It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just saw Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled" about the issues of Darwinism......

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 




I don't buy anyones "spiritual enlightenment", no matter how they feel it happened or what the event or outcomes area. I'm sorry, it didn't happen. Your brain spazzed and you hallucinated whatever it is you saw.


What gives you the right to define reality, or spirituality for that matter, for someone else? You don't have that right. You have the right to speak for yourself, and no one else.



1 Corinthians 1

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


I can only pray that one day you will have a salvation experience, and be saved in Christ. You obviously fall on the side of the Greeks here, seeking after wisdom. There is nothing wrong with that. It will only get you so far though, imo. There is the visible world and the invisible world, and Christ is the bridge.

There is no such thing as chance, luck, or coincidence. There is only God's will. Praise God!


[edit on 26-4-2008 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


What gives you the right to define reality, or spirituality for that matter, for someone else? You don't have that right. You have the right to speak for yourself, and no one else.

I thought she was speaking for herself. She said, 'I don't buy...', meaning 'I don't believe in spiritual epiphanies, so I can't believe in yours.'

If someone affirms that he has touched the face of God, no-one can possible question the reality of his experience to him.

But we're entitled to question its objective reality. Usually, good manners would dictate that we don't do so to his face. But a like courtesy is demanded of him: he must not attempt to use his utterly real (to him) but unprovable (to us) experience to validate his statements and opinions. Because when someone does that, they are demanding that we accept what they say as true just because they say it. Thus they force the question of the truth or falsity or their mystical experience to be either accepted or rejected.

If I honestly don't believe in such things, what do you expect me to do? Force myself to believe for politeness' sake? Or should I, too, suddenly claim special, personal, mystically gained knowledge -- that trumps dominicus's -- and carry on the argument on those terms?

There's no arguing with some folk. That's why my contributions to this thread mainly have been limited to providing links to information about the Expelled fiasco. But I object just as strongly as Ms. Benjamin does to being told 'Verily I say unto thee, it is as I say, for the Truth hath been vouchsafed unto me.' If you say things like that, you must expect to hear a few people shout 'hogwash!'



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
EDIT: Astyanax makes very good points and i think it's funny that 'defenders' of scientist ( instead of the scientific process which IS something worth defending ) in general seem to be every much as dogmatic as those they are attempting to discredit by appeals to 'objectivity'. /me shakes head


" A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Winston Churchill ( Even drunks say clever things)


So lets all agree to sometimes change our minds, or failing that, the subject matter?



Originally posted by derekcbart
There is a "design" to nature, but it is a bottom-up type of design that occurs naturally and not a top-down type of design that would occur by a "designer".


I don't think many if any ID proponents are suggesting that NO evolution happens or that EVERY mutation in biological history have been orchestrated for a specific end. What IS claimed is that there have been INTERVENTIONS where certain mutations/complexity is added very suddenly for specific goals. Just like we are now engineering our food stuff's and animals so ID proponents are arguing other far more advanced races or entities might have altered us and or other living organisms for their own reasons.


We see the bottom-up design in bacteria as well as plants and animals.


There is NO design to evolution or naturally beneficial reason for complexity to arise. Complexity just complicates the issue and we have species that have stayed the same for tens if not hundreds of millions of years.


ID proponents tend to say that a particular object (eyeball, flagellum, etc.) is so perfect that if you removed any part that it wouldn't work anymore. What is typically misunderstood is that you do not need the current design of an object to be the only design.


No, SOME ignorant and or self interested ID proponents are saying that when even a cursory reading of relevent text books would indicate that ANY benefit what so ever may be selected for given a relatively unique set of environmental conditions.


The flagellum may not work the same way if you take part of it away today, but evidence shows that another earlier form of the flagellum provides another perfectly usable function.


So it's good then i didn't stake everything on the flagellum being proof that ID must be true... In fact i don't think i have to provide ANY proof as this is not about proof entirely but about philosophy! Scientist who wish to exclude this possibility is no less fundamentalist than the very people they accuse of being fanatics! It's very ironic and all but sadly true and quite the argument against the average scientist as bringer of truth.


It was adaptation that changed the earlier flagellum to the modern flagellum (or eye or whatever object you choose).

-Derek


So they claim and since i just don't have that kind of degree the best i can do is point out that they do not know for sure how the flagellum evolved but that they have a number of theories as to how it possibly could have.

