BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 243462 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

LRS

Shreveport, LA

#192064 May 31, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin was well aware that his theory would would be modified and extended as more and more evidence was discovered. In the past 150 years, evolutionary theory has been extensively refined, and the fact of evolution is undeniable to all but those wallowing in abject ignorance. That ought to tell Romper something.
Sensitive? Just stating the facts, moron.
Got any more infantile web sites disputing "theories of evolution" of wings from wing stubs and lungs from gills?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
<quoted text>
There's just one problem, shortboy! You lack the proof. Glotard, get real now, anything that opposes your "thinking" is automatically debunked by that narrow mind of yours. Don't you mean "just stating the facts according to Glotard"? BTW, you're OCDing again! LMAO! Shortboy can dish it out but he can't take it. Is anyone a bit surprised? LOL

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192065 May 31, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There's just one problem, shortboy! You lack the proof. Glotard, get real now, anything that opposes your "thinking" is automatically debunked by that narrow mind of yours. Don't you mean "just stating the facts according to Glotard"? BTW, you're OCDing again! LMAO! Shortboy can dish it out but he can't take it. Is anyone a bit surprised? LOL
The true problem is that Romper lacks understanding of the scientific method.

Sorry, Romper, I have mountains of evidence that conclusively back up the fact of evolution; the creationist or evolution denier has an ancient fable from neolithic herdsmen.

The fact of evolution is proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence, but can never be proven, as NO THEORY can ever be proven.

Theories are backed up by evidence, not proof. Sorry, Romper doesn't understand anything at all about the scientific method. Even a middle school child in the "A" group knows that theories are supported by evidence but not proven.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin was well aware that his theory would would be modified and extended as more and more evidence was discovered. In the past 150 years, evolutionary theory has been extensively refined, and the fact of evolution is undeniable to all but those wallowing in abject ignorance. That ought to tell Romper something.
Sensitive? Just stating the facts, moron.
Got any more infantile web sites disputing "theories of evolution" of wings from wing stubs and lungs from gills?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#192066 May 31, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The true problem is that Romper lacks understanding of the scientific method.
Sorry, Romper, I have mountains of evidence that conclusively back up the fact of evolution; the creationist or evolution denier has an ancient fable from neolithic herdsmen.
The fact of evolution is proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence, but can never be proven, as NO THEORY can ever be proven.
Theories are backed up by evidence, not proof. Sorry, Romper doesn't understand anything at all about the scientific method. Even a middle school child in the "A" group knows that theories are supported by evidence but not proven.
<quoted text>
Surely, this would be front page news all over the world! Guess the printing presses were down that night. Aw drats! A mountain of your evidence amounts to a mole hill of drivel. Sell that crap elsewhere, podnah!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192067 May 31, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There's just one problem, shortboy! You lack the proof. Glotard, get real now, anything that opposes your "thinking" is automatically debunked by that narrow mind of yours. Don't you mean "just stating the facts according to Glotard"? BTW, you're OCDing again! LMAO! Shortboy can dish it out but he can't take it. Is anyone a bit surprised? LOL
Nope. Romper lacks evidence falsifying the theory of evolution as it is currently understood. He also lacks a clue of the scientific method.

The facts are not "my facts" Romper. The evidence is out there for all to see. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with "wing stubs" that got bigger and bigger. It also has nothing to do with gills turning into lungs.

Grow up. Get an education.

BTW, Romper's ignorant web site included a section "The Indoctrination System Called 'Education'".

It reminds me of an old anti-evolution book from the 1940s called "Why Colleges Breed Communists". That book also had numerous bogus claims that evolution was impossible. Every example in the book has since been shown to support evolution.

Did you know that the closes living relative of the whale is the hippopotamus?

It's not only DNA evidence that supports this, but the fossil record as well.

