base.

It's about science and presidents and government have decisions to make involving science.

What decision would a President Walker have to make that would in any way involve evolution? Have you list your mind?

It isn't about evolution, it's about science. Government is often involved in legislation involving science. An example is a-bomb; the list of scientific decisions is long and will get longer.

Again you people voted Obama a Christian church going God praying man President and Pelosi a Catholic Speaker of the House and you didn't seem to have any problem with them so why all the hub bub over Gov. Walker hmmm?

Because they aren't batshit religious crazy.

Batshit crazy is relative. Is Jeremiah Wright batshit crazy? Did obama sit in his church on Sundays for 20 years?
Religious views don't make one crazy, Cheif. One need only look at you for proof of that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

who gives a shit about creation or evolution. You all believe in evolution because you claimed, Obama EVOLVED on his lies when he said marriage is between a man a women then lied again to say he's for homosexual marriage

give us a break. the people aren't as stupid as Gruber believes you people are. well he might be right about the Democrat base.

It's about science and presidents and government have decisions to make involving science.

What decision would a President Walker have to make that would in any way involve evolution? Have you list your mind?

It isn't about evolution, it's about science. Government is often involved in legislation involving science. An example is a-bomb; the list of scientific decisions is long and will get longer.

FDR was Episcopalian. He decided to build it. How did his religion effect his decision.

It didn't at all... they're just ranting. They know Walker has support and frankly, is a pretty sensible, conservative guy. He has a shot.. so.. it's smear time!

 

[Nosmo King]

You use specious logic the way civilized people use toilet tissue: every day and without regard to the final disposition. Broccoli? Are we concerned that broccoli cultivation will be taught in lieu of science?

Are you concerned Walker will somehow order schools to teach Creationism instead of science? You dont even know what Walker's views on evolution are.

Why hasn't Walker clearly outlined his views? Does he want to pander to the knuckle draggers and call for support of Creationism as science? Will he advocate funding to teach mythology rather than science?

What is Walker afraid of? Why not tell us what he thinks?

Or is that too embarrassing to mention in London?

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

 

[hadit]

Are you concerned Walker will somehow order schools to teach Creationism instead of science? You dont even know what Walker's views on evolution are.

Why hasn't Walker clearly outlined his views? Does he want to pander to the knuckle draggers and call for support of Creationism as science? Will he advocate funding to teach mythology rather than science?

What is Walker afraid of? Why not tell us what he thinks?

Or is that too embarrassing to mention in London?

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

 

[Ernie S.]

Would NaziCons want an Atheist president to pick future Supreme Court justices? Well, that works both ways.

Seeing it's a given that an atheist President would be a Liberal puke like you, no. Conservatives would not want him picking future Supreme Court Justices.

Would you want a Conservative Southern Baptist picking them?

The difference here is, Conservatives have moral values derived in part by their religion, but shouldn't and for the most part, don't legislate based on religious conviction.
I really don't care if a candidate believes in a Higher Power or not. I may pity him, but I would expect, if elected, he would legislate guided by the Constitution and whatever moral compass he might possess.

What irks me most about you and people like JoeB and the others I call "militant atheists", is your contempt for religion and people who believe in God. It's as if you're having difficulty justifying your denial of God and are talking to yourself as reassurance.

They are as evangelistic as any theist.

More, in most cases. And a whole lot more obnoxious. They preach hate instead of love.

 

[hadit]

Would NaziCons want an Atheist president to pick future Supreme Court justices? Well, that works both ways.

Seeing it's a given that an atheist President would be a Liberal puke like you, no. Conservatives would not want him picking future Supreme Court Justices.

Would you want a Conservative Southern Baptist picking them?

The difference here is, Conservatives have moral values derived in part by their religion, but shouldn't and for the most part, don't legislate based on religious conviction.
I really don't care if a candidate believes in a Higher Power or not. I may pity him, but I would expect, if elected, he would legislate guided by the Constitution and whatever moral compass he might possess.

What irks me most about you and people like JoeB and the others I call "militant atheists", is your contempt for religion and people who believe in God. It's as if you're having difficulty justifying your denial of God and are talking to yourself as reassurance.

They are as evangelistic as any theist.

More, in most cases. And a whole lot more obnoxious. They preach hate instead of love.

I will point out, however, that many "Evangelical Christians" do not preach from a position of humility, gentleness, and love. It's tough really being a Christian.

 

[Ernie S.]

Are you concerned Walker will somehow order schools to teach Creationism instead of science? You dont even know what Walker's views on evolution are.

Why hasn't Walker clearly outlined his views? Does he want to pander to the knuckle draggers and call for support of Creationism as science? Will he advocate funding to teach mythology rather than science?

What is Walker afraid of? Why not tell us what he thinks?

Or is that too embarrassing to mention in London?

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

OK Nosmo... Do your religious views affect how you vote on issues?

 

[Ernie S.]

Would NaziCons want an Atheist president to pick future Supreme Court justices? Well, that works both ways.

Seeing it's a given that an atheist President would be a Liberal puke like you, no. Conservatives would not want him picking future Supreme Court Justices.

