>> ^JiggaJonson:

With the votes being 1/1/28/1, you've touched on something that is clearly, as you put it, divisive. </sarcasm>
It may be divisive among the troglodytes that make up a good hunk of society, but I would hope, for most who are not ignorant of what evolution is, that this is not even a question. What @zombieater brings up about abiogenesis is something I agree with. @gwiz665 makes a good point too. It's just hard to answer a question like this when the question is not very specific.
On another note, I also don't believe extraterrestrial evolution is that far fetched; with The Voyager 1 reaching the boundaries of our solar system, I think it's certainly possible that even we are colonizing a few cells if by some chance they make their way to a habitable planet. That situation, however, requires that Darwinian evolution exists.


Wow, the result... I figured we'd have a few more for Creationism and especially Theistic Evolution, BUT all I can say is that I'm guessing education (YES, this is a big player!) played a large part into the outcome of this poll. The only two things that could be making such a large play on this poll is, one: education--this is pretty straight forward, but basically everyone that voted had a considerable higher source of education (or perhaps even better grades, thus more attention and better retention of the knowledge they learned). Two: cultural (or better said sometimes as: community education), this could be due to the literal source of where this poll is located such as in this case, "The Internet", meaning it attracts a certain type of person and ONLY persons that have access to the Internet (which already means that those people most likely have access to things you only commonly see in a First World society--especially if it seems to be a common place discussion...); second, the culture and community around the person voting. In this case we could say that the culture and community are both the Internet. The last choice is of course your personal one; we all have it in the end, but this poll was taken on the Internet and shown to have a stark difference between a "real world" poll and a tongue-and-cheek version.

Of course the original was the U.S. only and also was across all types of people. It would be interesting to go back to those polls and have them mark out the reasoning for why they made the choices they did. Was it religion? Was it religion, but evolution is on their minds they just don't think science has proved it yet...? Was it science? Was it what they were taught (belief)? Did they guess or just pick what they thought was right? Lets see a poll on that as well.
----------------
For example if you go to this page here: wiki-answers: Do you believe in Creationism or Evolution and why?

It REALLY is a Creationism page! Sure they "try" to be nice to evolution, but apparently whoever understands evolution there knows about it in a 1970's Junior High textbook read-through half-assed way, looking back after 47 years they wrote a very brief summary of what they "thought it was (after writing some stuff down from Wikipedia too flesh it out)" and then left it for the masses.

They even put up links, plenty of creationist, creationism, or young-earth scientist links, BUT when they got to evolution they put up:...not even the Wikipedia entry. THEN they call it an answer on a page were people go looking for answers and this is a page that gets HIGH HITS from Google! They can barely even explain what the word evolution is, they know know enough to not get "clowned" by every single person.

BUT, here's the thing I bet the majority of the people that voted yes for evolution on this poll COULD in fact tear into this person and make a mockery out of that page. The page tries to be friendly to what I would call: "Atheist Suckers". They come on soft and nice, telling you how religion got you down, but guess what there is so much evidence that is just plain strange--it makes no sense.

As I said though, there is absolutely no page to back up their claims; just some names of idiotic scientists that most likely were Dentists and decided it was their job to tell you that carbon dating is fake, and so on and so forth.
----------------
To me it is as clear as day, but maybe I'll FORCE someone to make a poll besides me on this subject. Why did you vote for evolution, creationism, intelligent design, or the aliens (don't forget comedy for the alien choice ), or maybe just quickly post below as it would much quicker get the job done and allow for every response in the book, including multi-responses. Maybe even tell what choices you were originally if you changed over time and HOW those choices changed (was it due to faith or education)!?

the one next to stark's head covered with a wig so you can't really see anything?

can I get my 2:32 of life back please?

>> ^kymbos:

For a second series that was just inching along prior, the final two episodes finally gained some momentum, IMO. I was stoked with the last two episodes.
But explain something to me (and forgive my lack of names - I'll try to describe them).
The red-head guy who took Winterfell - he made a speech, the guy from the Office clocked him on the head, and the next thing the whole place has burned down. How does that work? Why didn't the 500 Starks outside bust in and stop them? What happened to the red-head? They couldn't burn down Winterfell and then hand him over and just wander off, surely? They'd have them on spikes in no time.
Also, Sansa is told by the Dog that he'll take her to Winterfell at the end of ep.9 - then in the finale he's just gone and she's still around. What?
Apart from that, on the whole, my only criticism as a noob is general pace. Some story lines are left unprogressed for ages, while we watch Rob slowly fall in love with someone. There are so many people we're attached to on cliff-hangers, spending half an episode setting up a romance between Rob and his ladyfriend is just redundant.
Otherwise, it's no Breaking Bad but I like it.


That scene doesn't come off very well in the book either. I can't really tell you what happened in the book without spoiling it, suffice to say that a few more things happened between those two parts of the story. They handled it differently on the show than in the book, and I think they'll explain how it played out at the beginning of the next season. One note though: Robb did say in the show that any Ironborn except Theon could leave unharmed if they surrendered.

Sansa's story will also play out more, you're supposed to be confused.

As to the pace, that's just the way the books are written. It gets so bad that eventually, the two latest books take place simultaneously, with different characters. Book four: A Feast For Crows contains no Tyrion at all, you have to read through to the fifth book to find out what Tyrion was doing while the events of the fourth book were playing out. Weird huh? But I couldn't stop reading them.

For a second series that was just inching along prior, the final two episodes finally gained some momentum, IMO. I was stoked with the last two episodes.

But explain something to me (and forgive my lack of names - I'll try to describe them).

The red-head guy who took Winterfell - he made a speech, the guy from the Office clocked him on the head, and the next thing the whole place has burned down. How does that work? Why didn't the 500 Starks outside bust in and stop them? What happened to the red-head? They couldn't burn down Winterfell and then hand him over and just wander off, surely? They'd have them on spikes in no time.

Also, Sansa is told by the Dog that he'll take her to Winterfell at the end of ep.9 - then in the finale he's just gone and she's still around. What?

Apart from that, on the whole, my only criticism as a noob is general pace. Some story lines are left unprogressed for ages, while we watch Rob slowly fall in love with someone. There are so many people we're attached to on cliff-hangers, spending half an episode setting up a romance between Rob and his ladyfriend is just redundant.

Otherwise, it's no Breaking Bad but I like it.

She's like a little Arya Stark.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ned, cersei, lannister, sean bean, game of thrones' to 'eddard stark, ned stark, sean bean, game of thrones' - edited by xxovercastxx

I love Arya she's so uncannily quick witted it's amazing can't wait till she's just a bit older and really learns how to use that sword of hers.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

I just love Tyrion though. He's such a clever little imp!

Sometimes I just skip other peoples scenes in order to get to Tyrions. Tywin and Arya's scenes are awesome though, I love them together.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

I just love Tyrion though. He's such a clever little imp!


Sometimes I just skip other peoples scenes in order to get to Tyrions. Tywin and Arya's scenes are awesome though, I love them together.

Hmm guess I forgot that scene after five weeks heh

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

Thanks, luv!
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
*promote

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.


I just love Tyrion though. He's such a clever little imp!

>> ^Auger8:

What episode is this I thought I saw them all?


Episode 1 of Season 2.

I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

it = engage in war (when it should be clear that doing so will do little or nothing to improve the long term security of the US (and may in fact degrade that security)).
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.

Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

I spelled it out as clearly as I can three comments up, with three very specific examples. I'm not sure how else I can word it.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.

Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

>> ^jonny:

That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.


Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.

To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.

You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.