Obama is your average, typical politician. In a press conference today, he was asked if those in the upper tax bracket could expect to pay higher taxes in 2009 according to Obama's plan. He refused to answer. How is that change?

He may not end up being as bad as his detractors say, but his rabid supporters will not see the promises he made come into fruition.

It's funny to read the Europeans ripping on the US. Pure jealosy. (Who saved your butts in the world wars?)

There are too many people who drive new cars, have a too big house, and then wonder why they can't afford other things or have to sell if the income slows.

It is the American dream to succeed, but you have to actually succeed before you can afford all your stuff. If you risk everything with credit, don't complain when it doesn't pan out. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk-taking, but we don't guarantee anything. (Unless our government decides to put its big, clumsy hands in to save the stupid.)

avg 0.289 s...last was 0.243 s

Yes, of all the evils in the world, we should definitely be focused on stopping large cars.

Thank God we have Mr. Gore to lead the way on living a green life. He would never use more fossil fuel energy than absolutely necessary. I mean he would never have a huge house that sucks up 12 times more fuel than an average home. That would just be showing off. Let's look at his eco-friendly house:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Oh wait, he buys carbon offsets and planted a tree to make it ok.

This is probably less scripted than real political debates. And probably more honest.

It looks like kitten has claws.

(*crosses fingers Tempscire doesn't post here anymore*)

$2.99 in Michigan.

Hooray for our government

@YES - A Christian is not supposed to "fight fire with fire." Revenge is not at all supported by Jesus's teachings. Most Christians do not think the crusades were a good idea.

Explaining the underlying motivations and the events that led to the crusades should not be construed as an endorsement of them.

By the way, look at the Transitional Fossils page on wikipedia. It is not at all impressive.

The examples they have are: a little horse turning into a bigger horse; a crocodile-like creature that they say is like a whale; and a fish that is supposed to link amphibians and other fish; along with a few supposed proto-humans.

Shouldn't we have thousands of examples by now after 150 years of searching?

Please explain how "God made it" uses more unproven entities than random, unexplained abiogenesis; the matter and energy of the universe creating itself out of nothing; or how a prehistoric life form gave birth to a completely new life form, even though no life form has ever been observed to produce something other than itself.
Why would you require direct evidence of God when no such standard is required of evolution (or many scientific theories for that matter).

As for the lack of support in the scientific community, there a various lists you could find online of creationists with various degrees, none that are exhaustive as far as I know. But many scientists are afraid to let on what they believe for fear of retribution from colleagues. Ben Stein's movie talks about this. If you were head of a science department, would you want people under you supporting creationism? Or do you think you might want to keep them from giving you a bad name?

Here's the problem. Darwin doesn't have good evidence that evolution happened or that it would be possible to happen. I have had biology classes that provided as "proof" of evolution, a moth population that used to be mostly white but is now mostly black. Or the finches beaks being various lengths. Creationism readily accepts all of that. But there is no evidence of a single common ancestor.
Now, you can presuppose a single common ancestor, then find some evidence to support it.
But you can also presuppose a supernatural creation, then find some evidence to support it.
There is evidence to fit both theories. There is some disagreement as to which fits better. But because of the implications of creationism, it is automatically ruled out. We don't have to study the supernatural to find supporting evidence of creation.
The article doesn't claim to "prove" 6000 years. It simply shows evidence that points to the universe being much younger that billions of years (which fits with a 6000 years theory.)

Check out creationworldview.org for some decent creationism stuff. The site is much more science based than many of the creation apologists. It is pretty scholarly if anyone is interested to hear the creation view from a former evolutionary biologist.

I know most of the articles try to show why Darwin is wrong instead of why creation is right, but that's because it's kind of hard to scientifically prove God.

Here's a quick summation.

Evolution says animals produce minor variations, those more suited to their environment survive, and thus we get variety. I agree. Evidence and logic supports that. The difference is that Darwin says all had a common ancestor, and life sprang up randomly from nonlife. That is where the evidence is lacking and the theorizing kicks in. Darwin has no viable mechanism for life coming from nonlife, nor for the Cambrian explosion to produce the different kinds of animals. Creation provides this mechanism, and there are various studies on why it works. There is not "proof" of creation or for darwinian origins. We can theorize and find indirect, circumstantial evidence.