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.

 

A Why to Atheists & Darwinism

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420


Yup! That's it! I'm a bible-basher now! Praise Jeeeebus! I've seen the light!


See 44 soulslayer, that is just the kind of sophistication and intelligence we can expect from Dave.



just to be a jerk, put some fossils in the ground, so it looked like animals had evolved.


If God was being a jerk to anyone it was Darwin for NOT putting fossils in the ground that would substantiate his macro-evolution theory. As for the rest of it, we already know about it.



He also, again for jerkiness, made DNA that tells us quite clearly that we're all related, when in fact we're not.


Here is what we know Dave, all creatures have DNA Ok



Damn this is easy once you get rid of the science! You can just claim something without having to back anything up! Why didn't I think of this sooner?


I think you were the one that invented it Mr. all talk but never prove the mountain of evidence.




GOD DID IT! GOD DID EVERYTHING!


By George, I think you have finally got it Dave!!

And all the people said?

AMEN BABY

- Con

[edit on 10-5-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
This thread is a clear example if why we need age limits on this site - I have never read so much drivel in my life.

At least GENUINE creationists (despite how misguided they are) tend o put up decent arguments - this is sad. It simply ruins the experience of Above Top Secret - people please realise your limitations -



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


The evidence for evolution is well documented. Just look at the wikipedia article - it cites its sources for every single claim. Creationism doesn't have any evidence for it at all, apart from the Bible, which is not evidence to anyone who isn't a Christian.

I outlined the evidence in my last post. I mentioned DNA. I mentioned fossils. Those two are enough to counter any evidence you have, or indeed any evidence any creationist has (hint: because they don't have any evidence at all).

You really need to understand evolution before you can criticise it. So far, judging by what you've written, you are making it look like you have no idea. Each time you cry out that there's no evidence for evolution, you're displaying your lack of logical integrity. You scream blue murder that evolutionists need to provide evidence for evolution (even though the evidence for evoltion is massively famous and available in any scientific textbook or online scientific website), yet you don't provide any evidence for your counter-hypothesis, apparently because there isn't any.

So, have a go at me for being immature for being sarcastic, yet give yourself a free pass for immaturity when you try to engage others in a scientific debate without knowledge or understanding of the issues at hand.

Double standards FTW!



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Man doesn't have much going for him if he's willing to just sit there and let a wild animal chomp on his leg either.

My opinion is that a human being prepared to and quite capable to use every ability at his disposal (bar weapons) is more than able to defend himself from a wild animal - so long as he's prepared to get hurt of course.

Don't forget - we humans are one of the few species on this planet capable of purposefully receiving harm to ourselves in order to survive and win.

We can take the pain without flying into a killing frenzy, in otherwords.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Evolution is not about how matter came from non matter, altho that does seem to get worked into the debate.
Doesn't physics 101 teach you that everything is frequency?
There never was a "time" when the universe wasn't.
Unfortunately humans cannot seem to get past the idea that there had to be a time when there was nothing.

All of the research indicates that there was no evolution on Earth. Various forms of life appeared and then disappeared, being replaced by new forms.

If god did it what was his method? Was it Majic?

I'm still waiting for some evolutionist to explain how the species in one strata "evolved" into the spcies in the next strata.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

We can take the pain without flying into a killing frenzy, in otherwords.


The only thing man has going for him is our intelligence, barring that, in hand to hand hand to fang hand to claw or hand to horns, Man is lucky to survive an all out assault of from a good size ferrel cat much less an attack Dog.

We are simply NOT built for battle like that. We don't bite worth trying and your hands are not going be much good because invariably they are the first lines of offense and defense to be marginalized. Ready or not Man may survive an attack and when you say not without injury,,

You ain't kidding.

First Ill give you some case history, starting with chimps. Then, Ill give you first hand experience with attack dogs, a raccoon that nearly killed my Brother and an alley cat that was trapped in a stairwell with my father who was Cop fought for his life. Not even ACE our prize Belgian sheapard trained as an attack Police Dog was able to to beat this cat. The loss of blood my Father suffered put him in serious condition.



Ferocity of chimpanzee attack stuns medics, leaves questions
By David Pierson and Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times | March 6, 2005


HAVILAH, Calif. -- St. James and LaDonna Davis raised Moe the chimp as their son. That was the word they used to describe him, and that was how they treated him -- like a hairy, rambunctious child who was a pampered member of the family. They taught him to wear clothes, to take showers, to use the toilet, and to watch television in their West Covina, Calif., home.

On Thursday, the day they marked as Moe's 39th birthday, their love for the chimp nearly cost them their lives.

The Davises were visiting Moe at an animal sanctuary in the hills of eastern Kern County -- a place to which he had been banished after biting a woman -- when they were attacked by two other chimps and brutally mauled.

St. James Davis took the brunt of the attack, the ferocity of which left paramedics stunned. ''I had no idea a chimpanzee was capable of doing that to a human," said Kern County Fire Captain Curt Merrell, who was on the scene.

Davis, who remained in critical condition Friday, was badly disfigured. According to his wife, he lost all the fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of his buttocks. His foot was mutilated and his heel bone was cracked.

''I turned around and they started charging," she said. One of the chimps pushed her against her husband and at some point her left thumb was bit off, she said.

''James saw that, pushed me behind a table and took the brunt of everything else," she said.

The attack ended when the son-in-law of the sanctuary's owners shot and killed the two rampaging chimps. Moe was uninjured.

Among the questions for which there were no immediate answers: How did the two chimps escape? And why did they attack?

The chimps were housed in outdoor cages at the Animal Haven Ranch, a private sanctuary. The ranch is owned by Ralph and Virginia Brauer, and has been licensed by the state since 1996 to take in primates, usually from zoos that no longer want them.

According to Kern County Sheriff's Commander Hal Chealander, Virginia Brauer was at home Thursday morning when she was startled to discover that four chimps -- two young males and two older females -- had gotten out of their cages and entered her home.

She reportedly detained the two females, Suzie, 59, and Bones, 49. The male chimps -- Buddy, 15, and Ollie, 13 -- escaped. Virginia Brauer gave chase, and soon found the chimps mauling the Davises, Chealander said.