Stellar


[edit on 27-4-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


That's all well and good. Just as the Apostle Thomas said he would need to place his finger in the holes in the hands of Christ and his hand in His side to believe He had risen, so we all must experience these things personally. No one believed Christ had risen until they experienced the risen Christ for themselves. That is exactly the point.

This is what I take issue with.



I'm sorry, it didn't happen. Your brain spazzed and you hallucinated whatever it is you saw.


Just as no one can validate the experience of Christ for someone else, no one can negate it either. You conveniently left the salient part of the quote (restated above) out of your reply. The devil is a master of Scripture, yet twists it from the meaning intended by God to his own evil design.



Matthew 4

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. (misquote of Psalm 91:11-12)

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
In fact i don't think i have to provide ANY proof as this is not about proof entirely but about philosophy!


I agree with you that this discussion is best suited to a philosophy classroom. However, the point of Ben Stein's movie (which is the topic of this thread) is that this discussion is supposed to be allowed in a science classroom. I do not believe it should be until ID demonstrates a scientific proposition that can be tested and examined.

-Derek



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Sure, but now you're engaged in the "well I experienced it, so it must be true" logical insanity. That's about as far from science as is possible to get. Which explains a lot.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I agree that subjective experience and inductive reasoning can easily lead one astray. A single personal event or impression cannot be independently verified. Neither am I asking anyone else to take my word about it. The whole idea is a personal relationship with God.

Only when the threshold of personal conviction has been breached can any hypothesis be accepted as fact by the individual. The scientific method builds up a framework of such agreements and presents them as fact. The conclusions based on these givens work to describe most of human experience. This validates the scientific method.

As an individual, I have had the credibility threshold breached by the presence of God in my life. His presence has been validated both internally anhd externally to such an extent there is no longer any doubt in my mind that my Redeemer lives in the person of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior.

May you be as certain of your beliefs, and carry the conviction to do what's right that goes with it.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
It's just great how people demand to have absolute proof of evolution before they believe it, yet someone says "Invisible dude in the sky that runs everything" and people buy into that with ZERO proof.

Kinda hypocritical huh?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos
 


I think your statement is kind of biased. There is irrefutable proof to believers that God exists and created the world. Just as there is irrefutable proof to science that evolution exists. The method used to arrive at each conclusion is at issue. You say that religious doctrine cannot provide proof of God, but scientific method can provide proof of evolution. Yet the same logical process is used to establish both. Scientific donctrine holds, for the most part, in the physical world; and religious doctrine holds, for the most part, in the spiritual world.

You must therefore not accept the premise of the unknown, the inexplicable, the supernatural. Yet science is geared toward explaining the unknown, and good scientists readily admit they don't know how everything works. To deny the unknown is to deny science, and the scientific method of deduction.

I don't think evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. I think they can coexist as partners that work together to explain the totality of human experience.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


There is no irrefutable proof of God, even to believers. All they have is an idea they haven't analysed logically (as it is based on circular logic - god is real because he wrote the bible, and the bible is real because it was written by god), and will do anything to believe in. That's it. They might think they have proof, they might have even risen up into the sky and played a nice game of poker with him. That's still not proof. And I can tell you why - there is no such thing as proof outside of mathematics. Everything else is open to contradictory evidence.

It's the same with science. There is no irrefutable proof for any scientific theory, just reams and reams of evidence that supports it. That's the beauty of science - unlike religion, it wants to be proven wrong, and so in lies its strength. Science is in a stable equilibrium, religion is in an unstable equilibrium. Science can afford to be challenged, as it doesn't hold any idea as untouchable. Religion, on the other hand, MUST not allow questions about whether, say, God exists, as without god, their religion is meaningless, and unlike science, that entails a lot of psychological suffering for those folks who come to realise they've been mislead all those years. Compare that to when a scientist is proven wrong - it's a joyous occasion, as something has been learned, and human knowledge has increased.

There is no scientific doctrine, just a scientific method. The method was constructed with one goal in mind - to find evidence.

I do agree that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. I, for one, would be far more impressed with God if he'd made a universe that can adapt on its own, creating new species as time moves forward, than just making everything at once and sitting down for the rest of eternity.

So, to sum up in an admittedly-oversimplified sound-byte: Science is the "how", religion is the "why".



