'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

Originally posted by melatonin

You see, that's more like it. No point throwing jibes at 'dogmatic science lovers' for facing off nonsense. You have as much a part to play in keeping science free of nonsense as any atheist. Maybe you can be even more helpful, as atheists are church-burning communist fascist bogeymen.

Ask Aermacchi about his opinion of Ken Miller, lol. He almost hates him as much as the 'dogmatic science loving' Dawkins. Ken is great and deserves mucho kudos. A fantastic speaker and protector of science. Of course, I don't respect his religious belief and, indeed, when he mixes it with his science gluons cry, but I'm sure both he and me can live with that.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by melatonin]

Hello Mel!

So nice of you to break away from your busy schedual teaching your students. I always welcome your candor, dry jocular clever witt and repartee. I have to say however that this sanctimonious drama that anyone mis-quoting Chuck Darwit, should be so castigated, and that Ben Steins Brilliantly directed and produced *Block Buster* movie "expelled" does just what it intended to do and that is reveal the truth about a clique of Science's fringe fundamentalist evolutionist or "evofundie's" hee hee

The Idea that ANY of you would have the unmitigated gaul to sensationalize the sensitivities for the likes of Dick Dawkins, is hysterical



Clearskies has every reason to love that movie.

The idea she is being castigated for appreciating the truth or because she is not like those of you, who swing from Darwins Vas Defrens singing "Ding Dong God is gone Ding Dong the wicked Gawd is gawn" skipping down the yellow brick road until Aermacchi confronts the logical fallacy for the slightest possibilty of a dissed Dick Dawkins, Looking the metrosexual man and his mythical majesty of malevolent engenuity in evolution I yell:

"Gimme those SLIPPERS!!!

and yer little DOG TOO !!

AGHh ah ah ah ha !!

The fact is Ben didn't mis-quote anything but more than that is that while all this mis information is being proagated that Chuck Darwin was some paragon virtue beyond reproach is not unlike the hoardes of "xtians" rushing the gates to smash those disparaging the Pope.

Ken Miller lol yes I find his evolutionary allegiance most likely the behavior of a man just trying to keep his job. His theology is however,, well lets just say he is a bit of a puttz.

the New York Times Darwin obituary declared that "the central principle-his opponents cnics. This is a damning evasion. The fusion of Social Darwinism with eugenics was the most novel idea of social change to emerge from the Darwinian revolution. That three of Darwin's sons, two of them leading scientists, warmly supported eugenics indicates its respall it a dogma-of Mr. Darwin's system is 'natural selection,' called by Herbert Spencer 'the survival of the fittest,' a choice which results inevitably from 'the struggle for existence.'" The obituary continues with an outline of Social Darwinism. Its practical application was eugenics, which meant optimising the number of the best human types.

The Exhibition is silent about eugeectability. But more to the point, the Museum's long-serving Director, Henry Fairfield Osborn, hosted the Second International Eugenics Congress at the Museum in 1921: the Exhibition ducks its own past. It also avoids coming to grips with the historical conflict with religion. Its roots sprang from the Enlightenment and exploded in the French Revolution. The strong wind of nineteenth-century secularisation blew from many quarters, including Darwinians, feminists, humanists, trade unions and liberals. But the strongest wind was socialism, since the Soviets instituted the world's first official state atheism. Darwin's Britain, by contrast, has yet to disestablish the Church of England. This compromising fact is ignored by British atheists today.

Have you ever read the emails these so called leaders in Science, these alleged mature adults of modern science. This is what the movie is about and THAT isn't an embellished "just so" story , it is a fact and it is undeniable.



What on earth could they be so prejudice so un american and so absolutely obsessed with? My my, if this ID is soooo weak a theory and the people in it are sooooo stupid.

I would think we would see them saying yeah "show us what ya got" while it falls flat while the infallible and miraculous scientific method, exploits the failings of the fundies fostering such frivolous flights of fancy. You know,,Mel all kidding a side,, this report and the emails I saw written about this man, is why any of Dick Dawkins personal character traits like integrity and honesty, etc, ain't a pimple on Ben's Buttox.

The fact is, their behavior, represents the Science in general and I must say,,,

this was disturbing

www.discovery.org...

www.discovery.org...




[edit on 14-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Hello Mel!

Hey!

