Many Americans undecided about evolution, creationism
Addition: Complete poll results are here.
An AOL news article says,
An AOL news article says,
(June 8) -- Majorities of Americans in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say evolution and creationism are both likely explanations for life on Earth . . . .
. . . Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true. More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true . . .
At a May 3 debate of GOP candidates, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee indicated they did not believe in evolution. . . .
. . . Brownback wrote last week in The New York Times that "man was not an accident" and that he accepts parts of evolution consistent with that belief. Huckabee told reporters Wednesday that "for me it's as simple as 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.' "
Nearly three in 10 in the new poll said they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who rejects evolution; 15% said they'd be more likely, and 53% said it would make no difference. Huckabee says the issue is not relevant to a White House race and seven in 10 in the poll agreed with him.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/08/2007 04:48:00 PM
18 Comments:
As I said, comments that gossip about my private life will be deleted without trace.
We don't know if it was gossip or not.
>>>>> We don't know if it was gossip or not. <<<<<
OK, Doubting Thomas, here is the entire comment that I deleted:
Larry is an unemployed (fired) ex-engineer. His feelings about the holocaust derive somehow from the fact that his parents are Jewish. "Fake Dave" is actually his real brother.
For some reason Larry doesn't want these things known but he has recommended "midnight spam attacks" so I thought I would help him with his campaign.
So now you can believe.
". . . blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." St. John 20:29
It seems unimportant at best. It would seem a stretch to find it relevant to anything posted here except for a possible clue on you holocaust revisionism.
It is all true, of course but I don't think it would affect your credibility as you have none. What is the issue?
Anyway if that is all you are censoring, it is all out in the open now and you have no other excuses for censoring anything.
This doesn't seem to be worth blowing your credibility over your claim to be a non-censoring blog.
>>>>> Anyway if that is all you are censoring, it is all out in the open now and you have no other excuses for censoring anything. <<<<<<
What is out in the open? Gossip is not necessarily true.
I posted the gossip just to prove to you that it is gossip. I did not post it for the purpose of starting a gossip session about my private affairs, dunghill. We don't gossip here about your private affairs -- let's not gossip about mine. This discussion is over -- right now. Understand?
I said that this discussion is over, dunghill, and you didn't believe me.
"I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me."
". . . blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." St. John 20:29
ViW is now going to tell the whole blogosphere that I am a big hypocrite because I claim to be a non-censoring blogger but won't allow gossip about my private affairs.
Pretzel said,
>>>>>> "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me."
". . . blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." St. John 20:29 <<<<<<
Yes -- blessed are they that did not see that evolution and a "systematic" holocaust did not happen, and yet have believed that they did not happen.
I see that Larry has gone back to his censorship, this time the only trace is his comments justifying such.
I was just about to be convinced that the missing posts, other than those about his family, over which he seems overly sensitive, were just a computer glitch. Larry has proven otherwise.
". . . blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." St. John 20:29
Yes -- blessed are they are uncapable of seeing evolution yet believe it because wiser minds understand it.
Blessed are those who believe in the holocaust despite their dodging overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
Not blessed are those who say "I'm from Missouri" and yet refuse to be shown.
You can claim what you want but we can see that the emperor has no clothes, nor do you have a no-censorship policy, nor do you have a brain.
I will be forming a new associaton:
The Association of Hypocritical Bloggers (AHB). Larry will be named as the first member and the one who has done the most to further the cause.
Congratulations, Larry.
Just what are BVD's?
BTW, Larry had a valid point here: "I posted the gossip just to prove to you that it is gossip." He did prove it. Also, ViW, truth or falsehood has no bearing on the question of whether something is gossip or not -- that is based purely on content.
Voice in the Underwear said...
>>>>> Just what are BVD's? <<<<<<
I coined the term "BVD-clad bloggers" because I felt that the term "pajama-clad bloggers" is not strong enough. Pajamas are too formal -- they are "Playboy tuxedos." Hugh Hefner has about 100 pairs of PJ's and says that he likes to see people dressed "comfortably." I generally use the term "BVD-clad bloggers" as a disparaging term for two-faced bloggers who want special privileges (e.g., a "reporter's privilege" allowing them to keep confidential sources secret) without responsibilities (e.g., a "fairness doctrine" against arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments).
Wikipedia has a history of BVD's. I had no idea that the brand name goes back that far -- to 1876.
I like to coin new Internet terms. For example, IMO the standard term for cyberventriloquism -- "sockpuppetry" -- lacks pizzazz, so I coined the term "Charlie McCarthyism." Ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy had a long-running radio show where both of them were invisible to the audience, just as though they were on the Internet! Bergen was talking to himself on the radio!
>>>>>> BTW, Larry had a valid point here: "I posted the gossip just to prove to you that it is gossip." He did prove it. Also, ViW, truth or falsehood has no bearing on the question of whether something is gossip or not -- that is based purely on content. <<<<<
Thanks. My dictionary defines gossip as "idle talk or rumors, especially about the private affairs of others." Nothing about truth or falsehood there.
I gave ViW a hand -- posting the deleted comment to show that it is in fact gossip -- and he took an arm. What an unscrupulous scumbag.
I decided to delete Bill Carter's (?) crap because he gossiped about my brother. When I say no gossip, that means no gossip -- no exceptions. If I allow any exceptions, that just invites more abuse. I never got very much recognition on the Internet for having a no-censorship policy anyway, so why should I bend over backwards to avoid censorship? Prohibiting gossip has no effect on discussion of the issues. Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, PvM, Alan Fox, and assorted lousy censoring bloggers on Panda's Thumb can all accuse me of hypocrisy, but they will be just like pots calling the kettle black.
Voice in the Underbrush driveled,
>>>>>> I will be forming a new associaton:
The Association of Hypocritical Bloggers (AHB). Larry will be named as the first member and the one who has done the most to further the cause. <<<<<<<
What you call "hypocrisy"-- my ban on gossip about my private affairs -- has no effect on discussion of the issues, dunghill.
How can people be so stupid.
> I decided to delete Bill Carter's (?) crap because he gossiped about my brother. <
Larry has added to censorship with an outright lie. I did not gossip about his brother. I replied to a post by his brother.
We can expect this post to disappear also but only after it has been read by several to show Larry's hypocrisy.
You have decided to hide behind the claim of "gossip" for anything that you want to censor. I saw Bill Carter's post and it did not gossip. Perhaps you will construct another post and repost it as the original. You haven't even said whose post you censored in the first place. Now it is obvious from your replies that you have censored several.
What a sleezebag!
Bill Carter said...
>>>>> I decided to delete Bill Carter's (?) crap because he gossiped about my brother. <
Larry has added to censorship with an outright lie. I did not gossip about his brother. I replied to a post by his brother. <<<<<<
You no-good lying sack of shit, you were not even replying to Fake Dave -- you were replying to Voice In the Underwear and you claimed that he is my real brother. That's gossip.
Look at how you lousy trolls have cluttered up this thread with your drivel -- all because I proved that a post that I deleted as gossip was really gossip.
> you were replying to Voice In the Underwear <
Is there anyone except Larry who did not recognize "Voice in the Underwear" as Real Dave?
Is there anything that doesn't go over the head of this dimwit?
Post a Comment
<< Home