Is a naturally occuring universe/life the biggest conspiracy ever?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

Hey Ak, rather than ask others, accept, believe their opinion, you might find the links worth reading,

First of all i don't ask anyone about these things... IF i want to know something i read it for myself... And never off some silly creationist website...

Further more... Anything on those sites, which includes almost everything on those sites are not worth reading...

I told you before, anything associated with Ken Ham and his band of clowns is a waste of space...

Well known liars... And the man himself is a felon...

Even the people on those sites with actual degrees lie and distort facts to bolster their personal beliefs

Its just sad... Similar to yourself, who actually reads nothing anyone posts when you ask for "evidence"... even though said evidence has been tossed in your face for pages on this and a few other threads

All you do is mock people, and ignore any thing that invalidates your opinion...

And you opinion isn't even yours... It comes from those same websites i've been talking about

Well clearly you didnt read it, you would have noted they wernt creationists sites

Furthermore, it doesnt matter you clearly didnt read them

Ken Ham and his clowns, really, the message Ak not the person, you have to deal with the message. Its a weal argument to attack the person, you should know better. All you do is mock people, and ignore any thing that invalidates your opinion...

You said "Well known liars... And the man himself is a felon..."
Then you said "All you do is mock people, and ignore any thing that invalidates your opinion... " Hmmm

and yes my opinion is based on others opinions, I note you just make stuff up and believe it, without evidence, right?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

They are not my beliefs lad. Science is not a religion. You can ribbet all you like, it does not make it so. They are biased sites as they are all hawking what THEY wish to portray, as opposed to a peer reviewed paper which follows the evidence.

Yes I get that noinden, you are repeating yourself, so let me

Any site that questions your beliefs, any site that would suggest that science needs to be refined is biased?

Your beliefs are a holy cow, unquestionable, beyond reproach.

You say that if science is proven wrong it's changed and in another post you state quite clearly anyone questioning science is science is biased.

What's wrong with you noinden, you claim a higher education, yet, can't seem to think like you have that higher education

You have a disconnect between the validity of your own faith, it's value and common sense

Can you seriously not see that, can't you?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Those aren't whistle blowers, they are religious fanatics. You cite them and propaganda sites, not actual research done by scientists.

Barcs
These are the sites you said were religious, the sites I linked, only a page ago

www.americanthinker.com...
American thinker

www.wsj.com...
Wall Street Journal

emerald.tufts.edu...
Tufts University

amazingly enough, it seems Ak thinks there religious sites as well.

The consensus is with you and Ak, though I am inclined to disagree, if this was a scientific community I would have to bow down to your foolishness, lucky me

1) I dont listen to you
2) I disagree with you
and
evidently you are a little silly it seems

a reply to: Raggedyman

See here you are once again resorting to the "Big Lie technique. You are unable to back up your claims, so you shout them at whom ever questions you. Hoping you are the loudest.

But you can not prove a damned thing. Its been obvious in every reply in this and other threads. You even parrot phrases I have used back at me. Perhaps you think you understand NLP? Who knows.

The fact remains, you can not demonstrate that Science is a religion. You go for ad hominem attacks on those of us who disagree with you.

So neighbour, keep croaking along like a good little amphibian, but 11 still wants you stop using his moniker, he's the Doctor after all

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well clearly you didnt read it, you would have noted they wernt creationists sites


Furthermore, it doesnt matter you clearly didnt read them

Perhaps you missed the part where i said nothing in your links provide anything worth reading...

Ken Ham and his clowns, really, the message Ak not the person, you have to deal with the message. Its a weal argument to attack the person, you should know better. All you do is mock people, and ignore any thing that invalidates your opinion...

You said "Well known liars... And the man himself is a felon..."
Then you said "All you do is mock people, and ignore any thing that invalidates your opinion... " Hmmm

Ken ham is the exception to that rule... he's an idiot... and makes a fool of himself on a regular basis...

Nothing he pushes is even remotely valid... so i don't need to attack "the message" he has, because its garbage anyways

and yes my opinion is based on others opinions, I note you just make stuff up and believe it, without evidence, right?

No that would be you... and all anyone has to do is review the last few pages to figure that out quite quickly

a reply to: Akragon

The accepted rule is that if a person (and Ken Ham barely qualifies) relies on lies, attacks on persons, and nothing more (and yes that is all Kenny boy relies on), then they it is open season on them.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh and as for your links... that actually aren't from creationists sites

Yes... Results can be tampered with... some scientists can be persuaded to cook their results when money is concerned... but that happens across the board... including in RELIGION

Just because some science has been corrupted in the past does not mean ALL science is corrupt...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh and as for your links... that actually aren't from creationists sites

Yes... Results can be tampered with... some scientists can be persuaded to cook their results when money is concerned... but that happens across the board... including in RELIGION

Just because some science has been corrupted in the past does not mean ALL science is corrupt...

Dont worry, dont fear

I have an opinion, if you disagree with my opinion, I wont hold it against you, if you dont like my links, thats fine.

I am aware corruption is across all humanity, I would never be foolish enough to claim religion is above corruption, evil men and distortion, manipulation
Unlike those (you) who claimed science is.

I have never suggested and have never even considered saying such a thing, so take your preachy sermons elsewhere.

and I have NEVER said all science was corrupt, though I expect many scientists are.

You are a strawman, embarrassingly so

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

See here you are once again resorting to the "Big Lie technique. You are unable to back up your claims, so you shout them at whom ever questions you. Hoping you are the loudest.