So nice of you to break away from your busy schedual teaching your students. I always welcome your candor, dry jocular clever witt and repartee. I have to say however that this sanctimonious drama that anyone mis-quoting Chuck Darwit, should be so castigated, and that Ben Steins Brilliantly directed and produced *Block Buster* movie "expelled" does just what it intended to do and that is reveal the truth about a clique of Science's fringe fundamentalist evolutionist or "evofundie's" hee hee

Oookaaay...

'Twas a very poor film, and I'm not even talking about the subject matter. However, the outsourced viral ad was a fantastic piece of work.

As for the content, it's actually funny to see you spread the whines about Sternberg - aww diddums, da naughty people said bad words about him. How awful. Yet you readily overlook dishonesty from the people behind the film, which readily carried over into the film itself.

But I understand why. You see no issue with using such deception, just like clearskies. Lying for jebus is acceptable to many.

The Idea that ANY of you would have the unmitigated gaul to sensationalize the sensitivities for the likes of Dick Dawkins, is hysterical

Clearskies has every reason to love that movie.

Indeed, I can somewhat understand why a conservative christian creationist would like it. But to call it the 'best film evar'?

lol

Perhaps you all need to get yo sum culture.

The idea she is being castigated for appreciating the truth

lol

or because she is not like those of you, who swing from Darwins Vas Defrens singing "Ding Dong God is gone Ding Dong the wicked Gawd is gawn" skipping down the yellow brick road until Aermacchi confronts the logical fallacy for the slightest possibilty of a dissed Dick Dawkins, Looking the metrosexual man and his mythical majesty of malevolent engenuity in evolution I yell:

"Gimme those SLIPPERS!!!

and yer little DOG TOO !!

AGHh ah ah ah ha !!

Metrosexual? Heh.

The fact is Ben didn't mis-quote anything but more than that is that while all this mis information is being proagated that Chuck Darwin was some paragon virtue beyond reproach is not unlike the hoardes of "xtians" rushing the gates to smash those disparaging the Pope.

He did actually.

In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:[36]

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Stein stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the Nazis. However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the very next sentences in the book state:

en.wikipedia.org...

The real quote in full and with context follows at wiki. But, of course, this is the sort of 'truth' that you and the other creationist ideologues offer.

Ken Miller lol yes I find his evolutionary allegiance most likely the behavior of a man just trying to keep his job. His theology is however,, well lets just say he is a bit of a puttz.

Sort of goes with the territory

Have you ever read the emails these so called leaders in Science, these alleged mature adults of modern science. This is what the movie is about and THAT isn't an embellished "just so" story , it is a fact and it is undeniable.

Oh noes! Nasty scientists said bad things about him, lol. Tell the teacher!

What on earth could they be so prejudice so un american and so absolutely obsessed with? My my, if this ID is soooo weak a theory and the people in it are sooooo stupid.

Aye, it's so strong that when given the opportunity to actually explain the support for the 'theory', they decided to play the martyr card and associate evolution with nazis, communists, baby-rapists, and all the ills of the 20th century.

I would think we would see them saying yeah "show us what ya got" while it falls flat while the infallible and miraculous scientific method, exploits the failings of the fundies fostering such frivolous flights of fancy. You know,,Mel all kidding a side,, this report and the emails I saw written about this man, is why any of Dick Dawkins personal character traits like integrity and honesty, etc, ain't a pimple on Ben's Buttox.

I would have thought we might have seen the IDists actually showing people what they have got. But maybe that's the problem...would be pretty short - perhaps a picture of the bible and a visual expression of ignorance.

ID scorecard over the last 12 years:

Number of scientific articles testing the ID hypothesis = 0
Number of articles published in the ID journal, PCID, since 2005 = 0
Number of ID-based school textbooks = at least 2
Number of popular books written by IDers = lots
Number of media announcements made the IDers = too many to mention
Number of films made by IDers = 1

The fact is, their behavior, represents the Science in general and I must say,,,

this was disturbing

Are you talking about IDers here?

www.discovery.org...

www.discovery.org...

Who cares? It was a hack job by Santorum and Souder, two conservative christian creationist ID cheerleaders. Sternberg got exactly what he deserved. Which was essentially people saying that someone who attempts to subvert the scientific process is a mendacious idiot, and little more than that.

