That's about how much I got through too. Couldn't take any more.
Aside @ Thobe: I agree with you completely. It's pretty hypocritical to preach smaller government but then want to police a lot of people's personal freedoms. I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but since I like my civil liberties better than I like my money, I tend to vote left. (Also because, after the spending increase we saw during the Bush years, I feel like the political right are talking the talk more than walking it.) [/tangent]
I ticket split quite often. If there's a fairly moderate fiscal conservative who is extremely conservative on social issues, I'll almost always vote left. If there is a democrat who is moderate on social issues but strongly liberal on the economy, I'll vote right, unless the opposing candidate reminds me of Sarah Palin. I especially dislike the enormous defense spending brought on by policing the world. What makes anyone think we have the right to do so? If anything, it just brings more people to hate the United states.
In any case, I love how people on any forum, no matter what, always derive the same shortened name for me. It's always "Thobe," never "Thob" or "Tho." I have no problem with this. It just interests me.
But, pertaining to the topic at hand, this woman is willfully ignorant, rejecting all of the evidence before looking at it, lacking understanding of how the processes responsible for evolution work, and making irrelevant strawmen about the philosophical implications of Darwinism rather than actually addressing the scientific points that Dawkins brings up. He mentions
H. habilis,
H. erectus, A. afarensis, and even early
H. sapiens (Not
H. sapiens sapiens, or modern human). However, when he asks her if she has seen them, she never, not even once responds directly. She always says either "I have looked at the evidence and do not see proof of Macroevolution from species to species (as if repeating a mantra over and over will make the [baby tone]evil atheists go away[/baby tone]) or that "we need to look at the philosophical implications of darwinism!"
The debate just went in circles. The Hominid transition fossils were brought up three or four times, and each time she changed the subject, and brough up philosophy. It was like this (in java):
public class WendyWright extends Creationist implements TeaPartyAgenda
{
public EvoDebate dawkinsDebate;
publicWendyWright(EvoDebate d, EvilAtheist a)
{
dawkinsDebate=d;
dawkinsDebate.setEvilAtheist(a);
}
public void refuteDawkins() //method called to refute dawkins
{
while(dawkinsDebate.isInProgress())
{
if(dawkinsDebate.currentArgument.instanceOf(transitionFossils)
{
int rand=(int)(Math.random()*4);
if(rand>2)
System.out.println("Let's look at the unfortunate philosophies encouraged by Darwinism");
else if(rand>1)
System.out.println("But doesn't all of the science show that we are all individual creations of god, each distinct from the rest?")
else if(rand>0)
System.out.println("But we have to teach the controversy, the falsehoods, and the evidence against evolution in schools")
else
System.out.println("I've examined the evidence and found nothing to support Macroevolution.")
}
}
}
/*Additional methods and code not shown*/
God i hope someone found that funny.
And....the forum is not very nice to my formatting, making my poorly written java much harder to read.