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
My belief in God is reinforced all the time. As I said earlier, I have seen enough evidence not only for God, but of Him, to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, irrefutably, that God exists. What the scientific method is about is taking seemingly random occurrences, relating them through agreed upon (doctrinal) premises, and predicting outcomes to a relative certainty. Or reverse engineering the same process. The more often a predicted outcome occurs, the more established and accepted the method.

Not one of God's promises (predicted outcomes) has ever failed. That is true for me in my own experience, and when I look at the history of man in general. Say what you like, I accept the fact of your disbelief. God predicted that, as well.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


There is no evidence for god. That's it. Predictions? Come on, seriously. That's ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos
 


Who's denying evolution happens? I didn't go back and read all the posts but I don't remember anyone coming flat out and saying "I don't believe evolution happens." You'd have to be pretty thick to not believe the process of evolution happens. You can sit and watch it with simple organisms.

I'm still not clear as to the scope of this whole argument of magic man in space vs. evolution. They can exist independently of each other quite well and subsequently proof of one does not disprove the other. Also, evolution works fine and dandy for the relatively short period of time this planet has existed and even from "big band" forward but what was there before that? Where did that come from? Did the magic space man come from the big bang too? He must have if the argument is always between the two, magic man and evolution.

Seems to me you can have evolution and a god at the same time without them harming one or the other. It also seems to me that there aren't any answers to be found in this argument.

It's like when politicians ignore larger issues and rally people around simple short-sighted things for support and votes. Never-mind the artificially inflated economy and the fact that none of you can own property ever, we need universal healthcare! sort of nonsense. Never mind questioning the origin of all of existence or the true worth of time and existence we need to focus on whether or not a magic space man put a hole in dolphins head.

The bull-headed on both sides seem to have a big wall up in their reasoning that keeps them stuck in a very narrow thought process. Narrow and shallow. Do you really think the infinity of all that exists really cares whether or not you think some magic man put a hole in a dolphins head?

All this is is a bunch of "god" haters attacking "god" lovers and vice versa for absolutely no gain whatsoever. The most pointless of battles with no end in sight.

Within the boundaries of infinity I think it's pretty safe to say that there exists or has existed something slightly more or sufficiently differently capable than any of us idiots wasting time on ATS that could be seen as "magic" and the existence of such an entity has absolutely no impact on the evolutionary process. Whether that magic man wrote the process or not makes no difference. Unless of course he tries to tax us for the service.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The sequel will be out soon "Sexpelled"




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by derekcbart
I agree with you that this discussion is best suited to a philosophy classroom.


What i stated is that it's obvious that ID is well within the realm of science PROVIDED you ask worthwhile questions. If the majority of scientist wish to ignore those questions that just makes their motives more obvious to those who do.


However, the point of Ben Stein's movie (which is the topic of this thread) is that this discussion is supposed to be allowed in a science classroom.


So? Why why can't we we discuss it in terms of science when scientist so frequently uses the knowledge achieved by the scientific method to attack the claims of the ID? If science does not apply how can they make scientific arguments against it?


I do not believe it should be until ID demonstrates a scientific proposition that can be tested and examined.

-Derek


That has already happened but scientist have decided that the arguments put forward buy ID proponents are not scientific. Much like G W claimed that there were WOMD ( despite the fact that the CIA knew there wasn't any) this is not a question of right or wrong or science/non science but about how gets on air most and seems most credible to the generally ignorant public.

Stellar



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
We can discuss ID in the classroom - it'll take all of 20 seconds.

Teacher: Let's talk about Intelligent Design. It's a hypothesis, not a theory, and there is no supporting evidence.

Ta-daaa! That's how long it takes to discuss ID in a classroom. If IDers could actually scrape together some evidence, we'd be able to discuss it further. As it is, it's just a hypothesis, as nothing has been found in the entire world (apart from the Bible) that indicates it happened. And the Bible is not valid scientific evidence any more than the Harry Potter books.

ID is not a scientific theory, no matter how many sciency words people use to describe it. It's missing the very essense of a scientific theory - it's not based on observations, there's no way to demonstrate it's correct, and you can't experiment on it. Just one of those is enough to discredit any hypothesis as being unscientific, let alone having three of 'em. People kick and scream that ID has to be taken seriously, but that doesn't change the fact that it's impossible to talk about it seriously, as there's nothing to discuss, except "God did it".



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HeadFirstForHalos

It's just great how people demand to have absolute proof of evolution before they believe it, yet someone says "Invisible dude in the sky that runs everything" and people buy into that with ZERO proof.
Kinda hypocritical huh?


