@zachanderson916 you're insinuating we knew everything in the 1850s? The argument for irreducible complexity has been addressed and doesn't not hold. You can find an explanation for the evolution of the human eye, described for laymen, in pages such the wiki article on evolution of the eye(I tried to link you, but youtube isn't letting me, just check it out on wikipedia.)
I mean, Newton couldn't even conceive of general relativity, does that invalidate it?
She practically just made that all up on the spot.. How can you take someone seriously when their arguments are just arbitrary statistics pulled out of nowhere.... She is just a clown straight up.
Whoa. Where does she get her information? Perhaps she just makes it up. "Hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes who believe in inteligent design" I wonder how she wiould handle being pushed to provide the names of just a few of these scientists and reliable proof that they do believe in ID. It is scary to think that this lady could become president.
OH BROTHER! WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY EVOLUTION ISN'T POSSIBLE. Genesis is the starting of the bible and is not meant to be taking seriously, once it starts talking about Abraham is when you start listening. i will also add that the bible takes place from 4000 BC to 132 AD
@MrGman543 Yea, and Noah and Methuselah lived for 800-900 years a piece, true story! Everything the bible says is 100% fact, Noah and his children lived for a combined.. what, 10,000 years? TRUTH! READ IT!
@BiggDickWilly i know, some people take every story in the bible so seriously. i went to a catholic school for some 15 years my life, every one of my teachers believe in evolution. i am a republican but no way am i voting for her, she is just not my type of president.
I say teach it...it will be one sentence; "And God created everything."
There is absolutely no evidence to support more than this.
I'd love to be sitting in a classroom of inquisitive kids slamming the teacher with questions about ID...assuming of course, the kids are young enough to still ask questions and havent been indoctrinated to the point of complacency by the public school system.
@helltrackrider Yea, and Noah and Methuselah lived for 800-900 years a piece, true story! Everything the bible says is 100% fact, Noah and his children lived for a combined.. what, 10,000 years? TRUTH! READ IT!
Enough of this imbecile of epic proportion!...lol She should go home and find a way to spend a weekend at the Learning Annex! They might even propose as a follow-up their course on "How to bring water to a boil", assuming she doesn't dismiss the chance at what she assumes is a Dermatology course!...:)
It's simple politics here. Evolution is going to be accepted by people with higher degrees of education, as well as Catholics, Agnostics, and Atheists, all people extremely unlikely to vote for Bachmann anyway, so she's going to talk smack about evolution to get herself a bigger slice of the Evangelical Christian group.
There are numbers for this, and if you can take Brian Alters' statistic seriously, there are approximately 150 scientists in the U.S. who support intelligent design, which is to say, not very many - and certainly not hundreds.
I'll go you one better, name me ONE Nobel Prize winning scientist that supports intelligent design. Just one. There are just over 120 living U.S. Nobel Prize winners in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology. It shouldn't take you too long.
In the year 1200; "hundreds and hundreds" of people believed the Earth was flat. Also whats "intelligent" about a two headed cat; or a tumor the size of a Volkswagen growing out of someones face?
This is absurd. In this day and age if you’re not smart enough to be able to accept evolution (the cornerstone of all biological sciences and modern medical breakthroughs) as a scientific fact, then you’re not smart enough to be president...period! Hell even the past two popes acknowledge it's real
there she goes again.. saying stuff they isnt true. there are two anti evolution needles in a hay stack of scientists that accept evolution as fact and explain it with the theory of evolution
She is pandering to the 70% of Americans who can relate on an intellectual level with her. The actual intelligent 30% of Americans are completely beside themselves, wondering if thier countrymen will ever get a fucking education!
the only prof i need that there is no god is this question: why did he make me an atheist? just so when i die he could go "shit out of luck son, down to hell with you"
But evolution is real. We can see it happening, there are examples and evidence, it can be tested and supported, and we even use evoltion to our advantage when making medicine and preparing new crops for agriculture. Those scientists who say evolution is not real are saying that because they favor their religion over reality. It is real.
I could only find one Nobel prize winning scientist who lends any sort of "support" to intelligent design and even he supports the fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He believes that God guided evolution -- so a mix of creationism and evolution. I challenge anyone to find a Nobel prize winning scientist who says the Earth is under 100,000 years old.
If the "germ theory of disease" were true, it would be called the "germ law of disease"? Same with the "theory of gravitation" and the "heliocentric theory"? What happened America? How is it possible for such an ignoramus to have any position of importance? She should be locked up in an attic weaving baskets.
There is a list of 1300 scientists who support evolution...and are also named Steve. Even if "hundreds and hundreds" is accurate, it's a drop in the crazy bucket.
Why is it whenever someone says evolution every acts like it means"here is something i made up over beers last night."? A theory has to have evidence that is observable supporting it, and evolution does. Thats not to say you can't have faith in god or whatever as you choose, but don't act like your religious text is 100% undeniable truth when we have evidence of something else. According to some interpretastions of religious texts women are considered property of their fathers and husbands too
@sbrown137988 "Laws" are not "facts" and "laws" do not have a higher threshold of certainty than "theories". A law is a single statement of the relationships between physical quantities. A theory generally incorporates laws and facts - but laws and facts are not the same thing. "Fact" generally isn't used in science, but it's not unreasonable to call an independently verifiable and repeatable observation a "fact". A law is a type of model based on observation, not the observation itself.
"evolution is not a fact. its a theory. if it were fact itd be called a law"
That's not how science works.
Theories explain facts (the data). Theories don't graduate into laws once they are supported with overwhelming evidence. Laws are different and can become obsolete and discarded infact.
Pheew! I was worried I'd been sent back to the fifties for a sec!!!
If someone wants to ask me to prove it go fuck yourself and do some reading outside of the bible and bible thumpers writings unlike my stupid religious family that thinks the same stupid shit as this woman....
