Democratic and Liberal political analysis and commentary

Could you please state the precise etiology of existence and recite or specify the evidence, either empirical or deductive, that supports your definitive statement of the beginning of existence?

Ohmigosh, I am just so in awe that Ted Sporer, a.k.a. the "Real Sporer" came to my blog and made a comment that I am just too star struck to answer right now. LOL :)

I guess we now have proof that the author of this blog is not intellectually curious and just plain doesn't have the answer to the question - typical tactic.

So - who came before the monkeys? From which creature did the monkeys descend? Where's the missing link for the monkeys to their predecessor? Is that predecessor a rock?

Darwin never answered that, did he douchebag? You have to have a far bigger leap of faith to believe YOUR version of intelligent design than do those that believe that something far more intelligent than ROCKS created humanity as an accident.

Where is your science? What is the science to which you cling so bitterly?

This is what we mean about the religion of liberalism. liberals believe with religious ferver that we descended from rocks.

It's a cult that exists in the dark ages without science.

Hello all...

I believe in the scientific explanation for our existence, for which there is far more evidence than any religious explanation. A shortened version is...a big bang, a primordial soup, amoebas, amphibians, fish, plants, lower life forms, pre-humans, humans. The biblical version is far to unbelievable and intelligent design is a big "what if" fantasy. There is no place for the bible in our schools, except a class on comparative religions.

As far behind as the U.S. is in math and science, we have no business using precious classroom time to teach religious fantasies.

I am happy that you are flattered that I droppeed a comment. Sadly, my schedule does not permit me to engage every issue in debate but this is one that I find somewhat interesting. Hence my desire to engage in a non-superficial discussion of your commentary.

My question remains unanswered, what is the "scientific explanation" for the beginning of existence.

I am quite aware of the essentially infinite regression of questions that this issue provokes. It can simply be reduced, however to my question-explain the beginning of existence. You have not. Don't feel too intellectually feeble because far greater thinkers and scientists than we two have left the same question unanswered.

Your commentary regarding intelligent design bespeaks a lack of education in the area. Please read up and we'll talk again soon

In the interim, here's another question. Why is existence arising from the designed product of an omniscient intell1gence inconsistent with standard biological principles of evolutionary?

the author has no scientific fact upon which to draw as she "believes in the superiority of rocks" as the origin of species.

That's a whopper! Their refusal to engage in debate about it emphasises their lack of intellectual curiosity.

AL GORE told her to believe so she does. She follows along like the lemming they want her to be. She's a loyal democrat lemming.

I see that the people commenting on your post are asking how evolution explains the beginning of existence. The Theory of Evolution is not about explaining existence. It explains a process that has been shown to occur. As far as I'm concerned, if you trace either side of this debate back far enough, you run into the same basic question: "But where did THAT come from?" Whether it's where did God come from or where did all the matter that sprang forth from the Big Bang come from...either way, we simply aren't able to answer that question.

Regardless of that fundamental question, though...Intelligent Design is simply not science and has no place in a science classroom. The Theory of Evolution *is* science. It is testable, it is falsifiable, and contrary to the ID opinion, it is not about faith.