"ANN ARBOR --- Partial skeletons of ancient whales found in Pakistan last year resolve a longstanding controversy over the origin of whales, confirming that the giant sea creatures evolved from early ancestors of sheep, deer and hippopotami and suggesting that hippos may be the closest living relatives of whales. The new finds, reported in the Sept. 21 issue of the journal Science, are the first and only specimens known that combine sheep-like ankle bones and archaic whale skull bones in the very same skeletons. " September 2001.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192068 May 31, 2014
Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan

the fossil whale, "R. balochistanensis has virtually complete fore- and hind limbs."

No transitional fossils?

"Partial skeletons of two new fossil whales, Artiocetus clavis and Rodhocetus balochistanensis, are among the oldest known protocetid archaeocetes. These came from early Lutetian age (47 million years ago) strata in eastern Balochistan Province, Pakistan. Both have an astragalus and cuboid in the ankle with characteristics diagnostic of artiodactyls; R. balochistanensis has virtually complete fore- and hind limbs. The new skeletons are important in augmenting the diversity of early Protocetidae, clarifying that Cetacea evolved from early Artiodactyla rather than Mesonychia and showing how early protocetids swam."

Philip D. Gingerich, et al. Science, VOL 293 21 SEPTEMBER 2001, pp 2239-42.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192069 May 31, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely, this would be front page news all over the world! Guess the printing presses were down that night. Aw drats! A mountain of your evidence amounts to a mole hill of drivel. Sell that crap elsewhere, podnah!
Front page? It's universally known among the educated in the biological sciences.

Romper, go to a good university and take a course in evolution. The amount of evidence is staggering.

Front page? Romper is totally ignorant. The fact of evolution is old hat.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The true problem is that Romper lacks understanding of the scientific method.
Sorry, Romper, I have mountains of evidence that conclusively back up the fact of evolution; the creationist or evolution denier has an ancient fable from neolithic herdsmen.
The fact of evolution is proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence, but can never be proven, as NO THEORY can ever be proven.
Theories are backed up by evidence, not proof. Sorry, Romper doesn't understand anything at all about the scientific method. Even a middle school child in the "A" group knows that theories are supported by evidence but not proven.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192070 May 31, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely, this would be front page news all over the world! Guess the printing presses were down that night. Aw drats! A mountain of your evidence amounts to a mole hill of drivel. Sell that crap elsewhere, podnah!
The printing presses were not down. The evidence has been accumulated and published during the past 100+ years, and continues today. Unfortunately, this fact is unknown among the ignorant.

Meanwhile ignorant creationists tilt at windmills such as debunking wing stubs. Totally ignorant. Barking up the wrong tree. Blind leading the blind.

Wing stubs. My arse.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192071 May 31, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
A mountain of your evidence amounts to a mole hill of drivel. Sell that crap elsewhere, podnah!
Is that what your middle schooler's web site about "wing stubs" told you?

Hahahahahahahaha!

Ignorant fool.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192072 May 31, 2014
What the passage below basically says is that molecular evidence indicated that whales were descended from an ancestor of the hippopotami (artiodactyls), but that some believed the whales descended from mesonychid condylarths (closely related to artiodactyls). The discovery of the fossils in 2001 CONFRIMED the DNA data, showing that whales derived from artiodactyls.
Meanwhile, Romper is busy debunking faux theories of evolution such as wings of birds from little wing buds, and the faux transition of gills to lungs. Pathetic.