@benthemeister. This is your proof? You are so sad. The "list" in question is a pointless charade, it's a shill site for the Discovery Institute. Most of the biologists, a tiny minority of the people listed, have requested that their names be removed. The majority of the signatories listed work in computer science. So I doubt they have the relevant expertise. If I want my car fixed, I go to a mechanic, &. if I want answers to a biological question, I turn to a biologist. Not a computer geek.
Needs to get her fact right. I know that there are hundreds and hundreds of scientist who are religious, but they definately do not believe in intelligent design.
I think we are devolving because of seat belts and bicycle helmets... I'm sorry to have to say it but a lot of challenged humans are supposed to be dead before they reach puberty and reproduce. They go on to be clergy, politicians and lawyers and just make the world a fucked up place. There, I'v said it.
Thanks to liberal policies America can no longer afford to pay for medicare, social security, unemployment and many other services. We also need to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr in order to compete with China and bring jobs back home. Fiscally responsible conservatives like Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann know this and are currently
working to end these wasteful handout programs and bring the minimum wage down so that America can be great again. God bless the GOP!
Actually, @flw522 is correct. Look up the term "scientific theory". A hypothesis can only reach that nobility by being supported by lots of evidence. And please, stop calling people out without an "@" sign, so they at least can see your argument themselves.
I think it's only fair to teach "unintelligent design" as a competitive theory. There is plenty of evidence. For example, was it intelligent to make women and men so different that they can't stand each other after a few months? And as for women, what was intelligent about putting a recreation area so close to a waste disposal site? Credit to Robin Williams on that one.
@bibliognosthere you seem to confuse theory with hypothesis, as most creationists do. A theory is supported by a great amount of evidence and explanation
Yup, evolution is a theory. Just like gravity, tectonic plates and relativity. Care to challenge those too? Seriously, what kind of moron gets their science knowledge from a 2,000 year old book? I am shocked, and amazed, that people are seriously idiotic enough not to believe in evolution in 2011. If Bachmann gets elected president, I'm moving the hell out of this country for the next four years to follow.
@bibliognosthere Are we speaking of the same American population of whom 21% of them believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth? I'm seeing a correlation here, most Americans are fucktards, why don't you ask the scientists the same question regarding the theory of evolution.
@RonBurgundy161 No, in England, about 19% answered incorrectly and another 14% said they didn't know. Who cares if you're English or not. My point is that stupidity stretches well beyond our shores.
@79barkingspider I stand corrected. But still, what does this have anything to do with England? I was responding to a claim where someone stated that 65.5% of Americans who believed dinosaurs lived with humans and pointed out a correlation with geocentricism.
This is your proof? You are so sad. The "list" in question is a pointless charade, which is a shill site for the Discovery Institute. Most of the biologists, a small minority of the people listed by the way, have requested that their names be removed. The majority of the signatories listed work in computer science. So I doubt they have the relevant expertise to have a useful opinion. I don't know about you, but if I want answers to a biological question, I turn to biologists. Fail, large
According to a 1991 gallup poll, only 0.15% of scientists in the US find creationism to be a valid theory. If you were to consider only scientists in the biological sciences, I imagine it is almost nil.
@whiskasalpha Among those who support creationism, effectively none. The number of biologists who support creationism, in or outside the USA(note to USAians, there is a planet out there), is basically zero. Firstly, because there is so much evidence in favour, and more is discovered every day. Second, because creationism is simply not viable, as a theory, because it cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, it cannot be tested scientifically, therefore it fails.
cont: It's not a choice of science or religion. Evidence that debunks scientific theory doesn't constitute as evidence supporting only god! If a god exists, why would he hide his design from us? Why keep us in the dark when such a spiritual being loves it's creation? Science does NOT debunk religion.
This shows much evidence debunking evolution, but it doesn't rule out a true reason for existence of life. We must reevaluate science, not turn away from it!
eating and breathing through the same passageway, nerves that go from the brain to the neck by looping through the chest, extra teeth that are worse than useless, enzymes with a 95% failure rate at their sole task, inability to synthesize ascorbic acid, immune system responses that cause suffocation and brain damage...
"intelligent" design lol
let's not even get into other animals, like whales' useless pelvic bones or bats having heavy solid bones while ostriches have fragile hollow ones
@bibliognosthere You say you have no bias against science, but you use strong emotional rhetoric to try to discredit it.
Truth? I prefer to say "objective reality". Otherwise, I can claim to speak to aliens in my refrigerator, and my parents and grandparents also did, and you should be expected to accept that claim as my personal "truth". Whereas skeptical (scientific) thinking would want a look in the refrigerator.
@bibliognosthere You are attempting to discredit the power of science by appealing to emotion. That's irrational. Science is a way of looking at that which can be observed and demonstrated. Objective reality. The personal experience you're talking about is not objective reality, it's subjective opinion. You're free to drink that Koolaid, as I am free not to.
@bibliognosthere You bring up an excellent point. With all those "pro-ID scientists" out there, I'd think we should be seeing some precise ideas about what constitutes objective evidence. Instead, all we get is "it's obvious to anyone who looks". Aristotelian reasoning.
@bibliognosthere Science is "only" a tool for getting us closer to objective truth. You demonstrate that other philosophies than science base believability on tradition, as if what our ancestors believed is somehow superior to actually looking at the world and believing what you see. Yes, our ancestors believed the world was flat. From space(and many other science-based endeavors), we see it is not. What should we believe, our ancestors, or science?
Although the Noble Prize part is wrong, it's probably true that there are "hundreds and hundreds" of scientists who support Intelligent Design.
But this is hardly impressive. The things is, if you look at the number of scientists who support Evolution, it isn't hundreds and hundreds, it's hundreds of thousands, or even millions.
@hummingfrog nah, the biggest list i've seen compiled is about 150 scientists. about 85% of which are in fields outside of biology, and the ones in the biological field, you can often weed out several as they've been quote mined, and their "doubts" greatly exaggerated. but yeah, either way, even if you granted the larger figure, it's still a blip on the radar, not a "contraversy" at all.