''Get your gun!" Brauer yelled to her son-in-law, Mark Carruthers, who was at her home with his wife and infant son, Chealander said.

Male chimps usually stand about 4 feet tall and weigh between 90 and 120 pounds, specialists say. They are strong and aggressive animals who routinely kill and devour much larger animals in the wild. Their upper body strength is said to be five to 10 times that of the average human.

Carruthers shot Ollie, but the shot had no apparent effect. He reloaded the gun with more powerful, fully jacketed, ammunition, this time turning on the first chimp, Buddy.

Carruthers ''kneeled down, got pretty close and shot the first chimp in the head," Chealander said. ''When he fell off Mr. Davis, the second chimp attacked Mr. Davis and dragged him down a walkway by the back of the house. . . . By this time, Mr. Davis was really torn up."

Carruthers followed, and shot the second chimp in the head, ending the attack.

Ape specialist Deborah Fouts, director of the Chimp and Human Communication Institute at Central Washington University, said the attack may have been prompted by jealousy.

''Chimpanzees have a real sense of right and wrong and fairness and unfairness," said Fouts, a veteran of four decades of work with chimps. ''It sounds like people were showering a lot of attention on Moe, birthday cake and the like. . . . Perhaps the other chimps were jealous of Moe."



They didn't mention it in most of the news story but this man had his genitals ripped right off his groin like pulling the tab up off a can of soda pop. I seriously doubt you would have faired any better with one of those chimps.

Now, on to Dogs,


Man doesn't have much going for him if he's willing to just sit there and let a wild animal chomp on his leg either


Conversely, man doesn't have a lot going for him when he is unwilling to just have to sit there while a wild animal chomps on his leg but by and large, that's just about the way it is. A good size Rotwieler is going to get his teeth around and at 30,000 lbs per square inch, you are going to have blood loss and one less extremity, be it leg, arm, hand, etc,. one Clamp and it is crushed and splintered.

Now you are in a world of trouble as you are losing blood, you haven't much time before going into shock and you haven't got much odds of surviving without a weapon.

I saw during a mistake made during a exhibition for K9 trained Attack dogs and this was an experienced trainer knowing just what to expect from these animals. He used his foot to kick the rottie in the face wearing combat boots.

He walks with limp and half a foot to this day.

Rottweiler dog attacks man. The man was taken to hospital within 20 minutes but died due to loss of blood, caused by over 200 tears to the chest www.youtube.com...


A rottweiler off of its leash attacks a cop...police cops dog attack taser www.youtube.com...


My opinion is that a human being prepared to and quite capable to use every ability at his disposal (bar weapons) is more than able to defend himself from a wild animal - so long as he's prepared to get hurt of course.


You'll be more than hurt, in most cases you'll be mamed for life. I don't know where you get this idea but Ill take my experience over your uninformed opinion anyday. I have lived with these kind of Dogs all my life and have seen first hand what they can do.

In the blink of an eye, you'll be needing paramedics in excruciating pain and massive blood loss. The professionals who have retrieve one of these kind of Dogs don't always bring a shotgun when a tazer will do.

Nope, they bring a shot gun ALL the time Every time, because they want to stay alive and with all their limbs attached.



We can take the pain without flying into a killing frenzy, in otherwords.



Oh I don't think they are too worried about your ability to handle the pain and the last thing they care about,

is you thinking about going on a killing frenzy.

If The rottie could talk, he'd say

Bring it.

- Con













[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

The evidence for evolution is well documented. Just look at the wikipedia article - it cites its sources for every single claim. Creationism doesn't have any evidence for it at all, apart from the Bible, which is not evidence to anyone who isn't a Christian.



I mentioned DNA.


Oh forgive me Dave,, I didn't see that you mentioned DNA!

Wow that sure put me in my place, YOU are RIGHT you proved evolution because you mentioned DNA

what ABOUT DNA Dave! That is what I was expecting NOT the mere mention of proof BUT Proof "Prima Facie" got it?


I mentioned fossils.


Wow that sure put me in my place, YOU are RIGHT you proved evolution because you mentioned the word fossils and I remember that statement you said that no fossil has disproved evolution yet if I said no fossil disproves God exists then maybe JUST Maybe you would beging to understand how empty that assertion is for having any influence to impress me that you are anything less then a circlular logician trying to prove a negative



Those two are enough to counter any evidence you have, or indeed any evidence any creationist has (hint: because they don't have any evidence at all).


You don't know what evidence is dave. Like I just pointed out with you already, just saying it has a mountain of evidence doesn't mean you just gave me any. Just mentioning DNA doesn't mean you can go high fiving madness and mel with your Con killing clever wit and repartee

Hence I am also not impressed when try to tell us what YOU think evidence is not.


You really need to understand evolution before you can criticise it. So far, judging by what you've written, you are making it look like you have no idea. Each time you cry out that there's no evidence for evolution, you're displaying your lack of logical integrity. You scream blue murder that evolutionists need to provide evidence for evolution (even though the evidence for evoltion is massively famous and available in any scientific textbook or online scientific website), yet you don't provide any evidence for your counter-hypothesis, apparently because there isn't any.


No Dave, you need to quit underestimating me, unless you want to continue getting owned on these silly dialogues of yours where all you do is contradict without refutation. You are NOT a scientist Dave, just because you mention it has mountains of evidence doesn't make it so moreover What you are saying would make sense if you knew as much as I do but you DON'T.

See Dave,, I can play that way too.

As for your ignorance about creationism, allow me to be the first to enlighten you, that the Dover trial may have won the Battle but ID and Creationism is winning the war hands down and with a lot more class.

Not just here in the U.S. Dave, but all over the world people are gettiing tired of the same cock and bull story about Darwin and your alleged mountain of evidence. One of the biggest reasons for this is evolution isn't understandable, and frankly it never was so don't blame me for not understanding it and forgive me for not WANTING to try to understand something that is in fact a myth.

Evolutionists in their efforts to cover up so many logical fallacies with layer upon layer of lies and intentionally contrived obfuscation and disinformation, makes piltdown man look honest.