He's probably the most pathetic martyr evar! Although, Gonzalez gives him a run for his money.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by moocowman


Science as in the science of evolution...... HA.....
Evolution is not based on an hypothesis its based on an ideology.....
You know.... more to do with the political rather than the facts of science you so blatently believe....
Global warming hoax is the theory of evolutions brother, both based on the same ideology priciples, both useds for a political aim......
I think your ideological science of evolution requires more faith than faith in whats written in my bible.
You only know what you read or are told so you take things that you think are kosher by faith.
Unless you want to put the time in to find out and research for yourself.... but I very much doubt that.....
I bet you have never even read the bible either..........

Happy Valentine's Day to all my Hairy little Creationists

Deny Ignorance

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Happy Valentine's Day to all my Hairy little Creationists

Deny Ignorance

Well the same to my antagonistic little atheist friends who deny God

Excellent choice "Atheist Hell" is one of my favorites of Zach Weiner.

Speaking of comical pics with a twist, here's one that sums up a good portion of Expelled:



titled with caption from Conservapedia.com:

Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin

Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf was a work which contained evolutionary racism.[1] In his work Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and decried Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," which Hitler stated resulted in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards."[2] Adolf Hitler also wrote the following evolutionary racist statement in Mein Kampf: "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable."[3] Charles Darwin was also an evolutionary racist. Prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins stated: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[4] Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf was a work which contained evolutionary racism.[1] In his work Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and decried Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," which Hitler stated resulted in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards."[2] Adolf Hitler also wrote the following evolutionary racist statement in Mein Kampf: "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable."[3] Charles Darwin was also an evolutionary racist. Prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins stated: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[4]

Originally posted by melatonin
sternberg got what he deserved

Oh I'm disappointed in you mel, either you didn't actually read all those emails and their cattie sophomoric backroom gossip full of its discrimination or you didn't.

Tell me mel, just what DID he deserve? from what I have read, and I have read each and every one of those emails, but from what I can read as much as this so called science community HATED this man and NOT ONE of them could honestly bring themselves to the place where they had a justifiable reason to give him what they thought he "deserved". What is obvious and I what I have seen MYSELF in the halls of Science at Arizona State University, is that their God is Charles Darwin and anyone who either dissed Darwin or challenged something evolution claims is a fact, you are summarily treated as if you are a problem, a heretic, a "situation" they have to "deal" with.

The tentacles of this ideology are all through every aspect of the media and academia itself. You and I have talked many times Mel about things I have seen we have a common interest and share a common passion for. It is what I call on to consider whenever I am talking to you.

I have a history with you here, albeit adversarial on topics, you have grown on me. It may even be that growth was like a wart or a tumor but I know if I were thrust into a strange place among strange people and saw someone calling themself "Melatonin" THAT would ne the first person I would want to talk to.

I remember when "madnessinmysoul" had taken his sabatical from this place how fast this place had lost it's importance and how empty it felt their was a void I had to fill. I know the power of the common enemy theory and that none of us are immune to our prejudices no matter how important the issue we believe justifies our fears.

Black people learning english and getting educations proved our fear of allowing them to, would give them the power to take over the country was a fear that was baseless, a lesson history needed to show us and did.

It was our lesson to us. The lesson for them was, that an education and denying the ignorance that was baseless, they could aspire to become leader of that same country and the President of the United States.

A lesson history needed to show them, and did.

I have seen all the criticism of Ben Stein for making this movie and had this movie been about anyone else but Chucky Darwin, I doubt seriously we would have seen all this hoopla by Atheists so resembling the hoopla we saw over Harry Potter from Christianity.

You can't POSSIBLY read those emails and not see the baseless prejudice and divisiveness and the politics of prejudice going on among those leaders of Science so afraid this man, whose academic education was just as good as theirs.

You see people getting all worked up about this guy because he is "anti" this or that, and that what he was trying to do is undermine science and oh my god ,, did you happen to see he is a "Republican!"

*sigh* I saw the emails and I have seen myself first hand what is arguably one of the worst ideas in science that someone who might want to give creedence to the notion that when someone says "God did it" simply means they believe in God but they don't know the answer. NOT that they didn't want to keep looking for one!