@hummingfrog No. These hundreds of scientists believing in intelligent aren't really scientists and shouldn't be given an legitimacy. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Anybody denying the evidence is a retard.
@lotr450 Scientists are as human as anyone else, and you can find legitimate scientists who believe in all sorts of crazy ideas. So it really isn't surprising if you can come up with a few hundred who believe in Intelligent Design. (Especially if you allow scientists in completely unrelated fields!) What's surprising, given how many fundamentalist Christians there are (many tens of millions in the U.S. alone), is not how many scientists believe in ID, but how few.
@hummingfrog There may even be hundreds that believe the Earth is flat. There are certainly more than hundreds of scientists that are also schizophrenic. "Hundreds" could be found to support anything. Hate to say it, but except for the Nobel part, she is right.
@bibliognosphere I believe the true scientific issue with ID is that there is no significant empirical evidence to support it, as has been started already. This is where ideas like the FSM come from; if there's nothing tangible to support nor challenge it, one can imagine anything they want. So, since science is based on recorded physical experiences, ID should not be taught as a valid alternative theory to evolution.
another superstitious idiot.. she belongs in the 13th century...she probably thinks blood letting is good idea too... next time she gets sick, she should go to the church to get treated...let me know how that goes..
She's wrong. Clearly anyone who votes for Bachmann is an idiot. Here's why.
Do you really want a president who obviously thinks a google search on a topic involving right wing christian chatrooms and message boards (which is obviously where she heard this mythical urban legend about the noel prize intelligent design fans) is enough research to base major decisions on?
@bibliognosthere See, that's what you don't get. Science is about "empirical evidence" and natural explanations. Teach ID in a class of philosophy, folklore, mythology, religion, cultural anthropology, etc. But whatever it is, it is most definately NOT a science.
America is too stupid to have an Atheist run for the presidency. They would sooner elect a Mormon then an Atheist. Atheists make up around ~10% of the population, there are another ~10% of agnostics but around ~40% of the U.S doesn't even believe evolution is true, so whats the point? lol.
@123duffbeerrules Less than 10% of the US doesn't believe in god. Atheism and agnosticism are not useful terms as they seem to mean very different things to different people. However, in polling it's always been less than 10% of Americans who have no belief in god, so whatever the atheist/agnostic self-identifiers are, they aren't anywhere near 20% of the population.
Even if one were to disregard Buddhists (who are atheists), the figure is well past 10% for Atheists and agnostics. You can simply observe a Gallup poll regarding it.
@123duffbeerrules Well you can't just look at one poll and be done with it. The numbers vary quite a bit but most rate non-religious folks at < 10%.
As for Buddhism, there may not be a god involved but it's still a religion with supernatural beliefs and afterlife stuff and all the rest. The generally held meaning of atheism is, as far as I'm aware, to be non-religious -- not merely to not believe in a particular god or god(s), although that of course is included.
Atheism means no god. Buddhists do not belief in god, hence they are Atheists. As for 'non-religious', they far outnumber the Atheists. Look at all the 'Christians' who never go to Church, who never keep the Sabbath holy, the Jews that eat pork and so on. They are 'religious' in name only.
@123duffbeerrules As I already wrote, "atheist" is understood to mean "not religious". I am aware of its literal meaning, but that's quite apart from what the term actually means. Atheism is interchangeable with non-religious. The specifics of the religion, whether there's a specific god or not, makes no difference at all.
Further, there's obviously something else called being culturally Christian or Jewish. Lot's of people observe religious holidays etc without being themselves religious.
No Atheist is not 'understood to mean irreligious'. Atheism means just that, a repudation for the belief in god. Agnostics are irreligious but not Atheists, people who believe in an abstract god (Deists) are also irreligious but not Atheists. I could go on. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God, was crucified and was raised from the dead 3 days after his crucifiction. If someone doesn't believe that LITERALLY, he isn't a "Christian".
@123duffbeerrules And this is why the word atheism is so meaningless, because pedants insist on splitting hairs over its exact definition. Why don't we debate the difference between agnosticism next and get into that whole scale-of-7 or "hard" vs. "soft" shit next.
Deists believe in god. They believe in a non-intervening god which kicked stuff off and then ignored the place. An "abstract god" is pantheism, where the universe and everything is god.
Can .0001% of scientists vs 99.9999% of scientists really be considered a controversy? If you Narrow that to biology scientists, it is more like 0% to 100%. I could give a shit what a meteorologist or some other unrelated science douche thinks about it.
This woman really needs to be called out on this and other false statements in public. We need reputable people with a public voice to shout out the falsity of her statements. Letting her get away with this sort of misinformation is dangerous to human society.
On her GOP debate she said the reason Abortion should be illegal is because only God can take away a life..... If she becomes president this nation will become a THEOCRACY!!!!!!!!!
"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one...."
Bachmann thinks ideologically, not rationally. It's either this or that. No middle ground. There's little if any thought, only doctrine. Black and white, dualistic thinking and oversimplified pigeonholing. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Non-christians are pro-choice, gay loving socialists and infidels that believe in the evil theory of evolution. Folks get hurt when the mind goes on autopilot.
@charadester exactly.. we already had this type of thinking with GW Bush. It's time we only elect the most intelligent and brilliant people from either party. No more fundamentalist cooks or dim-witted airheads.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - it is Creationism. This was proven in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by internal documents from the Discovery Institute (who invented ID,) wherein they explicitly stated this.
There is"NO controversy among scientists", especially biological scientists, about evolution. There are arguments about specific paths followed, or about evolutionary mechanisms, but none about the Theory of Evolution. There is simply too much evidence out there.
She is either - best case - ignorant and deluded, or - worst case - cynically feeding bullshit back to her target voters.
Nothing to do with courage. It is just stupidity, be it hers' or her base.