I don't demand it because I know they don't have it and if it was MY movie, I would have been a lot more straight up with what Evolution really is and why statements like Dave, Madness Asty always talking about the "mountain" of evidence when all I ask is to show me ONE item of physical proof. Just one example of proof prima facie evidence, to substantiate macroevolution.

We have seen evolution go back to the drawing board in an effort to explain away the very foundation of its premise. The rationale usually given as a disclaimer regarding intermediary fossil evidence is about as transparent as it gets. It is an excuse to cover the same argument that has plagued the theory, since its inception in 1857.



We should not care if we are not going to see them or find them for this reason or that. We KNOW why we do not see millions and millions of mutant ninja turtles in the fossil record. We also know what evolutionists find the obvious reason unacceptable and were desperate to invent something to gloss over the most critical area we use to debunk it.

The writing is on the wall for these yarn spinners for every new idea, concept or theory they have added or "revised", they only create a bigger problem for the evolutionists to solve later because NOW they have to explain these new mitigating circumstances in addition to, all the other ill conceived ramifications that arise when making things up as you go. This is EXACTLY what Darwinists have done and continue to do.

They all behave like belligerent juveniles either over reacting to a threat of a competing Science OR they just cannot stand the thought of admitting they have been wrong all these years. Perhaps it is a little of both. Until we know the jury is not still out on where we came from and how we got to where we are, evolutionists should at least, AT LEAST keep their "opinions" to themselves and QUIT calling them FACTS.

Fact is something we can hang our hat on; we can have faith in it being a fact tomorrow, next week, a year from now and beyond.

We should over turn the scopes trials and have them re-do the entire case since Clarence Darrow sited manufactured evidence as proof to give his case for teaching it in schools credence. Well, since then, evolution has had many revisions but not the kind you would expect, that get a clear-cut answer to either affirm or debunk a hypothesis. What we see is Scientist perplexed by the same dark secret many of the top scientists in evolution will admit behind closed doors among peers they can trust.

That is they know damn well Darwin was a Dimwitted Dunce who no more deserves to have his theory sited as one of the most important discoveries of mankind than Al Gore deserves credit for inventing the internet and "Glow Bull Warning"

Many of you have made what we assume by how impressed with yourselves you seem to be when saying it, profound clever quips about the recent conversion of an evolutionist saying, "Wow fifty years!" "Rocks don't live that long!" all laughing thinking you nailed that guy. Oh yeah what a cop out,. We have even seen an Atheist make the statement, he doubted whether the person was a real atheist or not as if Atheism is a pre-requisite for being an evolutionist. He then generalizes about Atheists having more patience than most people or creationists as if it is something in the Atheist meme that makes it so.

Ill tell you why they are more patient,

They simply don't have a choice when supporting something that isn't going to happen,

Never HAS happened

Never did happen

Never could happen

Never would happen

Never, No, Not Ever

Will happen

EVER

First, Fifty years IS a long time, when you consider you got JOHNSON all that time in fifty years you are no closer to establishing Darwits theory as a bona fide fact of life anymore than Darwit could in the 1800's. That means his fifty years is in addition to the time and already compiled work he was taking up from where his predecessors started. Their comes a time when you have to grow up and kick the dumb idea to the curb and hopefully a good day of rain will send it to the sewer where it can finally be among the "stuff" it always DID establish as evidence, or what many call a load of crap.

While these evolutionists say they have a "mountain of evidence", I have no idea what that means but if you ask me, it isn't no mountain, it's a landfill with junk science under it all and if that is why they say creationism isn't a science and has no business being in science, then the same is true for Darwits Devilution.

I agree it is not a theory,

It is a scam, a fraud a lie a flim flam and Darwin was a carnival guy, a huckster.

Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Oh and by the way, please spare us the examples having ANYTHING to do with sentences having the following words "assume" or "we can expect" or "it can be postulated" . That is NOT what observed means and YES we DO know there are other ways to observe. We just don't believe making it up is one of them.

Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

We sure are lucky the Honey Bee evolved from the prehistoric titsi fly in time and just happened to have the right "stuff" to pollinate flowers or a hell of a lot of other plants would not have made it. Of course we assume those plants were getting by via "magic" while the honeybee was mutating into what it can do now. That is just one very ironic coincidence among millions that just happened all in the nick of time we are to assume.

Similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor. To say otherwise is to cancel out so many inventions patents, intellectual property etc. We see so many automatic answers given by evolutionists prior to engaging in the discussion, we expect to see fossil's with tags on them saying, "Removal of this tag is prohibited by law and punishable for up to 3 years."

If you are an evolutionist offering an answers

BE ADVISED: They had better be reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? Do the answers require any faith at all? Than you are no different than the one saying,"God must have designed it"?

Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc

They argue when ever the question of how life began, evolutionists will be quick to say "evolution" doesn't explain that it explains how various species got from "some starting point" to where we are now" however even IF they start by telling them the truth, life does not arise from dead things today, but billions of years ago life arising from dead things was "evidently possible" and "inevitable."

If you have ever seen someone die, or had been to a morgue and seen a human dead body, you can see it in the eyes of the cadaver the moment the "pilot light" goes out. That what ever it is that essence of life that animates us, not only have we never created the essence, we have no idea what it is. The Bible says Jesus was the truth and the life, of all the observables we know of and have seen, only what genesis says about things carrying the seed of their kind. This HAS been, is now, and always will be, observable and testable. . The Bible says Man is incapable of seeing him. Another words God Cannot be seen so perhaps we should understand that the same way we grasp believing in gravity without seeing it. Oh, they are quick to reply, GRAVITY can be tested blah blah blah. So can God. Whether we see him, with our eyes, or not. We can smell all things created that were created by God, We can feel all things that were created when we see it was fearfully and wonderfully made by God.

From the modern airplane to synthetic DNA we have patents that protect their "creators" so called "intellectual" property. We marvel at the intelligence of the inventors or the Scientists.

What they made or discovered then copied stolen the original source code and as any software developer would if he were to steal it, get busted for it too,. The Bible says, "There is nothing new under the sun". Wow if that is not the truth. We cannot create a damn thing not stolen first from nature but is alleged to be the product of no intelligence what so ever. As if the small buds beginning to form on some quasi lizard like bird thing were going to become wings some day so the lizabird would become a full-fledged flying feathered friend we see today and that pressures and mechanisms brought such aerodynamics to fruition in the final full-scale model.

How this was anticipated and worked out that way we have no idea moreover the fossil record shows no conclusive evidence. To believe it, does not go without a leap of faith and arguable interpretation. When they said we must assume it happened millions and millions of years ago, they would say we could not help it we have had no one alive back then to observe it. We say that is their problem, not ours. People like madness claim there are other ways to observe these proofs. We say, "Bring it" and Ill rip it apart and it will be easy to do. We will be told we do not understand this or that by the same person who claims he does not understand the definition or use of the word "kinds" and because he does not. Rather than accept universally accepted definitions for the word he calls it bunk and dismisses the term thus not having to understand the genesis account.

If you see, proof of creation than play dumb and it will go away.

If you hear proof of creation, harass them, ridicule them all they care to but they will not be able to disprove God. The Burden of proof argument does not wash and anyone that tries that crap on us will end up getting a page full of legalese making the whole argument moot. At the center of the argument comes the very prejudice the evolutionist and ACLU used to argue for evolution being taught in schools back when it was not considered a real science.

Interesting the ACLU will not do that for ID or creationists. They claim its religion. We say Science has no business proving something it does not already claim does not exist, does not exist.

We say if Science did what it SHOULD do, they would quit trying to prove God exists via proving intelligence exists only when we copy it from dumb nature and put a patent on it calling it intellectual property of some man. What Science should do is develop scientific methods the scientific method is by its very physical properties being seen as physical limitations. The same way we did with the microscope.

The scientific method is not the "be all end all" of God and his existence, hell it is not even close. They ought to call it the physical plane verifier but to call it the "scientific" method is by its own physical limitations, limiting the very science using it to advance that same science.

Is their "time" explanation satisfactory?

Nope.

it is an excuse a cheap one at that but still an excuse that the processes they "choose" to believe in are thought to occur, but they are not observed, never were, never will be, isn't going to happen, never has happened never WILL happen so get it out of here get it out of my face get it out of our schools! When you got more than Johnson to show us, THEN you can tell us about it but until then, we can use the same invisible magic man argument they use against the God model.



Stephen Jay Gould once called a quack by Atheist evolutionists and a commonly used reference by creationists as a well-known scientist who disagreed with Darwinist theory. Now, it is the opposite and that is humorous to say the least lol. His theory or biobabbling band aid for biology boondoggles is absolutely the biggest mistake for the future of Darwin as this guy came up with a "hum dinger" of an explanation called "Punctual Equilibrium,".