The only people left hanging on to this relic of junk science are Atheists because it suits their materialist globalist NWO marxist agenda and makes God a NON issue.

Good luck with that.


So, have a go at me for being immature for being sarcastic, yet give yourself a free pass for immaturity when you try to engage others in a scientific debate without knowledge or understanding of the issues at hand.


Dave, all this has nothing to do with the fact that YOU make the pre-emptive childish remark like "Jeebus Saved Me!". It isn't enough for you to do that but now I see I am not allowed to exploit your actions for what they intended to do and that was to MOCK me.

Sorry Dave, I don't play that, I HIT BACK.

Futhermore, I didn't even have to mock or insult you, I just used your own posts to show you what they looked like to others and even YOU were embarrassed by them.

Dave, I realize you think your all that and you are very fond of your opinions but that is all they are and they don't mean jack squat to me. I HAVE substantiated my claims and again I will for your edification prove YOU are the one who knows NOT what you are talking about.

Be Advised
It is the future and it is going to be the downfall of Darwinism as it pretty much is kicking its butt all over the world and Evolutionary Scientists are finally starting to get a clue and are joining us.

Maybe you should too.



A year ago today, Judge John E. Jones issued his 139-page ruling denouncing intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. At the time, the ruling was hailed by defenders of Darwin's theory as a knock-out blow against intelligent design and scientific skepticism of Darwin's theory.


What a difference a year makes.


A year after Dover, Darwinists seem increasingly disillusioned as well as shrill, the central part of Judge Jones' "brilliant" decision has been found to be riddled with errors and copied nearly verbatim from the ACLU, a research lab has been launched for scientists to pursue intelligent design-inspired scientific research, and states and localities are continuing to adopt public policies to encourage students to study the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory. At the same time, the stereotype that all critics of Darwin's theory are religiously-motivated zealots while all defenders of the theory are dispassionate scholars who are neutral toward religion has started to implode.

Here are the top developments during the past year



1. The Growing Sense of Defeat among Darwinists. Darwinists like to claim that criticizing Darwin is tantamount to insisting the earth is flat. Yet last time I checked, scientists weren't spending a lot of time in their science journals and at their professional meetings trying to refute the idea of a flat earth. But they are devoting a significant amount of time and energy trying to refute intelligent design. Why? I think the Darwinists' efforts reflect their underlying insecurity. Despite their bluster and bravado, many of them recognize at least implicitly that they are losing the intellectual debate. Last month, for example, there was a gathering of eminent pro-Darwin scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California. According to the New York Times reporter covering the event, there was "a rough consensus" at the meeting that the theory "of evolution by natural selection" is "losing out in the intellectual marketplace." : Let me repeat that statement: there was "a rough consensus" among these pro-Darwin scientists that the theory "of evolution by natural selection" is "losing out in the intellectual marketplace."
" Darwinism is "losing out" not just in the public arena in their view, but "in the intellectual marketplace." That is a stunning admission.



2. The Growing Challenge within Science to Neo-Darwinism. A few weeks before the beginning of the Dover trial last fall, around 400 doctoral scientists had signed Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwin" statement expressing skepticism toward the central claim of Neo-Darwinism. A year after the Dover decision, the number of doctoral scientists affirming the statement is approaching 700. During the Dover trial, there was a constant refrain that scientists who support intelligent design don't do scientific research, but as just reported last week, a research lab has in fact been established to facilitate biological research from the perspective of intelligent design. At the same time, research findings have continued to mount exposing the weaknesses of traditional Darwinism. The very week that the Kitzmiller ruling was issued, biologists admitted in the journal Science that "[t]he phylogenetic relationships among most metazoan phyla remain uncertain" because of conflicts between types of phylogenetic trees. In early 2006, Norwegian cellular biologist, Øyvind Albert Voie published an article in a mainstream scientific journal arguing that "chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals" in the DNA system. Voie concluded that since "mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations," it is "therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans." Two highly-trumpeted "missing links" publicized by Darwinists in 2006, meanwhile, turned out to be much ado about nothing (see here and here).



3. The Implosion of the Kitzmiller Ruling by Judge Jones. A year after Dover, Judge Jones' opinion in Kitzmiller is not wearing well. The book Traipsing into Evolution documents the many errors of fact and analysis in Jones' opinion as well as its overreach in trying to decide whether intelligent design is science, and the recent study co-authored by David DeWolf and myself reveals how Jones' "brilliant" analysis of whether intelligent design is science did not represent his own work but was copied (errors and all) virtually verbatim from language submitted to him by ACLU attorneys. Practically the only defense of Judge Jones' wholesale copying offered thus far has been the false claim that"everyone is doing it," a response that has been too much even for some Darwinists to swallow. It is noteworthy that at least one staunch critic of ID in the legal community has joined ID proponents in taking Judge Jones to task for his judicial opinion's overreach. Boston University law professor Jay Wexler has argued forcefully that "[t]he part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion." (emphasis added)


4. The Persecution of Darwin's Critics. Evidence continues to accumulate that leading Darwinists are trying to win the debate over Darwin's theory through harassment and intimidation rather than reasoned argument and open discussion. Last week's devastating report from congressional investigators documenting the persecution of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian is only the most recent example of the effort to suppress legitimate dissent over Darwin's theory. That report also revealed the unsavory role played by the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in the campaign to smear and persecute Sternberg. In the words of congressional investigators, "[t]he extent to which NMNH officials colluded on government time and with government resources with the NCSE to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg's scientific and professional integrity and investigate opportunities to dismiss him is alarming."(emphasis added) The more people learn about Darwinist efforts to shut down the debate over Darwinism through harassment and intimidation, the more skeptical they will likely become of the Darwinists' unrelenting dogmatism.