Charles Darwin himself said that it was absurd that the human eye was formed by natural selection due to its complexity.
zachanderson916 2 weeks ago
@zachanderson916 you're insinuating we knew everything in the 1850s? The argument for irreducible complexity has been addressed and doesn't not hold. You can find an explanation for the evolution of the human eye, described for laymen, in pages such the wiki article on evolution of the eye(I tried to link you, but youtube isn't letting me, just check it out on wikipedia.)
I mean, Newton couldn't even conceive of general relativity, does that invalidate it?
SilentViolins 5 days ago
She practically just made that all up on the spot.. How can you take someone seriously when their arguments are just arbitrary statistics pulled out of nowhere.... She is just a clown straight up.
GhettoPandask8 3 weeks ago
WOW! So much bullshit and she doesn't even blink. This bitch is definitely crazy.
JD12ish 1 month ago
Whoa. Where does she get her information? Perhaps she just makes it up. "Hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes who believe in inteligent design" I wonder how she wiould handle being pushed to provide the names of just a few of these scientists and reliable proof that they do believe in ID. It is scary to think that this lady could become president.
doyoulookup 1 month ago
@doyoulookup
This was investigated afterwards, and her claims were shown to be totally false. There was no truth to anything that she stated.
RCSVirginia 3 weeks ago
Sweet mother of God. How the hell is SHE running for president? Does anyone actually take her seriously?
ProudToBeNerdy 2 months ago
OH BROTHER! WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY EVOLUTION ISN'T POSSIBLE. Genesis is the starting of the bible and is not meant to be taking seriously, once it starts talking about Abraham is when you start listening. i will also add that the bible takes place from 4000 BC to 132 AD
MrGman543 2 months ago
@MrGman543 Yea, and Noah and Methuselah lived for 800-900 years a piece, true story! Everything the bible says is 100% fact, Noah and his children lived for a combined.. what, 10,000 years? TRUTH! READ IT!
BiggDickWilly 2 months ago
@BiggDickWilly i know, some people take every story in the bible so seriously. i went to a catholic school for some 15 years my life, every one of my teachers believe in evolution. i am a republican but no way am i voting for her, she is just not my type of president.
MrGman543 2 months ago
God = ultimate Scientist
TheJasonDR 2 months ago
I say teach it...it will be one sentence; "And God created everything."
There is absolutely no evidence to support more than this.
I'd love to be sitting in a classroom of inquisitive kids slamming the teacher with questions about ID...assuming of course, the kids are young enough to still ask questions and havent been indoctrinated to the point of complacency by the public school system.
helltrackrider 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@helltrackrider There is absolutely no evidence to support even that.
coasterpro 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@helltrackrider Yea, and Noah and Methuselah lived for 800-900 years a piece, true story! Everything the bible says is 100% fact, Noah and his children lived for a combined.. what, 10,000 years? TRUTH! READ IT!
BiggDickWilly 2 months ago
THERE IS NO FUCKING CONTROVERSY!!1! Jesus...
CarlSagan6 3 months ago 2
If that freak she married isn't a gaffe nothing is .
mesaeddie 3 months ago
Which Nobel prize winning scientists question evolution?
suvariboy 3 months ago
Enough of this imbecile of epic proportion!...lol She should go home and find a way to spend a weekend at the Learning Annex! They might even propose as a follow-up their course on "How to bring water to a boil", assuming she doesn't dismiss the chance at what she assumes is a Dermatology course!...:)
playinhard 3 months ago
I smell something. Pee Yoo! It's bull shit!
ujean56 3 months ago
Would someone please back hand for being a retard. PLEASE!!!
laxguy22655 3 months ago
THIS BITCH IS CRAZY AND SHE IS MARRIED TO A ZESTY MAN!
bankroll310 3 months ago
It's simple politics here. Evolution is going to be accepted by people with higher degrees of education, as well as Catholics, Agnostics, and Atheists, all people extremely unlikely to vote for Bachmann anyway, so she's going to talk smack about evolution to get herself a bigger slice of the Evangelical Christian group.
CobaltX07 3 months ago
There are numbers for this, and if you can take Brian Alters' statistic seriously, there are approximately 150 scientists in the U.S. who support intelligent design, which is to say, not very many - and certainly not hundreds.
granulorhoek 4 months ago
I'll go you one better, name me ONE Nobel Prize winning scientist that supports intelligent design. Just one. There are just over 120 living U.S. Nobel Prize winners in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology. It shouldn't take you too long.
granulorhoek 4 months ago
and this dumb bitch wants to be president.
phroney 4 months ago
Total. Fucking. Idiot.
MamoDad 4 months ago
Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education.
gintroubad 4 months ago
She must be the most stupid woman in America right now.
TheBlackNinjaMan 4 months ago
Well, evolution is just a theory.......umm, isn't it?
0cosmic0 4 months ago
In the year 1200; "hundreds and hundreds" of people believed the Earth was flat. Also whats "intelligent" about a two headed cat; or a tumor the size of a Volkswagen growing out of someones face?
newmac 4 months ago
gosh .. christian fundamentalists
anon2k10 4 months ago
Sigh ... I thought we were passed this.
Everybody who's somebody on teh interweb knows humanity has been created by aliens.
Doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. It's just more nuanced.
derekhugh 4 months ago
This is absurd. In this day and age if you’re not smart enough to be able to accept evolution (the cornerstone of all biological sciences and modern medical breakthroughs) as a scientific fact, then you’re not smart enough to be president...period! Hell even the past two popes acknowledge it's real
drewsky684 5 months ago
there she goes again.. saying stuff they isnt true. there are two anti evolution needles in a hay stack of scientists that accept evolution as fact and explain it with the theory of evolution
Johnf85 5 months ago
Michele, name 10 of these scientists. This is just like Sarah Palin saying "I have gay friends" but never naming these friends.