Would you want a Conservative Southern Baptist picking them?

The difference here is, Conservatives have moral values derived in part by their religion, but shouldn't and for the most part, don't legislate based on religious conviction.
I really don't care if a candidate believes in a Higher Power or not. I may pity him, but I would expect, if elected, he would legislate guided by the Constitution and whatever moral compass he might possess.

What irks me most about you and people like JoeB and the others I call "militant atheists", is your contempt for religion and people who believe in God. It's as if you're having difficulty justifying your denial of God and are talking to yourself as reassurance.

They are as evangelistic as any theist.

More, in most cases. And a whole lot more obnoxious. They preach hate instead of love.

I will point out, however, that many "Evangelical Christians" do not preach from a position of humility, gentleness, and love. It's tough really being a Christian.

Many don't, most do. Humility, gentleness and love are not traits militant atheists possess.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why hasn't Walker clearly outlined his views? Does he want to pander to the knuckle draggers and call for support of Creationism as science? Will he advocate funding to teach mythology rather than science?

What is Walker afraid of? Why not tell us what he thinks?

Or is that too embarrassing to mention in London?

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

 

[Kosh]

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

Far left propaganda not based on reality!

The far left does not believe n evolution, so what difference does it make?

You would never vote for Walker anyway because it would violate your programming..

It seems this question is only relevant to those that would not vote for Walker, which is the far left drones.

Yet they accept Obama's religious teachings..

 

[hadit]

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

I am aware of no one who wants to take science out of schools. That's an irrational fear. I would not be opposed, moreover, to science curricula that offered not only the CURRENT understanding of evolutionary theory (schools are at times teaching ideas that have been discredited since they were published), but also criticism of the theory, pointing out where it fails to account for reality, and not treating it like religious dogma, never to be questioned.

 

[hadit]

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

Far left propaganda not based on reality!

The far left does not believe n evolution, so what difference does it make?

You would never vote for Walker anyway because it would violate your programming..

It seems this question is only relevant to those that would not vote for Walker, which is the far left drones.

Yet they accept Obama's religious teachings..

The point is that no single person has all the "correct" ideas, yet they manage to do a pretty decent job of tying their shoes every morning, navigating their commute to work, and in general, living their lives. Obama has many noxious, discredited, out of day, unworkable, nonsense ideas that cause him to champion and sign legislation that brings grief to millions. Yet his supporters are worried about a guy who doesn't emphatically proclaim his unwavering belief in evolution.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

I would support it being offered together with evolution.
Given my druthers, I'd go with intelligent design.

 

[regent]

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

The Flat Earth Society is taking note of all this.

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

I am aware of no one who wants to take science out of schools. That's an irrational fear. I would not be opposed, moreover, to science curricula that offered not only the CURRENT understanding of evolutionary theory (schools are at times teaching ideas that have been discredited since they were published), but also criticism of the theory, pointing out where it fails to account for reality, and not treating it like religious dogma, never to be questioned.

 

[hadit]

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

I would support it being offered together with evolution.
Given my druthers, I'd go with intelligent design.

Science itself is not, I believe, the problem. The problem, to me, is the dogmatic fervor with which people attach themselves to a theory, to the point that to even question a single facet of evolution is to risk cries of "heresy".

 

[Nosmo King]

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

Far left propaganda not based on reality!

The far left does not believe n evolution, so what difference does it make?

You would never vote for Walker anyway because it would violate your programming..

It seems this question is only relevant to those that would not vote for Walker, which is the far left drones.

Yet they accept Obama's religious teachings..

So you would think that someone who champions Creatio0nism as science would make a grand President? Backward thinking must be right in your wheelhouse to accept Creationism as acceptable science curricula.

 

[Nosmo King]

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

I would support it being offered together with evolution.
Given my druthers, I'd go with intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is Creationism.

 

[Kosh]

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

Far left propaganda not based on reality!

The far left does not believe n evolution, so what difference does it make?

You would never vote for Walker anyway because it would violate your programming..

It seems this question is only relevant to those that would not vote for Walker, which is the far left drones.

Yet they accept Obama's religious teachings..

So you would think that someone who champions Creatio0nism as science would make a grand President? Backward thinking must be right in your wheelhouse to accept Creationism as acceptable science curricula.

Show the laws that Walker has implemented to replace evolution with creationism..

Come post them otherwise this just the far left trying to cover the fact that Obama is a failure..

 

[Kosh]

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

I would support it being offered together with evolution.
Given my druthers, I'd go with intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is Creationism.

And Intelligence does not exist in the far left and all the far left drone posts on this thread proves that!

 

[regent]

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

I would support it being offered together with evolution.
Given my druthers, I'd go with intelligent design.

Science itself is not, I believe, the problem. The problem, to me, is the dogmatic fervor with which people attach themselves to a theory, to the point that to even question a single facet of evolution is to risk cries of "heresy".

A scientific theory is different than what most call a theory. And scientists question evolution all the time, and constantly look for more evidence to fill in the blanks. But as to the scientific theory, perhaps we should ask, is the atomic theory now valid or is it still a theory?