Now all those past arguments we used shut the silly theory down where they argued saying mountains of this or that, is going to finally convict it. Perhaps one of you will figure this out and share with us why this humdinger will be the last of a long list of million dollar words used by so-called scientists to obfuscate objective fact from observable fiction.

If we don't change the direction science is moving, we will be buying into so many manufactured machinations of science so Machiavellian in their attempts to pass it off as fact it should be taken as a personal affront by the taxpayer as much as an Atheist is put off by religious symbolism. Sciosocial Darwinism is no less a religion than Christianity is a philosophy for many religions from Catholicism to the Presbyterian.

I know what evolution means in the context it is given but let it be made clear that Macro-evolution is dead in the water and man tampering with DNA notwithstanding, it will never happen where we see a survivable vibrant new species unless the they like calling that species JOHNSON because Johnson is all they got. Period

Oh yeah, if I was the one involved in that movie Ben Stein made, He would have been drop dead honest and not so accepting or concerned about ruffling the feathers of an Atheist arrogance that is no less dogmatic no less guilty of selective reasoning by selfish design than Religion is by self righteous single-mindedness.

Those who are no big fan of either ID or any other theory but as for theory; the one that does not have a prayer in hell without the indoctrination of young minds in our public school systems is evolution. They cannot even deny that as it is the same argument they use against creationism. It is the same bull crap story we hear for raising our children to be Christians because as everyone knows, we are all telling them "here kids let me tell you where you are all going for being the naughty lil rug rats you are, YOU'RE GONNA BURN!! Muu ha ha ha !! Now Gimmee those slippers and your lil dog too! AHA HA HA.

Yeah riiight. Like most of the junk Dawkins spews such as his meme tics theory, his prejudice and his opinions are not evidence. They put it out there as some huge advance in science nevertheless.

Yeah I don't think much of Dawkins and think he would make a cute lil class clown for his antics can be very funny from time to time.

His opinions however have proven nothing more than lies only complicate things and that is all they ever do. Evolution, once described as this elegant sinewy bridge by Dawkins in a lecture I attended at Grady gammage theatre ASU Tempe Az., is now a cumbersome defiled debased desperate construct of obvious deceptions in linguistics and intentional obfuscation implanted and supplanting once well understood vernacular of Science.

The day someone would says they understand the word species claiming it is exact and self evident, not vague and ambiguous, is when Science needs to take a damn look at itself as "species" what it means in addition to "speciation" is one of the most obfuscated intentionally messed up meanings in Science BAR NONE! www.nobeliefs.com...

When words like "kind" are not only said to be vague but also apparently IMPOSSIBLE to explain to anyone not claiming to not already be retarded,, than scientific like-minded fans of science in addition to scientists,,,

Need to be replaced as

Not Qualified and

Illiterate

- Con

[edit on 5/6/08/06 by junglejake]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Oooh! I can play that game, too!

這是最好的時代,這是最壞的時代,這是時代的智慧,這是愚蠢的時代,這是具有劃時代意義的信仰,這是具有劃 時代意義的懷疑,這是光明的季節,是黑暗的季節,這是希望的春天,這是絕望的冬天,我們已一切擺在我們面前 ,我們沒有擺在我們面前的,我們都去直接向天堂,我們全都去直接其他方式-在短期內,期到目前為止,像目前 期間,即它的一些噪音當局堅持其正在接收的,良好的或邪惡的,在高級程度的比較



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Oooh! I can play that game, too!

這是最好的時代,這是最壞的時代,這是時代的智慧,這是愚蠢的時代,這是具有劃時代意義的信仰,這是具有劃 時代意義的懷疑,這是光明的季節,是黑暗的季節,這是希望的春天,這是絕望的冬天,我們已一切擺在我們面前 ,我們沒有擺在我們面前的,我們都去直接向天堂,我們全都去直接其他方式-在短期內,期到目前為止,像目前 期間,即它的一些噪音當局堅持其正在接收的,良好的或邪惡的,在高級程度的比較


Why would you want to be on dialup trying to paste a quote to an already lagging website just to have some presumptuous smart aleck say "I can play that game too!"

C'mon dave, I don't think that game sells and you ain't selling it to anyone else either.

- Con



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
[edit double post]

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join