TheCrazedGuitarist 5 months ago
One thing is indisputable: No intelligence was involved when Michele Bachmann was designed.
oneupagain 5 months ago
hundreds of thousands of billions of scientists who all won nobel prizes multiple times are creationists, wonder way i can't name any of those.
cuagmirag 5 months ago
She is pandering to the 70% of Americans who can relate on an intellectual level with her. The actual intelligent 30% of Americans are completely beside themselves, wondering if thier countrymen will ever get a fucking education!
pillowbugg 5 months ago 20
the only prof i need that there is no god is this question: why did he make me an atheist? just so when i die he could go "shit out of luck son, down to hell with you"
TheMegaLarsen 5 months ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
evilelton 6 months ago
But evolution is real. We can see it happening, there are examples and evidence, it can be tested and supported, and we even use evoltion to our advantage when making medicine and preparing new crops for agriculture. Those scientists who say evolution is not real are saying that because they favor their religion over reality. It is real.
tfavors28 6 months ago
billions and billions of people who would say she's a fool.
teleny2 6 months ago 4
stupid bitch
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
"hundreds of hundreds" out of the 2 million in north america "some holding nobel prizes" clearly not for their work in biology
DrDeso1 6 months ago
Facts smacts, who cares.... If she would ever win the elections, it is the sign the end is nigh!
GLANL 6 months ago
I could only find one Nobel prize winning scientist who lends any sort of "support" to intelligent design and even he supports the fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He believes that God guided evolution -- so a mix of creationism and evolution. I challenge anyone to find a Nobel prize winning scientist who says the Earth is under 100,000 years old.
dubtafoo 6 months ago
u guys missed the point, she was talking about AUTOCAD not creationism! sheesh!
whatsgoingon07 6 months ago 2
She ought to donate her brain to science cuz she sure ain`t using it .
loufalce 6 months ago
If the "germ theory of disease" were true, it would be called the "germ law of disease"? Same with the "theory of gravitation" and the "heliocentric theory"? What happened America? How is it possible for such an ignoramus to have any position of importance? She should be locked up in an attic weaving baskets.
ryanwyshynski 6 months ago
I really want her to name one Nobel prize winning scientist that doesn't think the theory of evolution is the best explanation.
dannicolau1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have something growing on my nutsack! Is there a doctor in the house?
TheKmbt 6 months ago
There is a list of 1300 scientists who support evolution...and are also named Steve. Even if "hundreds and hundreds" is accurate, it's a drop in the crazy bucket.
mikek44224 6 months ago
Why is it whenever someone says evolution every acts like it means"here is something i made up over beers last night."? A theory has to have evidence that is observable supporting it, and evolution does. Thats not to say you can't have faith in god or whatever as you choose, but don't act like your religious text is 100% undeniable truth when we have evidence of something else. According to some interpretastions of religious texts women are considered property of their fathers and husbands too
chrome596 6 months ago
and sorry, evolution is not a fact. its a theory. if it were fact itd be called a law. now granted its a very sound theory i fully support
sbrown137988 6 months ago
@sbrown137988 "Laws" are not "facts" and "laws" do not have a higher threshold of certainty than "theories". A law is a single statement of the relationships between physical quantities. A theory generally incorporates laws and facts - but laws and facts are not the same thing. "Fact" generally isn't used in science, but it's not unreasonable to call an independently verifiable and repeatable observation a "fact". A law is a type of model based on observation, not the observation itself.
sinmantyx 6 months ago
@sbrown137988
"evolution is not a fact. its a theory. if it were fact itd be called a law"
That's not how science works.
Theories explain facts (the data). Theories don't graduate into laws once they are supported with overwhelming evidence. Laws are different and can become obsolete and discarded infact.
RPFS2008 6 months ago
93% of scientists across all fields support evolution and in some stance, atheist or agnostic, denounce intelligent design
sbrown137988 6 months ago
Just because of this she has no chance of getting my vote!
ZachKlever 6 months ago
I have a heat rash on my balls!
TheKmbt 6 months ago
When Michelle Bachmann says human evolution is wrong she is speaking from personal experience ...
vohshkab 6 months ago
Oh wait, evolution is a fact!
Pheew! I was worried I'd been sent back to the fifties for a sec!!!
If someone wants to ask me to prove it go fuck yourself and do some reading outside of the bible and bible thumpers writings unlike my stupid religious family that thinks the same stupid shit as this woman....
Ericrestes1 6 months ago
i lol'd
Snerdism 7 months ago
@benthemeister. This is your proof? You are so sad. The "list" in question is a pointless charade, it's a shill site for the Discovery Institute. Most of the biologists, a tiny minority of the people listed, have requested that their names be removed. The majority of the signatories listed work in computer science. So I doubt they have the relevant expertise. If I want my car fixed, I go to a mechanic, &. if I want answers to a biological question, I turn to a biologist. Not a computer geek.
gloin10 7 months ago
creationists are mentally handicapped people.
pillowbugg 7 months ago 3
Michelle Bachmann is further proof that Darwin WAS WRONG!
phantomeagle 7 months ago 3
@phantomeagle About survival of the fittest? Yeah.
Ericrestes1 6 months ago
Needs to get her fact right. I know that there are hundreds and hundreds of scientist who are religious, but they definately do not believe in intelligent design.
vinsong 7 months ago
I think we are devolving because of seat belts and bicycle helmets... I'm sorry to have to say it but a lot of challenged humans are supposed to be dead before they reach puberty and reproduce. They go on to be clergy, politicians and lawyers and just make the world a fucked up place. There, I'v said it.
wondergundy 7 months ago
One does not say "intelligent design" and Michelle Bachmann in the same breath.
loufalce 7 months ago 27
@loufalce there is much you can put in the same sentence with Bachmann
laxguy22655 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks to liberal policies America can no longer afford to pay for medicare, social security, unemployment and many other services. We also need to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr in order to compete with China and bring jobs back home. Fiscally responsible conservatives like Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann know this and are currently
working to end these wasteful handout programs and bring the minimum wage down so that America can be great again. God bless the GOP!