That this type of prejudice has permeated the science particularly the Science of Biology by using an anti of it's own and today we see every atheist on these boards thinking they are so much smarter than anyone else especially any fundie, xtian and assuming they have some science gene is tantamount to the same racial bigotry we have seen since the civil rights movement began.

What is so ironic is the very statements seen in those emails are similar to testimony surrounding Mr Scopes for wanting to teach Darwins theory which at the time was accused of not being science by the PTB in Science.

That if we used, the sort of bigotry for what some materialist limitation placed on our potential to take a leap of faith to a place that may seem supernatural at the time but only because we haven't figured out how God did it yet, doesn't trivialize belief in God,,

IT EXPLAINS IT!

Just because we have figured out how something works or just because we know what causes thunder to clap, doesn't trivialize God.

IT JUSTIFIES OUR IGNORANCE AND RATIONALIZES OR HUMILITY.

If God doesn't exist and cannot be proven while the scientific method is such a perfect filter and crap trap ,, then let these men bring it on their own merit but don't let your fear a God might exist be sternbergs scopes trial. Don't bastardize the meaning of the separation of church and state to mean God is a religion while in the same voice you teach religion is man made. If that is true and God is a myth, and Science only searchs for the truth then what on earth are they so afraid of this one man in this one place that it gets all the way to the United States Congress it is so conspirationally orchestrated it is undeniable.

The Movie Ben Stein created may have had some misquotes and they may have lied about the title of the movie but after reading the absolute bigotry Science has for a person like this based on what this person not only believes but apparently NONE with this belief are able to even mention let alone ever be allowed to prove.

That fact is when we hear how ID is not a science and we see how the PTB in science were able to get a Judge to not only referance a statement for denying this theory but used it DURING the trial to prejudice the outcome. The framers of our Constitution never envisioned a people that would use it in such a double standard for arguing for equal rights for gays and freedom (of all things ) religion to making it a Government Mandate to use it as a CLUB of prejudice and bigotry to single out a republican or a believer in a religion or a science theory that maybe we are not alone in this universe and we want to find out who put us here because we DO seem to be very much advanced than other creatures.

While our technology has enabled us to find prey using such innovations as infrared and rifles with lasers and scopes, the deer and even the Grizzly Bear doesn't have a chance and neither did the buffalo and the environmental pressures man has caused on them are not showing any real advances in the other creatures denfense from us, yet the Bible is dissed for saying what it apparently knew all along.

That when it said go out and have dominion over the fish and the creatures of the air and the birds and all animals over the land and sea.

Only Man has taken the King of beast and has lions doing stupid pet tricks in Las Vegas, Only Man has elephants doing stupid pet tricks in Barnum and Bailey's Circus, Only Man has the Killer Whale doing stupid pet tricks at Sea World, and Only the Bible is attacked for being such a lousy referance for man's quest for meaning. The Bible states that we shouold not try to find God as we will meet him one day anyway and for us to look for the evidence he is hear by the things he has made that cannot be made and those things that declare him as the the owner of its intellectual property his patents and designs.

While man copies Birds of Prey to make a Patents on a new wing design for the Raptor jet fighter and we hail the intelligence of the Science that gets exalted as the actual inventor the designer in all the Science books, we ignore even the suggestion that maybe the thing we copied it from would have taken more millions of years for us to figure out than if evolution gave it to us much less an actual designer.

While the Bible predicted all this happening 2000 years ago as man being given up to his own depravity his own pride and sin God says in that same book he has shown us the markers in the earth we were made from the creatures of the earth were put here fully formed and intact and when the cambrian explosion substaniates this, Science has come up with so many excuses for the lack of transitional fossils that NOW what was once the excuse how difficult it was for a fossil to even come by, we see now being said that they ALL are transitional forms in the fossil record. I don't see that as Science, I see that as the most desperate act to cover Darwins ass using the call from authority AD IGNORATIUM, I have ever witnessed.

Yet that old book was right when it predicted this of men saying we would know he exists by the things he has made so that men that would invent a reason to think otherwise,,

would be without excuse.

I'm sorry Mel, but that response you gave that Sternberg deserved what he got,,,

was a piss poor

excuse

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by melatonin
sternberg got what he deserved

Oh I'm disappointed in you mel, either you didn't actually read all those emails and their cattie sophomoric backroom gossip full of its discrimination or you didn't.