But you can not prove a damned thing. Its been obvious in every reply in this and other threads. You even parrot phrases I have used back at me. Perhaps you think you understand NLP? Who knows.

The fact remains, you can not demonstrate that Science is a religion. You go for ad hominem attacks on those of us who disagree with you.

So neighbour, keep croaking along like a good little amphibian, but 11 still wants you stop using his moniker, he's the Doctor after all

Croak croak

Evolution has no empirical evidence, its assumed, its a belief, its a faith

croak croak

Did you learn to quote wikipedia at uni

a reply to: Raggedyman

I learned to give people who refuse to look at the source materials, the cliff notes version.

But given you've admitted you are using the big lie technique. We can assume you have now conceeded this. (...yeah right)

But here yah go froggy here you go.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh and as for your links... that actually aren't from creationists sites

Yes... Results can be tampered with... some scientists can be persuaded to cook their results when money is concerned... but that happens across the board... including in RELIGION

Just because some science has been corrupted in the past does not mean ALL science is corrupt...

Dont worry, dont fear

I have an opinion, if you disagree with my opinion, I wont hold it against you, if you dont like my links, thats fine.

I am aware corruption is across all humanity, I would never be foolish enough to claim religion is above corruption, evil men and distortion, manipulation
Unlike those (you) who claimed science is.

I have never suggested and have never even considered saying such a thing, so take your preachy sermons elsewhere.

and I have NEVER said all science was corrupt, though I expect many scientists are.

You are a strawman, embarrassingly so

Please dude...

You have three or four people in these threads giving you every answer you ask for and you basically stick your fingers in your ears and say "nope nope"

Then you accuse these same people of hating the very thing they're trying to explain to you

How they keep this going is beyond me... Though at least they have exposed your absolute ignornace and unwillingness to read...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I learned to give people who refuse to look at the source materials, the cliff notes version.

But given you've admitted you are using the big lie technique. We can assume you have now conceeded this. (...yeah right)

But here yah go froggy here you go.

Croak croack

I recon you should read this
en.wikipedia.org...
It explains the theory of evolution well

as for your other link, not spending $32.00 US on part of that big lie, that theory (that word again)

Croack Croack, RRrrrmmmmmmm...RRrrrmmmmmmm, to be more correct

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh and as for your links... that actually aren't from creationists sites

Yes... Results can be tampered with... some scientists can be persuaded to cook their results when money is concerned... but that happens across the board... including in RELIGION

Just because some science has been corrupted in the past does not mean ALL science is corrupt...

Dont worry, dont fear

I have an opinion, if you disagree with my opinion, I wont hold it against you, if you dont like my links, thats fine.

I am aware corruption is across all humanity, I would never be foolish enough to claim religion is above corruption, evil men and distortion, manipulation
Unlike those (you) who claimed science is.

I have never suggested and have never even considered saying such a thing, so take your preachy sermons elsewhere.

and I have NEVER said all science was corrupt, though I expect many scientists are.

You are a strawman, embarrassingly so

Please dude...

You have three or four people in these threads giving you every answer you ask for and you basically stick your fingers in your ears and say "nope nope"

Then you accuse these same people of hating the very thing they're trying to explain to you

How they keep this going is beyond me... Though at least they have exposed your absolute ignornace and unwillingness to read...

Please dude???

Ak I have seen you do the same with your treasured gnosticism.
If you havnt worked it out now, if you havnt understood yet
There is little to no hope

It is patently clear that many here hate, HATE science.
They manipulate it, distort it, they claim it above reproach, they get antsy if its questioned.
They rant and rail because I question it and then they send dubious invalid links for me to read from liars and charlatans

Please dude, just exit, you have nothing to offer except a boring, repetitive, invalid running commentary
Just as a head up, they are not explaining science, only their beliefs regarding the theory of evolution.

I want evidence, not wishy washy evidence, empirical evidence.
In case you dont understand, the onus is not on me to prove anything, I am not pushing the agenda, just denying what they try to Big Lie to me about. I am allowed to question anything I like, I am allowed to deny anything I like

Funny I am told quite a substantial percentage of the population think evolution is a lie, should I agree with you, should I make you happy
Should I say like you, scientists are above reproach

Sorry Ak, not playing this for you, not playing a game and am totally not interested in doing as you tell me

Go preach at someone else, not interested

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol thats funny...

Take your own advice...

With every post you you reply to you show the world why i stated bluntly

I don't argue with children

Thanks again

a reply to: Akragon

Yet here you are

again...

a reply to: Raggedyman

You make me chuckle...

Its hard to stay away from illogical nonsense

Oh well, I thought it was worth a try. I guess not

Although I am comforted by the lack of creationists responding.

By not giving them anything to argue against and accepting their beliefs from the start it makes them honestly question their position. Quite a scary proposition for the religious.

Not much more to add.

I just hope a seed has been planted for the creationists who chose to ignore the initial question.

What was all that about krahzeef, do you sincerely think any creationist are swayed by argument?
To sway people to follow evolution it needs to stop being a religion and show empirical evidence

The fact that evolution has nothing valid to show the world

a reply to: Raggedyman

I think all rational people should be swayed by argument, so to answer your question I guess not.

I never quite understood the argument that evolution is just as useless as religion so choose religion angle.

Is medicine not valid?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

I think all rational people should be swayed by argument, so to answer your question I guess not.

I never quite understood the argument that evolution is just as useless as religion so choose religion angle.

Is medicine not valid?

Well if you could argue that a medicine you have I should take, I would still think it stupid.
If you could prove a medicine you have is beneficial...

We can go roundabouts on this but your argument is invalid without evidence

Tootles