GOPkicksbutt 7 months ago
@bibliognosthere
Actually, @flw522 is correct. Look up the term "scientific theory". A hypothesis can only reach that nobility by being supported by lots of evidence. And please, stop calling people out without an "@" sign, so they at least can see your argument themselves.
SmiliSkater8P 7 months ago
If she wins the presidential election I'm leaving the country... Fuck that, America.
Al3xX420 7 months ago
I think it's only fair to teach "unintelligent design" as a competitive theory. There is plenty of evidence. For example, was it intelligent to make women and men so different that they can't stand each other after a few months? And as for women, what was intelligent about putting a recreation area so close to a waste disposal site? Credit to Robin Williams on that one.
79barkingspider 7 months ago
@bibliognosthere you seem to confuse theory with hypothesis, as most creationists do. A theory is supported by a great amount of evidence and explanation
ftw522 7 months ago
bat shit bachmann
MSG685 7 months ago
Yup, evolution is a theory. Just like gravity, tectonic plates and relativity. Care to challenge those too? Seriously, what kind of moron gets their science knowledge from a 2,000 year old book? I am shocked, and amazed, that people are seriously idiotic enough not to believe in evolution in 2011. If Bachmann gets elected president, I'm moving the hell out of this country for the next four years to follow.
Concertina43210 7 months ago
and god put all the fossils in the earth to confuse us......
sjhm58 7 months ago
@bibliognosthere Are we speaking of the same American population of whom 21% of them believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth? I'm seeing a correlation here, most Americans are fucktards, why don't you ask the scientists the same question regarding the theory of evolution.
RonBurgundy161 7 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 And in England, 33% of those asked either didn't know or thought the sun rotated around the Earth. It ain't just USAers.
79barkingspider 7 months ago
@79barkingspider Actually, it was 20% too. But I don't know why the hell you brought it up because I ain't English.
RonBurgundy161 7 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 No, in England, about 19% answered incorrectly and another 14% said they didn't know. Who cares if you're English or not. My point is that stupidity stretches well beyond our shores.
79barkingspider 7 months ago
@79barkingspider I stand corrected. But still, what does this have anything to do with England? I was responding to a claim where someone stated that 65.5% of Americans who believed dinosaurs lived with humans and pointed out a correlation with geocentricism.
RonBurgundy161 7 months ago
America, why the hell are your politicians stupid as fuck?
RonBurgundy161 7 months ago
lool
purplehaze216 7 months ago
This is your proof? You are so sad. The "list" in question is a pointless charade, which is a shill site for the Discovery Institute. Most of the biologists, a small minority of the people listed by the way, have requested that their names be removed. The majority of the signatories listed work in computer science. So I doubt they have the relevant expertise to have a useful opinion. I don't know about you, but if I want answers to a biological question, I turn to biologists. Fail, large
gloin10 7 months ago
judging by past stupid comments made by bachmann, its pretty obvious that what she said about the scientists is total bullshit.
HardikG121 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HardikG121 True as night follows day ...
vohshkab 6 months ago
According to a 1991 gallup poll, only 0.15% of scientists in the US find creationism to be a valid theory. If you were to consider only scientists in the biological sciences, I imagine it is almost nil.
theodorichen 7 months ago
Hmm, How many with scientific credibility?
whiskasalpha 7 months ago
@whiskasalpha Among those who support creationism, effectively none. The number of biologists who support creationism, in or outside the USA(note to USAians, there is a planet out there), is basically zero. Firstly, because there is so much evidence in favour, and more is discovered every day. Second, because creationism is simply not viable, as a theory, because it cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, it cannot be tested scientifically, therefore it fails.
gloin10 7 months ago
cont: It's not a choice of science or religion. Evidence that debunks scientific theory doesn't constitute as evidence supporting only god! If a god exists, why would he hide his design from us? Why keep us in the dark when such a spiritual being loves it's creation? Science does NOT debunk religion.
Klyptomaniacc 8 months ago
newgeology .us/ presentation32
This shows much evidence debunking evolution, but it doesn't rule out a true reason for existence of life. We must reevaluate science, not turn away from it!
Klyptomaniacc 8 months ago
This woman is a complete moron. She's not even stupid, because a stupid person occasionally says something intelligent.
allieron 8 months ago
Intelligent design...as long as it's jesus and not some other gods. Then she would do an about-face so fast it will make your head spin.
flatpat 8 months ago
eating and breathing through the same passageway, nerves that go from the brain to the neck by looping through the chest, extra teeth that are worse than useless, enzymes with a 95% failure rate at their sole task, inability to synthesize ascorbic acid, immune system responses that cause suffocation and brain damage...
"intelligent" design lol
let's not even get into other animals, like whales' useless pelvic bones or bats having heavy solid bones while ostriches have fragile hollow ones
Kerberoz01 8 months ago
@bibliognosthere You say you have no bias against science, but you use strong emotional rhetoric to try to discredit it.
Truth? I prefer to say "objective reality". Otherwise, I can claim to speak to aliens in my refrigerator, and my parents and grandparents also did, and you should be expected to accept that claim as my personal "truth". Whereas skeptical (scientific) thinking would want a look in the refrigerator.
boulderdsvo 8 months ago
@bibliognosthere You are attempting to discredit the power of science by appealing to emotion. That's irrational. Science is a way of looking at that which can be observed and demonstrated. Objective reality. The personal experience you're talking about is not objective reality, it's subjective opinion. You're free to drink that Koolaid, as I am free not to.
boulderdsvo 8 months ago
@bibliognosthere You bring up an excellent point. With all those "pro-ID scientists" out there, I'd think we should be seeing some precise ideas about what constitutes objective evidence. Instead, all we get is "it's obvious to anyone who looks". Aristotelian reasoning.
boulderdsvo 8 months ago
@bibliognosthere Science is "only" a tool for getting us closer to objective truth. You demonstrate that other philosophies than science base believability on tradition, as if what our ancestors believed is somehow superior to actually looking at the world and believing what you see. Yes, our ancestors believed the world was flat. From space(and many other science-based endeavors), we see it is not. What should we believe, our ancestors, or science?
boulderdsvo 8 months ago
LOLOL
stickerbrush827 8 months ago
Although the Noble Prize part is wrong, it's probably true that there are "hundreds and hundreds" of scientists who support Intelligent Design.