Tell me mel, just what DID he deserve? from what I have read, and I have read each and every one of those emails, but from what I can read as much as this so called science community HATED this man and NOT ONE of them could honestly bring themselves to the place where they had a justifiable reason to give him what they thought he "deserved".

I read them ages back. I said. He deserves to be labelled a fool. An idiot. A douche-nozzle. And any number of such labels for his behaviour in subverting the scientific process. He got it. And he should never be able to be editor of a scientific journal again. He demonstrated that he can't be trusted in that area.

is that their God is Charles Darwin and anyone who either dissed Darwin or challenged something evolution claims is a fact, you are summarily treated as if you are a problem, a heretic, a "situation" they have to "deal" with.

etc...

etc...

Yadda yadda. Same old.

You can't POSSIBLY read those emails and not see the baseless prejudice and divisiveness and the politics of prejudice going on among those leaders of Science so afraid this man, whose academic education was just as good as theirs.

Yes, people are prejudiced against those that are deceptive. I know it might be a surprise to you and most creationists, but some people care about integrity.

I know no-one who's afraid of him. What's to be afraid of? I think it's more a case of anger and distaste at someone who is prepared to undermine the scientific process when in a position of responsibility.

And, again, the fact you whine about people calling a dufus a dufus, whilst ignoring the deception of his behaviour, and that of the film and its makers is of more note to me than scientists calling a spade a spade.


[edit on 15-2-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


I said. He deserves to be labelled a fool. An idiot. A douche-nozzle. And any number of such labels for his behaviour in subverting the scientific process. He got it. And he should never be able to be editor of a scientific journal again. He demonstrated that he can't be trusted in that area.

is that their God is Charles Darwin and anyone who either dissed Darwin or challenged something evolution claims is a fact, you are summarily treated as if you are a problem, a heretic, a "situation" they have to "deal" with.

etc...

etc...

Yadda yadda. Same old.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by melatonin]

He never subverted anything Mel and the idea he even could against such dogmatism risking such ridicule the lies Ben Stein was taking about and you have furnished proving my point.

EVERYONE DESERVES A MEASURE OF RESPECT AND LIKE DAWKINS WHO GOT SO ANGRY THAT ANYONE CHALLENGING THE BIBLE BE RIDICULED A REPROBATE A HERETIC and in some circles, a "douche nozzle"..

Can you imagine if we were to have had this kind of judgmentalism this kind of bibliobigotry all through history, Isaac Newton would have been labled a tool a douche nozzle who was trying to subvert science.


BUT WITH WHAT!

GOD??


HA HA HA HA I doubt God is any threat at all if he is real and if he isn't, then I have no doubt at all. Don't show us your score card about evolutions evidence and peer reviewed papers until you have allowed the others to play in the same game the same rules and the same LEVEL playing feild but the only thing you have proven is when it comes to the tactics Stein's movie exploits...


He was DEAD ON


The guy did NOTHING WRONG! READ THE EMAILS FROM THOSE LIKE YOU WHO SAID THE SAME THING!

None of them when called to be specific about what defines him as deceptive much less a douche nozzle could be substantiated in any of those emaisl NONE!

So tell me what this guy did so sacrilegious so anti science he deserved to have his life ruined. My God did you read those emails?????????????

Talk deception!

READ THAT CRAP THEY WERE SAYING!


This deception, you say he was about,, looking at the kind of prejudice there is in this field would give reason for anyone to be less than honest about saying what political party they are or whether or not they go to any Church or any number of things that simply put...


WERE NOBODY'S DAMN BUSINESS

You evolutionists have too many piltdown frauds to account for to be telling anyone else who is deceptive and who is fraud.

Too many








[edit on 15-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
He never subverted anything Mel and the idea he even could against such dogmatism risking such ridicule the lies Ben Stein was taking about and you have furnished proving my point.

No, he did.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org...), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org...) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

www.biolsocwash.org...

Subversion of the process, and wrong venue.

EVERYONE DESERVES A MEASURE OF RESPECT AND LIKE DAWKINS WHO GOT SO ANGRY THAT ANYONE CHALLENGING THE BIBLE BE RIDICULED A REPROBATE A HERETIC and in some circles, a "douche nozzle"..

Oh, con. Please. I've seen the type of respect you mean. I can't even believe you mentioned MIMS, with the homophobic 'respect' you gave him.

