Palin gets it right on evolution! (good for her)

[akdiver 3]

Im tired of the bashing and name calling.

And what? You think that's going to stop with the election?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA. My silly friend (:

[Pooky 3,929]

The irony is, since you obviously missed it, is she is a person of "principles", and so are the Republican party, so I doubt those principles are based upon science, since morals aren't scientific. Fossils and carbon dating, on the other hand, is. You and Palin seem an awful lot alike.

Despite the numerous grammatical mistakes in the above statement, I think I understand where you are coming from. Morals may lack a scientific basis but there's nothing inherently moral about science either. Science is amoral.

fossils are facts, they're REAL, unlike the bible.

Bibles are as real as your fossilized skull. You can argue about the content but the book itself is real.

Science is not on a moral scale. Amorality implies a lack of morals. Many words that begin with the letter 'a' mean that they are the opposite of the rest of the word. Like, the agnosia you frequently display in these threads. {anosognosia, integrative agnosia, etc}

Amoral is the correct term to apply to science. But it would be better put that morals have no relevance to science.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

a·mor·al /eɪˈmɔrəl, æˈmɔr-, eɪˈmɒr-, æˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

I suspect that you wer confusing immoral with amoral, similar linguistic mechanics with the prefix, but ending with completely different meanings.

[jom 4]

Im tired of the bashing and name calling.

And what? You think that's going to stop with the election?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA. My silly friend (:

No it wont but at least it wont be as bad. This election is making me very silly

[akdiver 3]

No it wont but at least it wont be as bad. This election is making me very silly

If Palin gets elected, the Democrats (and the media) will be bitching about it for the next four years, at least. However, it would definitely result in a ratings boost for SNL (:

[IAMX 3,055]

No it wont but at least it wont be as bad. This election is making me very silly

If Palin gets elected, the Democrats (and the media) will be bitching about it for the next four years, at least. However, it would definitely result in a ratings boost for SNL (:

I dunno I can see easy ways to lampoon Obama too.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I better stay out of this one. I can see a banning coming on.

[Ban Hammer 14,585]

No it wont but at least it wont be as bad. This election is making me very silly

If Palin gets elected, the Democrats (and the media) will be bitching about it for the next four years, at least. However, it would definitely result in a ratings boost for SNL (:

i think they'll be doing that even if obama wins. there's no making them happy.

[IAMX 3,055]

No it wont but at least it wont be as bad. This election is making me very silly

If Palin gets elected, the Democrats (and the media) will be bitching about it for the next four years, at least. However, it would definitely result in a ratings boost for SNL (:

i think they'll be doing that even if obama wins. there's no making them happy.

I guess I'll end up being the only happy person with my vote.

Of course, still won't be happy with either choice. Difference is, I won't be pissed off at my own choice. This, sadly, has been how I felt the last two Presidential elections.

Edited October 2, 2008 by SRVT

[HAL 9000 96]

i think there's a good chance that she will manage to spout out her rote-learned lines and hobble through the debate without some major mess up. If she does, she will be hailed as victor. Because lets face it, even if she doesn't answer questions, blusters her way through, the die hard Palin supporters don't seem to notice, or find all kinds of excuses for her. The truth is in some people's eyes, she can do no wrong.

Just like the die hard Obama's supporters. Bottomline is, when you believe in a candidate you dont see their mistakes. Thats the painful truth . November will come soon and lets all go vote for our respective candidates and move on.

I wonder, though, what major gaffes Obama has made during TV interviews showing that he is a complete moron when it comes to the economy and foreign policy.

The irony is, since you obviously missed it, is she is a person of "principles", and so are the Republican party, so I doubt those principles are based upon science, since morals aren't scientific. Fossils and carbon dating, on the other hand, is. You and Palin seem an awful lot alike.

Despite the numerous grammatical mistakes in the above statement, I think I understand where you are coming from. Morals may lack a scientific basis but there's nothing inherently moral about science either. Science is amoral.

fossils are facts, they're REAL, unlike the bible.

Bibles are as real as your fossilized skull. You can argue about the content but the book itself is real.

Science is not on a moral scale. Amorality implies a lack of morals. Many words that begin with the letter 'a' mean that they are the opposite of the rest of the word. Like, the agnosia you frequently display in these threads. {anosognosia, integrative agnosia, etc}

Amoral is the correct term to apply to science. But it would be better put that morals have no relevance to science.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

a·mor·al /eɪˈmɔrəl, æˈmɔr-, eɪˈmɒr-, æˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

I suspect that you wer confusing immoral with amoral, similar linguistic mechanics with the prefix, but ending with completely different meanings.

I am a scientist.

No it wont but at least it wont be as bad. This election is making me very silly

If Palin gets elected, the Democrats (and the media) will be bitching about it for the next four years, at least. However, it would definitely result in a ratings boost for SNL (:

i think they'll be doing that even if obama wins. there's no making them happy.

they gotta eat.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Science is amoral? Philosophically perhaps... but it is governed by codes of ethics..

[HAL 9000 96]

Science is amoral? Philosophically perhaps... but it is governed by codes of ethics..

Credit to the context though. Amorality can be understood as being separate of morality.

Some can argue that ethics lies quite parallel to morality in a way.

Edited October 2, 2008 by maviwaro

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well if there wasn't any ethics we'd likely have no qualms about human cloning - for pleasure and profit.