But this is hardly impressive. The things is, if you look at the number of scientists who support Evolution, it isn't hundreds and hundreds, it's hundreds of thousands, or even millions.
hummingfrog 8 months ago 60
@hummingfrog nah, the biggest list i've seen compiled is about 150 scientists. about 85% of which are in fields outside of biology, and the ones in the biological field, you can often weed out several as they've been quote mined, and their "doubts" greatly exaggerated. but yeah, either way, even if you granted the larger figure, it's still a blip on the radar, not a "contraversy" at all.
BillKiernan 7 months ago
@hummingfrog No. These hundreds of scientists believing in intelligent aren't really scientists and shouldn't be given an legitimacy. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Anybody denying the evidence is a retard.
lotr450 6 months ago
@lotr450 Scientists are as human as anyone else, and you can find legitimate scientists who believe in all sorts of crazy ideas. So it really isn't surprising if you can come up with a few hundred who believe in Intelligent Design. (Especially if you allow scientists in completely unrelated fields!) What's surprising, given how many fundamentalist Christians there are (many tens of millions in the U.S. alone), is not how many scientists believe in ID, but how few.
hummingfrog 6 months ago
@hummingfrog There may even be hundreds that believe the Earth is flat. There are certainly more than hundreds of scientists that are also schizophrenic. "Hundreds" could be found to support anything. Hate to say it, but except for the Nobel part, she is right.
phthisicy 5 months ago
Another idiot wants to run the country.
stephend 8 months ago
@bibliognosphere I believe the true scientific issue with ID is that there is no significant empirical evidence to support it, as has been started already. This is where ideas like the FSM come from; if there's nothing tangible to support nor challenge it, one can imagine anything they want. So, since science is based on recorded physical experiences, ID should not be taught as a valid alternative theory to evolution.
IretonKyle 8 months ago
No.... There isn't.
shwat17 8 months ago
Michelle Bachmann is living proof that intelligent design can't be true. No designer, of any intelligence, would design her.
alphacause 8 months ago 100
@alphacause thats hilarious +1
qqPropagandApp 7 months ago
@alphacause Idiot Design?
deeppurple28 5 months ago
She's an idiot
CyberCity3D 8 months ago
Yikes! Idiot alert!
tejaspics 8 months ago
another superstitious idiot.. she belongs in the 13th century...she probably thinks blood letting is good idea too... next time she gets sick, she should go to the church to get treated...let me know how that goes..
ab330 8 months ago
She's wrong. Clearly anyone who votes for Bachmann is an idiot. Here's why.
Do you really want a president who obviously thinks a google search on a topic involving right wing christian chatrooms and message boards (which is obviously where she heard this mythical urban legend about the noel prize intelligent design fans) is enough research to base major decisions on?
Styxhexenhammer666 8 months ago
@bibliognosthere See, that's what you don't get. Science is about "empirical evidence" and natural explanations. Teach ID in a class of philosophy, folklore, mythology, religion, cultural anthropology, etc. But whatever it is, it is most definately NOT a science.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
Intelligent design? Evidence please?
pillowbugg 8 months ago
@bibliognosthere how can you possible say that slavery, stoning, war, and even ideological genocide are "Moral Values?"
c0nd0rd4myt 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Hundreds and hundreds, many with Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
And there are hundreds of THOUSANDS who don't.
mikefromwa 8 months ago
@bibliognosthere
*psst*
Radiometric dating, dendrochronology, strata compositional matching
Fossils are incidental to the dating process.
Fordi 8 months ago
"There is a controversy among scientists about whether Evolution is a fact or not"
No there is not. You, Michelle Bachmann, are lying to the public.
Fordi 8 months ago
And... there goes any possibility of my voting for her.
FiverBeyond 8 months ago
Republicans and Conservatives: Just say No! to Intelligent Design. Be firm.
0027sassytube 8 months ago
America, the only 1st world country where saying you don't believe in evolution ISN'T political suicide.
WildcardHatesYou 8 months ago 20
What a cow.
hejcoze 8 months ago
This person aspires to be the most powerful in the world
and she can say something like that.
Just fucking great.
Ansonidak 8 months ago 2
a well spoken atheist needs to run for office. we are a large enough minority.its time!
JESUStheATHEIST1 8 months ago 2
@JESUStheATHEIST1 What about apatheists? The people that don't care need a voice too <3
RainbowDashXSyndrome 8 months ago
@RainbowDashXSyndrome Not sure if they would bother
Pandy2k 8 months ago
@Pandy2k xD win
RainbowDashXSyndrome 8 months ago
@JESUStheATHEIST1
America is too stupid to have an Atheist run for the presidency. They would sooner elect a Mormon then an Atheist. Atheists make up around ~10% of the population, there are another ~10% of agnostics but around ~40% of the U.S doesn't even believe evolution is true, so whats the point? lol.
123duffbeerrules 8 months ago
@123duffbeerrules Less than 10% of the US doesn't believe in god. Atheism and agnosticism are not useful terms as they seem to mean very different things to different people. However, in polling it's always been less than 10% of Americans who have no belief in god, so whatever the atheist/agnostic self-identifiers are, they aren't anywhere near 20% of the population.
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
Even if one were to disregard Buddhists (who are atheists), the figure is well past 10% for Atheists and agnostics. You can simply observe a Gallup poll regarding it.