I'm sure some people do think Dawkins is a douche-nozzle. And it's their right to call him one.

Can you imagine if we were to have had this kind of judgmentalism this kind of bibliobigotry all through history, Isaac Newton would have been labled a tool a douche nozzle who was trying to subvert science.

Newton was a prissy girl.

The guy did NOTHING WRONG! READ THE EMAILS FROM THOSE LIKE YOU WHO SAID THE SAME THING!

He did.

None of them when called to be specific about what defines him as deceptive much less a douche nozzle could be substantiated in any of those emaisl NONE!

He subverted the editorial process of the journal he had responsibility for to publish an article from one of his dope mates in a place it didn't even belong. He waited until just before he was leaving the editors post to do so. He knew what he was doing.

So tell me what this guy did so sacrilegious so anti science he deserved to have his life ruined. My God did you read those emails?????????????

Con, he never had anything ruined, apart from his integrity. And he did that himself. People called him an idiot, and still do. He still has his unpaid position.

People probably call me an idiot, in fact, I even call myself an idiot. So what? At least I have my integrity.

This deception, you say he was about,, looking at the kind of prejudice there is in this field would give reason for anyone to be less than honest about saying what political party they are or whether or not they go to any Church or any number of things that simply put...

WERE NOBODY'S DAMN BUSINESS

BREAKING NEWS....people in being nosy shocker!

[edit on 15-2-2009 by melatonin]

The National Center for Science Education, did a beautiful expose on Expelled... on their Truth Behind the Fiction page they address all of the "scientific claims" made by the film and set the story straight on all the ID experts who were interviewed (which included Sternberg).

Along with this campaign, NCSE made a great vid, addressing one of the common arguments ID proponents make in saying the eye is too complex to have evolved:


[edit on 15-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well the same to my antagonistic little atheist friends who deny God

Which god?

Theres a veritable pantheon of gods (and godessess) to choose from.

Do you mean the nasty,insecure,vindictive god from the old testament?

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well the same to my antagonistic little atheist friends who deny God

Which god?

Theres a veritable pantheon of gods (and godessess) to choose from.

Do you mean the nasty,insecure,vindictive god from the old testament?

Yeah, that be the one, you know,, the one that gave you a life free of charge

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah, that be the one, you know,, the one that gave you a life free of charge

Well you forgot to add "in my very humble opinion" at the end of your sentence but thanks for the reply.

Sanctimonious proseltyzing notwithstanding I'm sure you'll have the intellectual honesty to admit that 'Sobek the Egyptian Crocodile God'
has as much validity,feasibility,credibility and plausibility as any other gods or goddesess you care to mention (including yours).

Maybe when you realise just why you dismiss all these other gods
you will arrive at the understanding of why other people dismiss yours.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

I'm in the evolution camp, but I think shoving this down peoples throats is the wrong way to go. It'll just create arguments and probably the opposite effect.

It's like demonizing Muslims, made millions of white people convert to the Muslim religion. Just shows how bullheaded sheep can be.

Anyhow, there's a few people who are in the camp that says God created evolution, that keeps everyone happy.

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Anyhow, there's a few people who are in the camp that says God created evolution, that keeps everyone happy.

Which god?

Theres a veritable pantheon of gods (and godessess) to choose from.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
The National Center for Science Education, did a beautiful expose on Expelled... on their Truth Behind the Fiction page they address all of the "scientific claims" made by the film and set the story straight on all the ID experts who were interviewed (which included Sternberg).

Along with this campaign, NCSE made a great vid, addressing one of the common arguments ID proponents make in saying the eye is too complex to have evolved:

[edit on 15-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]

That is all you got??

This is all true and ANYTHING you can call on sternberg pales in comparison when we see what kind of un-necessary scrutiny he was under. Talk about walking on eggshells! This is absolute discrimination and had it been anyone but sternberg, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

THE FACT is clear given by their own testimony in the emails

How you people can even consider covering up for this I cannot fathom this is the clearest case of discrimination because of his religious belief I have ever seen.

"This is truly frightening! I cannot believe it has come down to this. Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches. But now it looks like these people are coming out and invading our schools, biology classes, museums, and now our professional journals. These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world."

As if they "allowed" is to be in our "Church" but then we have MORE!
Just what does he mean by "These People"? and who the hell died and made this Bigot Boss saying we "Invaded" their sacred inner sanctum of Science! Do you have any sense at all to have had ANYONE ask this A-HOLE just what the hell he is talking about !

They show this as a statement of policy and yet I see right there in black and white that they are not to use religion as a basis for this kind of discrimination

As the BSW is, legally speaking, an external activity, we cannot use Sternberg's mishandling of the Meyer WH to revoke his status as Research Associate. The SI Directive lists only a few points that are deemed
sufficient cause for that purpose, and none applies to Sternberg.

The "excuses" given above by you and Mel are the same issues most anyone can take advantage of EXCEPT anyone who is a "Republican" or anyone who "Challenges Evolution" and the emails to attack anyone who espouses or subscribes to any other theory is to be treated with extreme prejudice. The language I find in those emails is revolting and typical of those you would see on a 17 year olds hate blog of a "Dork" from the ROTC or the "Chess Club". Like I said he did NOTHING wrong and as is described in the emails, this "clique" of immature, stuck up, conceited, and boorish blowhards who think their **** don't stink.

We have seen this before and it is the Science community and Atheist protecting this theory while in the same voice they they use ridicule and tout the mantra we always hear about mountains of evidence and Scientific support . Gee whose Science is it anyway?

These considerations were being discussed without any hard evidence of unethical behavior on the part of Dr. Sternberg.
At one point, on October 5,2004, Dr. Coddington (in his capacity as Dr. Sternberg's "si~pervisor") tells Dr. Sues via emaiI that he is planning to meet with Dr. Sternberg to discuss the conditions of his ongoing research associate position and to "hint that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment." If tlGs statement isn't an example of a hostile work envirorunent and discrimination, what is? Clearly, the NMNH management was hying lo make Dr. Sternberg's life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave on his own, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.

It goes on to say

"While this unbelievably discriminatory statement did not come from NMNH staff, it was exactly this kind of reaction that Lemaitre was trying to encourage in an effort to damage Dr. Stemberg's reputation in the scientific community"

Yet we find more and more living proof things don't evolve into anything

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by karl 12
Theres a veritable pantheon of gods (and godessess) to choose from.

Do you mean the nasty,insecure,vindictive god from the old testament?

Yeah, that be the one, you know,, the one that gave you a life free of charge

lol.

Wait... but... Zeus gave us life free of charge.

... or...

Gaia?

Or was it Jehovah.

Oh geez... there's hundreds of thousands of gods that have been invented I could chose from.


You know, when a bunch of people are claiming to be the author of the same thing without using evidence... as a standard, they all lose credibility.



I have an old quote for you.

"When you come to terms with why you dismiss all the other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours as well."

So...
Why do you dismiss Zeus, Gaia, or any of the other estimated 100,000 gods? What makes you so sure YOUR god is the right one?


From my point of view, when hundreds of thousands have all tried to claim the same thing you've claimed... and only one or none can be correct.
I have to assume they're all BS'ing me.


Another question you should probably ask yourself is... why would the one true religion need to use threats of eternal damnation just to keep it's members?

Sounds more like a threat to maintain profit and control.

Poor poor Darwin...soon he will become like a lost astologer. Intelligent design will make him like a vauge memory!

Not only that...he could never hold a candle to one of his peers!

.www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah, that be the one, you know,, the one that gave you a life free of charge

Well you forgot to add "in my very humble opinion" at the end of your sentence but thanks for the reply.

Sanctimonious proseltyzing notwithstanding I'm sure you'll have the intellectual honesty to admit that 'Sobek the Egyptian Crocodile God'
has as much validity,feasibility,credibility and plausibility as any other gods or goddesess you care to mention (including yours).

Maybe when you realise just why you dismiss all these other gods
you will arrive at the understanding of why other people dismiss yours.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

my humble opinion? proseltyzing?, Intellectual honesty? Hey guy just who are you trying to impress? You asked a question, I answered it saying the god that created YOU. I never said which one it was nor did I think it necessary to include the ones that didn't and why you are judging me for something I never said much less any gods I allegedly denied, I find it ironic that since we are talking about denying God's, you aren't offering any reprisals to those here that reject them ALL.

That is of course, if you can be

"intellectually honest" about it




[edit on 15-2-2009 by Aermacchi]