Whales are marine mammals grouped in the order Cetacea (1). Most mammals live on land and the fossil record of early mammals is terrestrial. Thus, it has long been reasonable to infer that the origin of whales involved an evolutionary transition from land to sea. This is one of the most profound changes of adaptive zone amenable to study in the fossil record. Living whales are so distinctive, and intermediate fossils sufficiently rare, that a half-century ago Simpson regarded Cetacea as on the whole the most peculiar and aberrant of mammals, inserting them arbitrarily in his classic 1945 classification of mammals (2). In response, Boyden and Gemeroy (3) applied innovative immunological precipitin tests and found much higher crossreactivity of Cetacea to Artiodactyla than to other living orders of mammals. Van Valen (4) attempted to reconcile close relationship of whales and artiodactyls with the then-known fossil record by proposing that whales originated from Paleocene mesonychid condylarths, whereas artiodactyls originated from closely related Paleocene arctocyonid condylarths. Most morphologists and paleontologists have favored a mesonychid origin of whales (5 14), but further immunological, DNA hybridization, and molecular sequencing studies support close relationship of Cetacea to artiodactyls (1518) and more specifically to hippopotami within Artiodactyla (1927). Here we provide paleontological evidence showing that whales evolved from early artiodactyls rather than mesonychid condylarths.

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 293 21 SEPTEMBER 2001
I think you need a subscription to get this (as I have).

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192073 May 31, 2014
References 19-27 from Gingerich 2001, showing DNA evidence relating whales to hippopotami.

19. V. M. Sarich, in Mammal Phylogeny: Placentals, F. S. Szalay, M. J. Novacek, M. C. McKenna, Eds.(Springer, New York, 1993), pp. 103-114.
20. D. M. Irwin, U. Arnason, J. Mammal. Evol. 2, 37 (1994).
21. J. E. Gatesy, C. Hayashi, M. A. Cronin, P. Arctander, Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 954 (1996).
22. M. Shimamura et al., Nature 388, 666 (1997).
23. B. Ursing, U. Arnason, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265, 2251 (1998).
24. M. Nikaido, A. P. Rooney, N. Okada, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 10261 (1999).
25. J. E. Gatesy, M. C. Milinkovitch, V. G. Waddell, M. J. Stanhope, Syst. Biol. 48, 6 (1999).
26. R. G. Kleineidam, G. Pesole, H. J. Breukelman, J. J. Beintema, R. A. Kastelein, J. Mol. Evol. 48, 360 (1999).
27. U. Arnason, A. Gullberg, S. Gretarsdottir, B. Ursing, A. Janke, J. Mol. Evol. 50, 569 (2000).

And Romper thinks they forgot to publish it?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192074 May 31, 2014
Utterly nave.(From Romper's creationist web site)

"This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all."

It looks like the dumb arse thinks there are no such things as branches on a tree. It is not necessary for a species to go extinct to give rise to another species.

What pathetic ignorance.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192075 May 31, 2014
OMG, talk about stupidity.

"Scientific Fact No. 5 - Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong"

The jagoff is arguing against a Lamarchian theory, not Darwinian or current evolutionary theory.

And Romper believes this BS?

Whoever wrote this couldn't pass a high school bio course.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192076 May 31, 2014
Another stupid creationist claim:

"Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong"

"The scientific fact that DNA replication, including a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process, proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is, any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed."

Total bullshit. If this were true there would be no genetic diseases. There would be no mutations ever occurring. Total fecking nonsense.

When error checking is perfect, DNA replication is too inefficient. There is a biological trade-off that has -- evolved -- in the DNA processing enzymes. A good example is the exonuclease activity of DNA pol III. If it's too stringent (does no permit any errors), the species is at a disadvantage.

Romper needs to learn that it is not a good idea to learn "science" from an ignorant rube.

Normally they say three strikes and you're out. It's about ten strikes for Romper's pseudoscientific creation web site.