123duffbeerrules 8 months ago
@123duffbeerrules Well you can't just look at one poll and be done with it. The numbers vary quite a bit but most rate non-religious folks at < 10%.
As for Buddhism, there may not be a god involved but it's still a religion with supernatural beliefs and afterlife stuff and all the rest. The generally held meaning of atheism is, as far as I'm aware, to be non-religious -- not merely to not believe in a particular god or god(s), although that of course is included.
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
Atheism means no god. Buddhists do not belief in god, hence they are Atheists. As for 'non-religious', they far outnumber the Atheists. Look at all the 'Christians' who never go to Church, who never keep the Sabbath holy, the Jews that eat pork and so on. They are 'religious' in name only.
123duffbeerrules 8 months ago
@123duffbeerrules As I already wrote, "atheist" is understood to mean "not religious". I am aware of its literal meaning, but that's quite apart from what the term actually means. Atheism is interchangeable with non-religious. The specifics of the religion, whether there's a specific god or not, makes no difference at all.
Further, there's obviously something else called being culturally Christian or Jewish. Lot's of people observe religious holidays etc without being themselves religious.
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
No Atheist is not 'understood to mean irreligious'. Atheism means just that, a repudation for the belief in god. Agnostics are irreligious but not Atheists, people who believe in an abstract god (Deists) are also irreligious but not Atheists. I could go on. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God, was crucified and was raised from the dead 3 days after his crucifiction. If someone doesn't believe that LITERALLY, he isn't a "Christian".
123duffbeerrules 8 months ago
@123duffbeerrules And this is why the word atheism is so meaningless, because pedants insist on splitting hairs over its exact definition. Why don't we debate the difference between agnosticism next and get into that whole scale-of-7 or "hard" vs. "soft" shit next.
Deists believe in god. They believe in a non-intervening god which kicked stuff off and then ignored the place. An "abstract god" is pantheism, where the universe and everything is god.
Stupid words. The US is more than 90% religious.
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
Yes, 90% of Americans are 'religious' even though virtually every poll says otherwise.
123duffbeerrules 8 months ago
YOU LIE!
bobbybenjamin 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
name one you bitch!
freakfiend32 8 months ago
Name one. No scientist would throw their career out the window with such nonsense
Kevin4444D 8 months ago
Can .0001% of scientists vs 99.9999% of scientists really be considered a controversy? If you Narrow that to biology scientists, it is more like 0% to 100%. I could give a shit what a meteorologist or some other unrelated science douche thinks about it.
theodorichen 8 months ago
Bullshit!
326742 8 months ago
This woman really needs to be called out on this and other false statements in public. We need reputable people with a public voice to shout out the falsity of her statements. Letting her get away with this sort of misinformation is dangerous to human society.
RhondaH 8 months ago
Hey Michele, go look up Project Steve.
Mattmon2 8 months ago
What a fucking stupid cunt. More proof, that America needs an IQ test before allowing anyone to run for office.
BitterCanuck 8 months ago
Michele Bachmann Talks Evolution, Intelligent Design, and social retardation as a norn.
thorspinky 8 months ago
What a dingbat.
sub2me4areview 8 months ago
Just curious, which nobel prize holding scientist was a proponent of Intelligent Design? Or is that why this is so stupid?
mavriksfan11 8 months ago
@mavriksfan11 There's obviously none! This girl better not get anywhere near any missile codes!
perra13 8 months ago
At least now you know whom not to vote for. :))
Wrath0fKhan 8 months ago
What an uneducated ignorant retard... *facepalm* I bet she can't point a single real scientist that denies evolution as a fact.
BobbyZero77 8 months ago
Calling Bachmann a cunt is insulting to cunts everywhere.
purpledoc 8 months ago 7
That's it, have a brief recall and remove her from office. We can't have morons in congress, get rid of her now!
bigfilmhat 8 months ago
On her GOP debate she said the reason Abortion should be illegal is because only God can take away a life..... If she becomes president this nation will become a THEOCRACY!!!!!!!!!
batistaker123 8 months ago 4
Hey creationists--keep your GOD DAMN religion out of MY GOVERNMENT, and out of our kids' schools!
Rep0007 8 months ago 4
"Hundreds and hundreds, many with Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
Really?
Name one!
mafarmerga 8 months ago 74
@mafarmerga, Name one? Charles Townes
YOU LOSE ASSHOLE
MaximusArurealius 8 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
THIS "Charles Townes"?
"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one...."
(cont)
Hopeful71 8 months ago
...(cont)
"...Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading"
Is that the guy you think is on your side?
Nice try...YOU lose. :p
Hopeful71 8 months ago
@mafarmerga bitch ist just trying to win over fundementalists, when will somone in politics set them straight!
chillercm 8 months ago
Bachmann thinks ideologically, not rationally. It's either this or that. No middle ground. There's little if any thought, only doctrine. Black and white, dualistic thinking and oversimplified pigeonholing. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Non-christians are pro-choice, gay loving socialists and infidels that believe in the evil theory of evolution. Folks get hurt when the mind goes on autopilot.
charadester 8 months ago 53
@charadester exactly.. we already had this type of thinking with GW Bush. It's time we only elect the most intelligent and brilliant people from either party. No more fundamentalist cooks or dim-witted airheads.
viper8red 8 months ago
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - it is Creationism. This was proven in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by internal documents from the Discovery Institute (who invented ID,) wherein they explicitly stated this.
mikeiq 8 months ago
There is"NO controversy among scientists", especially biological scientists, about evolution. There are arguments about specific paths followed, or about evolutionary mechanisms, but none about the Theory of Evolution. There is simply too much evidence out there.
She is either - best case - ignorant and deluded, or - worst case - cynically feeding bullshit back to her target voters.
Nothing to do with courage. It is just stupidity, be it hers' or her base.
gloin10 9 months ago 3
@gloin10 DISSENT FROM DARWINISM One word.......The list is there for everyone to see and verify.
benthemiester 8 months ago