5. Continued Public Policy Efforts to "Teach the Controversy" and Promote Academic Freedom. It is true that in the initial months after the Dover decision, Darwinists were able to use the ruling to bully the Ohio State Board of Education into repealing its excellent science standard and model lesson plan that merely promoted the critical analysis of evolution. Yet in subsequent months, it has become apparent that the Dover ruling has had a decreasing impact on public policy debates over evolution. While some political candidates who favored teaching the controversy over Darwin lost in the recent elections, others won, most notably state board of education members in Texas, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Minnesota. In addition, states and localities have continued to advance science education policies that encourage schools to teach the controversy over Darwinian evolution. In March, Oklahoma's House of Representatives passed a bill to protect the academic freedom of teachers and students to study all of the scientific evidence relating to evolution by an overwhelming (and bipartisan) vote of 77-10. The bill was later denied a vote in the state Senate, but it will likely be reintroduced. Also in March, the Lancaster School District in California passed a policy protecting the right of teachers to present scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution. In June, South Carolina adopted a science standard requiring students to learn how "scientists… investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." At the end of November, the Ouachita Parish School District in Louisiana enacted a policy that protects the academic freedom of teachers to objectively cover scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution as well as the evidence in favor of the theory. And according to a national Zogby poll conducted earlier this year, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans (69%) continue to believe that "biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 2 out of 10 (21%) believe that "biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it." This is virtually unchanged from a national Zogby poll in 2001, and the rates of support are even higher in some state surveys.


6. The Debate over Darwin Goes Global.
Darwinists often insist that the debate over Darwin's theory is limited to the United States, but recent outbreaks of the debate in Britain, Japan, and various European countries have refuted that claim, as do the growing number of international scientists who have signed the Dissent from Darwin statement.


7. The Darwinist War on Religion. For years the National Center for Science Education has tried to convince leading Darwinists to tone down their anti-religious rhetoric and cultivate the impression that Darwin's theory of unguided evolution is perfectly compatible with traditional monotheism. But this fall the public relations strategy has unraveled with books like Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and conclaves like the gathering of scientists at the Salk Institute in November, which overflowed with expressions of hatred and contempt toward religion. According to one participant in the latter gathering quoted in the New York Times, "with a few notable exceptions, the viewpoints at the conference have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?" (emphasis added) It is becoming sharply evident just how much Darwinism functions like a religion for many of its leading champions, and how the blind allegiance to atheism or agnosticism of leading Darwinists skews their evaluation of the debate over evolution. Ironically, Darwinists routinely criticize defenders of intelligent design because many of them happen to be traditional theists (just like the vast majority of Americans), but these same Darwinists see nothing wrong with the fact that leading evolutionists are largely anti-religious. Indeed, according to a 1998 survey of members of the elite National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of the NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics.


As I've said repeatedly before, the debate over Darwin's theory should be decided on the evidence, not on motives. But if Darwinists insist on stigmatizing the motives of anyone who criticizes Darwin's theory who happens to believe in God, then the Darwinists' own motives surely should be open to scrutiny. Either motives are irrelevant for everyone, or they are relevant for everyone. As public knowledge of the metaphysical baggage of leading Darwinists increases, the ability of Darwinists to maintain their double-standard about motives in the public debate should diminish.


In summarizing my reflections on the past year, I keep coming back to a phrase that stuck in my mind immediately after the Dover decision last December: Pyrrhic victory. Darwinists thought they had succeeded in shutting down the debate over intelligent design by court order.

But they were wrong, and the longer it takes for them to grasp that fact, the more Darwinism will continue to lose out in the free marketplace of ideas.

www.ntskeptics.org...



It truly is a dying atheist philosophy and never really was

a science at all


- Con

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I find it really disturbing that some "men" think it is admirable, or shows some form of physical superiority to battle/kill/maim DOMESTICATED animals that were bred for thousands of years to be less wild and less physically threatening.

Try that tactic with a full grown timberwolf. Try it without having researched the topic and having (for some bizarre reason) put a lot of time into deciding how you would battle and "win" against an animal that was bred and designed to be cooperative with humans.

Take the average male that has NEVER been around dogs, and has no knowledge on how to fight them, take the average large dog that has NEVER been around humans, and is likewise as ignorant, and see who wins. To make it fair we will give the man a 40 pound size advantage. That might be a fair fight, but researching the weaknesses of the canine body and then fighting a dog that has NOT been trained to kill humans efficiently, that is unfair.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Read that article, as I suggested, and all your questions would be answered. Why you refuse to do so makes no sense to me.

Saying a scientific method, founded in reason, sustained by logic, matured by evidence is not science is just wishful thinking on your part. We have evidence for it. I've given you a very concise list (the wiki article), and yet you come up with childish garbage like evolution is not science. No wonder you feel threatened - your faith is being challenged by science, and science doesn't give two hoots for anything but the truth. It's pulling the rug-o'-faith from under your feet, and there's nothing you can do but lash out, senselessly.

And if you want to know about philosophies that are dying, take a look at the number of Christians around the world, especially in Europe. It's falling. Drastically.

Get a grip. Get a clue.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Read that article, as I suggested, and all your questions would be answered. Why you refuse to do so makes no sense to me.

Saying a scientific method, founded in reason, sustained by logic, matured by evidence is not science is just wishful thinking on your part. We have evidence for it. I've given you a very concise list (the wiki article), and yet you come up with childish garbage like evolution is not science. No wonder you feel threatened - your faith is being challenged by science, and science doesn't give two hoots for anything but the truth. It's pulling the rug-o'-faith from under your feet, and there's nothing you can do but lash out, senselessly.

And if you want to know about philosophies that are dying, take a look at the number of Christians around the world, especially in Europe. It's falling. Drastically.

Get a grip. Get a clue.


Sorry Dave but like I said I am starting to feel like a bully here and don't want to pick on you. By the way as for being threatened by Evolutionists?

That was substantiated and evolutionist found GUILTY Dave, GUILTY that means NOT INNOCENT. can you wrap your mind around that?

That means they were found do be conspiring in spurious acts of Deception and unfair practices which includes the crap manufactured evidence Clarence Darrow used during the scopes trials to give evolution credibility as a science in THE FIRST place! The fact is they were found to bend thier data to fit that impossible theory so often and for so many years it isn't funny, in fact it disgusts me.

So forgive me for not TRUSTING them anymore as they have proven time and time again the Scientific Method is only as accurate as the Scientist, are HONEST.

In the case of evolution, they were BUSTED hoax after hoax, after hoax.

GUILTY DAVE like piltdown man , Java man, Lucy, the horse icons the neanderthal man and many many more acts of deception evolutionist are STILL not above board enough to REMOVE from current new texts books about this false science. Another words Dave, they are currently teaching BUNK and it is Undeniable,.

That also mean the Judge using that judicial landmark opinion in the Dover trial was later to be found written by the ACLU!

Can you say, mal feasance?

Can you say Justice tampering!

Can you say collusion?

Can you say Corruption

Can you say Cheating

Can you say Dishonest

Can you say Complicity

Can you say ONE thing I can't embarrass you with as I am out of shoes to serve you. Some of us are wondering just how much a take the ACLU paid the judge and WHY on earth he would do something so absolutley idiotic risking what would and should be reason for mis trial !

So spare me your whining ranting mundane platitudes about being threatened by evolution because frankly, evolution has done NOTHING but lie cheat steal, ridicule, harass doing virtually everything it can to as illegally as it can and what ever it takes to keep from being falisfied.

That gives me a damn good reason to feel perfectly justified to feel EXACTLY as I do. Whether YOU think so or NOT. It doesn't surprise me in the least an Atheist would be so lacking in the moral understanding of right and wrong and is why this went all the way to a congressional inquest. They were wrong then and you are now

That isn't just me saying that Davey boy

it was the entire U.S. Senate

Like I said Dave,,

What you got ?

JOHNSON

- Con





[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
By the way Dave about my faith being challenged by Science.

Be Advised: Nothing, Absolutley NOTHING can challenge my faith. Not you Not Atheism Nor their in your face stuck up self serving excuse to elevate themselves as Scientists by virtue of their Atheism.

Atheism does NOT a scientist make.

Make NO mistake Dave, I have nothing against Science but a plenty of reasons against Darwininan evolution, which is NOT science.

So please refrain from insulting one for other.

You should BE so fortunate to have something so profound as faith in Christ Jesus. I am afraid however that is something else, you will never understand but I won't bother you with your brand of insults saying "clearly you don't understand faith blah blah "

You don't believe it because you apparently are not of the elect


Since you are so inclined to defend the defendants for the "clique of cloak and dagger scientists using subterfuge",

you and I have NOTHING more to discuss, it's that simple

1) I can't support what they did in good conscience.

2) I hate the lies and that seems to be just what this is about,


the ever lieing illusion called,

evolution.

- Con






[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Well, there must be some reason for you to not be able to grasp the sound evidence and reasoning behind evolution. I can tell you're a clever person, so the only other thing I can see is your religion, your faith, will not let you believe in something that challenges it, regardless of how well-founded it is. Heck, you admitted that in your first statement. You spelled out exactly how it's pointless trying to educate you about something you seem to not understand in the slightest.

This discussion is over. Your faith has rendered you intrinsically ignorant, and you've admitted you have no way out. Sorry to hear that. Another good mind wasted by religion.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

This discussion is over. Your faith has rendered you intrinsically ignorant, and you've admitted you have no way out. Sorry to hear that. Another good mind wasted by religion.


Another soul wasted by humanism

Ha ha yeah Dave, because I believe in God what, I'm a mind wasted lol. Listen son, I have gotten by all these years believeing in God and have done just fine. I have never tried to shove it down your throat, witness to you or lead you to christ to be saved.

It seems to me I am wasted if I don't buy into your religion of evolution as you keep trying to push it on me or I am wasted, a mind lost forever.

Sound familiar?

You think what you got is the truth and the way where there is no other way but your evolution.

Sound familiar?

You are arrogant and dogmatic for even questioning your belief (faith) in evolution.

Sound familiar?

you are an evangelist of a religion masquerading as science and your science is the only one that is true you are every bit as fundamentalist as a southen hell fire and brimstone baptist preacher. You are a follower not a leader in a congregation "sciosheep" who has never seen DNA or used an electron microscope, never done your own field emission scanning where I have.

You just swallow what they spoon feed you and you believe it because you read it in your book written by men who were inspired like my book. Mine is a bronze age book that is time tested, yours is a plastic age book that keeps changing its story because it evolves which ever way the wind blows. you are self righteous thinking you are better than those unbelievers you have judged as beneath you, not as "good" as you, as "smart" as you.

That our minds are lost to the abyss a total waste.

You are by all intents and purposes,,

a zealot a religioscience fanatic.

You are everything you hate

about Christians and

Christianity

- Con










[edit on 16-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


dave didn't say you've wasted your mind because you believe in god, you've just wasted it with the particularly virulent idea that what you believe is set in stone in the face of all contrary evidence.

you'd never believe in evolution so long as you had your faith
the typical atheist on this board would believe in creationism is given the adequate evidence.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
What evidence is there to support that we didn't slowly become what we are over time without the hand of some divine creator? Evolution has fossils and bones to support its claim to legitimacy. Creationism? Where in all of this would we need the hand of a divine creator? If God was going to create us, why would he bother slowly putting us through the hell of slowly progressing from the point of a tadpole to the beer drinking, water skiing humanoids that we are now? Why wouldn't he just snap his fingers and ladeedada? The creationism theory is a ridiculous one. Accept what the bible says or don't. Creationism makes no damn sense.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Mikey Crichton who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, MD

from Harvard Medical School, postdoctoral fellow at Salk Institute and

visiting lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University had this to

say about the current climate of Science and the Atheists who are desperate and ruthless to control it.


"Consensus science "is an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."



Pretty impressive coming from someone so famous whose projects and work
is known world wide having millions show up just to attend one of his
presentations If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. You see this kind of twisted convoluted play on the average Babe in Christ may confuse them, and it may even impress YOU or even make you laugh at the impossible position it leaves most people in groping for a comeback. I'm not your average fundie madness and please, don't misunderstand me as this is not a compliment but you ain't the average atheist.

What you are is a member of Atheist dis-informationalists, who spin speciously spun spoken double speak. One of the long term symptoms showing up for this kind of Atheist, is they start losing the cognitive faculty to discriminate between Logic and their own abstract brand of A-logic.

I noticed it when I saw the problem you had with discerning universe from singularity, then their the word "kinds". More recent is your understanding of what you think Dave said. What happens is the dark symbiote that has petitioned an assignment on you, has influenced you to be impressed by the slick fluid elegance of liquid logic, the language of legion by the author of all lies and confusion.

Dave said this "Another good mind wasted" (not part of mind but a mind. That means, just what I told you he said.) Now don't bother to argue it madness or Ill decipher it. Then Ill show you the metaphorical reversed message like pulling a pair of socks inside out.


It may impress people like you who think they got this gift for reason and logic because they themselves can't even figure it out. It gives most of you the impetus to begin taking an interest in critical thinking and the inductive arguments for logical fallacy.

Problem is, you don't see the logic. Christians babes on the
other hand, are dumbfounded by it.

They know it's still not right, but they can't put their finger on it.


Things you have said are so obvious when you reverse the logic inside
out again it would make you wince in anger and embarrassment. I really
believe you like many other of your "Kind" "Atheist", are not even aware of their predicament. Does sound a little too Rod Serling for
you ? Well Ill give you some examples

Someone says Atheism is a religion and your programmed response is
something like this "If Atheism was a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby"


wow throws people for an endless loop of illogical fallacy as if Collecting Stamps were a Religion, Actively NOT collecting stamps would be its Atheism. You would see bitter self deluded angry Atheist so pre-occupied in knowing everything about the hobby they don't have while antagonizing anyone who actually collected them.

You can apply the corrective re-logic to everything your symbiote uses your selfish pride to make you think it was your own clever comeback, your own thoughts and ideas.

Gigatrox is a REAL Atheist, the kind that behave without demonic spiritual petitioning signs and symptoms. He is like "freeborn". People like Gigatrox are called,,Un-believers, as they just don't think God exists, as for freeborns agnosticism? That's just a cop out and allows for him a "Just in Case" scenario for emergencies like,, oh,, say a Rapture event.

From what I have been researching about this type of Atheist , I think I got you and Dave pegged as punch and as sure as I know the petitioner is part of the two peas in the pod for the posted physical manifestations marked by the man madness. I was once getting my but kicked by one of the fallen.

It was the one called chaos.

It took some hard to believe advice by a Christologist for the k6 one of many underground Christian organizations, that take what Neo Atheists do and say very serious. They are like gung ho spirit filled fanatics but not like you think, not like fanatic fundies. More like spiritual special warfare types who would make the most academically acclaimed, apologist look like a first time student for phonics flunking remedial reading and writing.


You have one thing in common though,, they hate religion too but they

are Christians answer to the Neo Atheist's the Social Darwinists they have slowly and methodically infiltrated our halls of Science and Academia skull and bones, the bilderburgs, the

Illuminati, the G8, Madness, Dave, Jimbo, astyanax excitable boy (Yeah

I know he thinks believes in God. Long story.) Excitable boy lives in

one of the most powerful metaphysical vortex on the planet, so it
doesn't surprise me the way he is. It doesn't surprise me when unsaved secularists, act unsaved. It doesn't surprise me that gigatrox gets kind of angry when to him, he just isn't like what we say.

If REAL atheists like Gigatrox were in science, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In Fact I would think he wouldn't have a problem believing in a creator if he discovered the
evidence for himself.

Ya see he is merely an Unbeliever, while you are a "disbeliever"

He can say God doesn't exist, while if I asked you that, you never answer yes or no but rather use your spin and say " I didn't say I God doesn't exist, I'm saying I don't believe in God.

You see that unbeknownst to you, is why the inner conflict between what you know but don't believe in, has so many of you so busy disbelieving while REAL Atheists, just take the whole God is or isn't in stride. They are not threatened by the same things you are.

See Madness, an Unbeliever doesn't think God exists,, where a "Disbelieve" doesn't WANT, to believe God exists.

Someone like you cannot see the other side of the logic you yourself have used to confound Christians while you say things like,

"I said believing in God is stupid, I didn't say people who believe in God are stupid."

Let me put this back in it's true logical context then ask you a question that by all intents and purpose, should show you the very first question everyone thinks when say such illogical statements to excuse yourself from apologizing to those you have called stupid denying it only because the thing that has a grip on you won't let you admit it much less give himself away like that.

Ok, lets see,, you say, "I Didn't say people who believe in god are stupid, I am saying believing in God is stupid"

Ok Then If you think believing in God is stupid, then what does that say about people who believe in God?

You probably STILL don't have the cognition to see how illogical it is to argue this point. What it says about them is you think the belief they have in God is stupid. You are what you believe are you not?

I mean I am Christian and since you are an Atheist, you are what you don't believe. Another words you are a theist.

A troll is someone that follows you around the forum to antagonize people. You in your cleverness told wraith when he refuted your accusation for trolling you, said, " I didn't call you a troll, I am calling your post a troll.

I hate it when posts follow me around like that.

Take the post just above mine where the guy says


"What evidence is there to support that we didn't slowly become what we are over time"


Well the fact this statment doesn't seem to make sense when confronting your interlocutors. The line of re-logic he is using would work the same way for the damn flying spaghetti monster. The fact is YOU have any, NONE, NOTTA, ZILCH, not an iota of proof for Darwinian Macro-evolution. After all these years, tell me madness what is the thing we evolved from last, look like? show me?

do you even know the name of it.?


How about one of you try correcting my destruction of dawkins explanation of evolution on the proof for id the world is looking for. None can and whenever you get boxed in by me madness,, you never so much as say "good point" Nope you just abandon the thread.

like you did with he belt buckle argument.

All Dave does is the broken record but he hasn't answered why Darwinists if they are so damn sure they got something that will stand up to scrutiny, Why then, do they have to put a Judge together in the most shamefull travesty of justice I have ever seen. Why is it the Atheists cult you belong to, are so insecure about their asinine theory they have to attempt making challenging Darwin unconstitutional.

Why do they have to lie cheat ruin lives of others that so much as even question it.


Asty says he has not made his thread unfair but like the crooked Judge Jones in the Dover Trial, made Assuming the consequent for ID a case law logical Fallacy when someone grabbed a mousetrap missing parts useful by sticking it on his tie and saying "But it makes a wonderful tie clip" The point Judge missed and will be allowed in court again is that we can always call something a damn paper weight.

Oh took the coils out of the toaster? heh makes a wonderful paper weight! Oh Took the blade off the can opener? Makes a wonderful paper weight.



you'd never believe in evolution so long as you had your faith
the typical atheist on this board would believe in creationism is given the adequate evidence.


Madness,, You are right on both but here is why.

1) I won't ever believe in the Science the fallen have you taken hostage of your senses. Darwinian macro-evolution is load of crap

2)the typical atheist on this board would believe in creationism if given the adequate evidence. I agree and I just explained the lengths Darwinian Macro-evolutionist will go to to keep that from ever happening,


because when they do,,

Darwin is

DONE


- Con


[edit on 19-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
This is a debate that will go on and on with the zealous on each side not conceding an inch to the other. The going theme of the thread seems to be a man fighting a dog. However, I offer another reason/fact/scenario to consider about the "perfection" of the human body that is actually quite simple. We get fat. Why do we get fat? Because our bodies still house the genes from our hunter/gatherer ancestors to store excess energy (using the term energy loosely here) as fat. Now, is there a need for that if we were created, cared for from creation in the garden of eden, and then kicked out as we started civilization? No, because though civilization has faced famine, it's simply not enough time for an adaptation to alter our genes. Now the creationist will respond that the reason we get fat is because we are gluttonous and it's a punishment from God.

And I guess both of those reasons will be sufficient for their respective sides but I just thought this would be something else to be talked about.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Clutching for straws much?

This is becoming a joke. You're already lost to the rest of humanity. You have been so poisoned by your personal need to believe that you've shunned the one completely objective aspect of humanity - science. The real kicker is you want to hate it, and yet you can't seem to tell us why. All you can do is mis-read quotes and try to stretch logic (which I'm sure makes perfect sense to you) to fill in the gaps. The massive, massive gaps.

Oh well. Looks like God really did a number on you.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
what ABOUT DNA Dave! That is what I was expecting NOT the mere mention of proof BUT Proof "Prima Facie" got it?

www.talkorigins.org...
www.blackwell-synergy.com...
Here’s two sites that could give you a good start to understanding evolution on the macro- scale, there’re 2.9 million more if you still have questions.


Wow that sure put me in my place, YOU are RIGHT you proved evolution because you mentioned the word fossils and I remember that statement you said that no fossil has disproved evolution yet if I said no fossil disproves God exists then maybe JUST Maybe you would beging to understand how empty that assertion is for having any influence to impress me that you are anything less then a circlular logician trying to prove a negative

No Dave isn’t trying to prove a negative, Dave is just lazy and not taking the time to properly explain himself.
Fossils do indeed prove evolution; they are small snap shots of what life was like at that particular time and place. And before you say “Hay where are the transitional fossils?”, I’d like to point out that every fossil is a transitional fossil; every life form is a transitional life form, even us.
Most people don’t understand how hard it is form a life form to become fossilised, taphonomy has a very small success rate something has to have the proper body type with a hard structure of some type soft tissue tends to rot, be eaten or putrefy (yes soft tissue has been found fossilized but only a extremely small percentage), then the body has to be lift in the proper environment preferably buried so it can survive what time will throw at it like erosion, earthquakes and so forth until someone finds it.
With that in mind and looking back at the fossil record that bacterium slowly mutating in to outher creatures that over time look more and more like us the fossil record is very strong evidence.


As for your ignorance about creationism, allow me to be the first to enlighten you, that the Dover trial may have won the Battle but ID and Creationism is winning the war hands down and with a lot more class.

So you think that lying to people about science and nature is classy?

Not just here in the U.S. Dave, but all over the world people are gettiing tired of the same cock and bull story about Darwin and your alleged mountain of evidence. One of the biggest reasons for this is evolution isn't understandable, and frankly it never was so don't blame me for not understanding it and forgive me for not WANTING to try to understand something that is in fact a myth.

Evolution is complex and you can’t understand it so therefore it is wrong/evil/a conspiracy by big science?
I don’t understand how a plane weighing over a million pounds can possibly fly through the air and I pretty sure that most people can’t so therefore pilots, airports and international flyers are all lies/myths.

Evolutionists in their efforts to cover up so many logical fallacies with layer upon layer of lies and intentionally contrived obfuscation and disinformation, makes piltdown man look honest.

Name one logical fallacy.
And who was it that debunked Piltdown man? Oh yeah that was scientists that looked at the evidence of evolution and noticed that it didn’t fit.

The only people left hanging on to this relic of junk science are Atheists because it suits their materialist globalist NWO marxist agenda and makes God a NON issue.

Yes the we all know how much the Catholic church hates God!
en.wikipedia.org...


1. The Growing Sense of Defeat among Darwinists. Darwinists like to claim that criticizing Darwin is tantamount to insisting the earth is flat. Yet last time I checked, scientists weren't spending a lot of time in their science journals and at their professional meetings trying to refute the idea of a flat earth. But they are devoting a significant amount of time and energy trying to refute intelligent design. Why?

Fare enough question,
Firstly scientists spend so much time refuting creationism/ID because creationism/ID fly in the face of there life’s work and call them liars, I think it was you who said they were in the military, if it was how would you respond to someone saying that you were a baby killer because you served? I bet you would spend considerable time and energy defending yourself.
Secondly what do scientists do? They research and they teach. Research shows that evolution is true so that is what they teach, there is a movement against evolution of which you are a member so they argue back.


2. The Growing Challenge within Science to Neo-Darwinism. A few weeks before the beginning of the Dover trial last fall, around 400 doctoral scientists had signed Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwin" statement expressing skepticism toward the central claim of Neo-Darwinism. A year after the Dover decision, the number of doctoral scientists affirming the statement is approaching 700.

Project Steve has 810 PHD holders whom disrespectfully disagree
www.talkorigins.org...
www.ncseweb.org...


4. The Persecution of Darwin's Critics. Evidence continues to accumulate that leading Darwinists are trying to win the debate over Darwin's theory through harassment and intimidation rather than reasoned argument and open discussion. Last week's devastating report from congressional investigators documenting the persecution of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian is only the most recent example of the effort to suppress legitimate dissent over Darwin's theory. That report also revealed the unsavory role played by the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in the campaign to smear and persecute Sternberg. In the words of congressional investigators, "[t]he extent to which NMNH officials colluded on government time and with government resources with the NCSE to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg's scientific and professional integrity and investigate opportunities to dismiss him is alarming."(emphasis added) The more people learn about Darwinist efforts to shut down the debate over Darwinism through harassment and intimidation, the more skeptical they will likely become of the Darwinists' unrelenting dogmatism.

Before you post something check out if it has been debunked all ready
www.expelledexposed.com...


7. The Darwinist War on Religion. For years the National Center for Science Education has tried to convince leading Darwinists to tone down their anti-religious rhetoric and cultivate the impression that Darwin's theory of unguided evolution is perfectly compatible with traditional monotheism. But this fall the public relations strategy has unraveled with books like Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and conclaves like the gathering of scientists at the Salk Institute in November, which overflowed with expressions of hatred and contempt toward religion. According to one participant in the latter gathering quoted in the New York Times, "with a few notable exceptions, the viewpoints at the conference have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"

Maybe that’s because intelligent people see what religion is doing to humanity.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk


Here’s two sites that could give you a good start to understanding evolution on the macro- scale, there’re 2.9 million more if you still have
No Dave isn’t trying to prove a negative, Dave is just lazy and not taking the time to properly explain himself.


You give dave too much credit or he is ALWAYS too lazy in that I would suggest he not offer the two cents worth of his contradictory opinions.


Fossils do indeed prove evolution; they are small snap shots of what life was like at that particular time and place. And before you say “Hay where are the transitional fossils?”, I’d like to point out that every fossil is a transitional fossil; every life form is a transitional life form, even us.
Most people don’t understand how hard it is form a life form to become fossilised, taphonomy has a very small success rate something has to have the proper body type with a hard structure of some type soft tissue tends to rot, be eaten or putrefy (yes soft tissue has been found fossilized but only a extremely small percentage), then the body has to be lift in the proper environment preferably buried so it can survive what time will throw at it like erosion, earthquakes and so forth until someone finds it.
With that in mind and looking back at the fossil record that bacterium slowly mutating in to outher creatures that over time look more and more like us the fossil record is very strong evidence.


That entire argument from start to finish is BUNK.

From the begining where you assume you know so much more to the "disclaimer" evolutionists insist on giving to explain why we can't connect the dots. Millions of years sharks have looked like what ?

SHARKS!

Millions of years aligators have looked liked what

Alligators!

Millions of years Tortoises have looked like what

Turtles!

Billions of years cock roaches have looked like what?

Roaches!

It isn't our fault the fossil record didn't come through with the right kind of transitionals and it isn't our fault that it takes so damn many millions of years to prove it. That is what you get when you paint yourself in the corner using a theory that could ONLY work by taking millions of years. Now that you can't fill THOSE Gaps they make up a load of crap in the form of excuses for why don't see them. It is speculation and the whole thing then is BUNK because it cannot be substantiated beyond your subjectivism. You call the Bible a Fairy Tale??

Ladies and Gentleman I give you the Dr Seuss answer to origin,,,

Chuck Darwin!


So you think that lying to people about science and nature is classy?


Nope and if you asked me, I would say you have none.



Evolution is complex and you can’t understand it so therefore it is wrong/evil/a conspiracy by big science?


Darwinian Macro is but the rest naaah



I don’t understand how a plane weighing over a million pounds can possibly fly through the air and I pretty sure that most people can’t so therefore pilots, airports and international flyers are all lies/myths.


What the hell is that supposed to mean? Oh I see,, you are mocking me as if I am the one not understanding. Ridicule and subtle childish comments from Darwinists are exactly what was found to be the defense tactic of the same philosophy of Darwinian evolutionists masquerading as a science and found to be the very tactic used all the way to the top of NASE.


Name one logical fallacy.


Your Post



And who was it that debunked Piltdown man? Oh yeah that was scientists that looked at the evidence of evolution and noticed that it didn’t fit.


Not just any scientist but what I want to know is why they still have it in text books and teach it NOT as a hoax but as a real life form having lived.



Firstly scientists spend so much time refuting creationism/ID because creationism/ID fly in the face of there life’s work and call them liars, I think it was you who said they were in the military, if it was how would you respond to someone saying that you were a baby killer because you served? I bet you would spend considerable time and energy defending yourself.


That may be true but if you think I would have to resort to spying on innocent people whose job it is to challenge theory as is the case for scientists and how piltdown man was found to be hoax, you got the wrong guy and a flimsy premise to justify your argument much less to break the law and violate people's civil rights or ruin careers.

You might think they are all Scientists but they act like primadonnas and are prostituting themselves just to stay in business anymore.



Secondly what do scientists do? They research and they teach. Research shows that evolution is true so that is what they teach, there is a movement against evolution of which you are a member so they argue back.


No,, they won't step foot in a real debate and if arguing was the only thing they did I wouldnt have a problem with it but that IS NOT how they behave. They proven once AGAIN they are nothing but a clique of mobsters, a little punk like band of crooks who must lie, cheat and steal and Ill say once again, The US Senate agrees with me and they should be watched like a hawk because obviously they have no respect for the rule of law so fudging data to fit their silly asinine theory is NOT only NOT out of the question. they seem to get busted like that every four or five years.

Enough is Enough I don't need a house to fall on my head knowing they just keep making up more garbage, teaching JUNK Science.




Maybe that’s because intelligent people see what religion is doing to humanity.


Well this intelligent person does and sees it and removing Neo Atheist Pseudo intellects who are more concerned with advancing their religion of Atheism than they are interested in REAL Science.

Darwinian evolution

is BUNK

- Con







[edit on 19-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join