PATHETIC. Need I continue?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#192077 May 31, 2014
wojar wrote:
Another stupid creationist claim:
"Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong"
"The scientific fact that DNA replication, including a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process, proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is, any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed."
Total bullshit. If this were true there would be no genetic diseases. There would be no mutations ever occurring. Total fecking nonsense.
When error checking is perfect, DNA replication is too inefficient. There is a biological trade-off that has -- evolved -- in the DNA processing enzymes. A good example is the exonuclease activity of DNA pol III. If it's too stringent (does no permit any errors), the species is at a disadvantage.
Romper needs to learn that it is not a good idea to learn "science" from an ignorant rube.
Normally they say three strikes and you're out. It's about ten strikes for Romper's pseudoscientific creation web site.
PATHETIC. Need I continue?
I just debunked all those posts. The evidence SUGGESTED otherwise to me. Sorry. Need you continue? Continue what? Your meltdown? Your OCD and bigotry is showing, again. Told ya, sensitive little sucker! Glo came completely unglued! Shortboy, you, in no way, resemble a professional anything, other than a troll. Categorically debunked. LMAO!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#192078 May 31, 2014
Glotard, you're just going to have to accept the fact that most people don't agree with any of your views. That's just life. Get over it. You're a major nerd, dude, and not the least bit impressive. Deal with it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192080 May 31, 2014
LRS wrote:
Hey Glo, I thought I saw one of your little munchkins. Unfortunately, it was just my neighbor's kid in a monkey suit! LMAO! I'm kicked back, pondering why this dog keeps chasing his tail! Hmm? LOL
Can we get off the simian jokes? How sophomoric.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192081 May 31, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Name ONE achievement of FDR?...
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Achievements under FDR (1933-1945)
Social Security Act of 1935
National Labor Relations Act
Glass-Steagall Act, which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Securities and Exchange Act created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae")
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
Agricultural Adjustment Act
Rural Electrification Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
You forgot changing a run-of-the-mill depression into The Great Depression and being responsible for our military being unprepared for WWII which cost us hundreds of thousands of lives.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192082 May 31, 2014
Here we go again, this time it is butterflies and dragonflies. But this study ended in 2006 and a lot has changed since 2006 namely, no more Global Warming!!!
Tell us, has there been any change between 2006 and 2014? What if the patterns have reversed?!?

Why Lighter-Hued Butterflies and Dragonflies Are Faring Better Than Their Darker Counterparts
By Kristina Bravo | Takepart.com Sat, 31 May 2014

......Scientists from London and Copenhagen studied 366 butterfly species and 107 dragonfly species across Europe from 1988 to 2006......

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192083 May 31, 2014
Oh, and just who is Takepart? A far left loony-tooney site! Who could have guessed.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#192084 May 31, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I just debunked all those posts. The evidence SUGGESTED otherwise to me. Sorry. Need you continue? Continue what? Your meltdown? Your OCD and bigotry is showing, again. Told ya, sensitive little sucker! Glo came completely unglued! Shortboy, you, in no way, resemble a professional anything, other than a troll. Categorically debunked. LMAO!!!
That's not a rebuttal. moron. Your middle school web site you linked to is a joke. So are you.

Point by point, taken down. Totally destroyed. Romper is a failure.
wojar"]
Another stupid creationist claim:
"Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong"
"The scientific fact that DNA replication, including a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process, proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is, any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed."
Total bullshit. If this were true there would be no genetic diseases. There would be no mutations ever occurring. Total fecking nonsense.
When error checking is perfect, DNA replication is too inefficient. There is a biological trade-off that has -- evolved -- in the DNA processing enzymes. A good example is the exonuclease activity of DNA pol III. If it's too stringent (does no permit any errors), the species is at a disadvantage.
Romper needs to learn that it is not a good idea to learn "science" from an ignorant rube.
Normally they say three strikes and you're out. It's about ten strikes for Romper's pseudoscientific creation web site.
PATHETIC. Need I continue?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min San Souci 1,759,501
Change one letter in the word (Apr '12) 4 hr The real Rudy 77
Trump is A (Oct '17) 4 hr CrunchyBacon 761
Insane Popes 34th Hoyne Park (Nov '12) 6 hr St63rd 25
Straight 4 bi 1st time 6 hr friend 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr FARTS DOG 64,672
where to score h in chicago (Jul '12) 8 hr Yoyo 10

Chicago Jobs

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages