Creationists

[Hollie]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.

Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.

I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.

What questions were ignored? Secondly, neither of you offered anything in terms of "explanations" to, for example, the diversity of life on the planret , except silly and pointless claims that "The gawds did it".

That's not an explanation.

Further, neither of you were here to learn or to debate. Your goal was to proselytize, or worse, in the case of your creepy co-religionist, stalking.

We saw in clear and unmistakable terms the attitude of both the YEC’ists and just how retograde your ideology really is: anyone who disagrees with you is sick, stupid, perverted, an imbecile, etc. etc.

Chirality was an explanation. The cell it's so complex that it could have not formed in any natural form this has been explained. Under perfect conditions the miller and urey experiment was an argument for design not spontaneous generation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.

Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.

Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.

It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's this simple if scientists were to come out and say there is zero evidence for spontaneous generation or for any field of science they know that funding would get cut and many would be out of work. Real science has been a huge benefit to man as well as been destructive to mans survival.

They offer the best explanation whether it is accurate or not.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here is something that can help educate you people on a cell it's parts and functions.


Parts of a cell | Human biology | Khan Academy

 

[Hollie]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.

Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.

Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.

It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.

As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.

Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.

As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.

Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.

Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.

It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.

As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.

Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.

As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.

Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?

My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.

 

[Hollie]

It's this simple if scientists were to come out and say there is zero evidence for spontaneous generation or for any field of science they know that funding would get cut and many would be out of work. Real science has been a huge benefit to man as well as been destructive to mans survival.

They offer the best explanation whether it is accurate or not.

Wow. A christian creationist sprouting conspiracy theories.

Never saw that one comin'.

 

[Hollie]

Happy anniversary (two days late), to science, open inquiry and the rejection of christian creationist fear and superstition being imposed upon the public schools.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

 

[Youwerecreated]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.

Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.

Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.

It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.

As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.

Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.

As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.

You didn't even attempt to ask why I said the miller and urey experiment was a better argument for design then spontaneous generation.

This is my frustration when talking to your side you don't even care about the truth,you rather hold on to a view that is void of evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's this simple if scientists were to come out and say there is zero evidence for spontaneous generation or for any field of science they know that funding would get cut and many would be out of work. Real science has been a huge benefit to man as well as been destructive to mans survival.

They offer the best explanation whether it is accurate or not.

Wow. A christian creationist sprouting conspiracy theories.

Never saw that one comin'.

Hollie it is a fact most research is funded by groups with agendas.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Happy anniversary (two days late), to science, open inquiry and the rejection of christian creationist fear and superstition being imposed upon the public schools.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Hollie, no doubt secular views are represented in the schools the question should be why ?

 

[Hollie]

Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.

Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.

Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.

It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.

As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.

Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.

As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.

Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?

My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.

Many scientist may believe in Bigfoot. Who cares?

Christian creationist have never offered even a plausible explanation for supernaturalism as the mechanism describing diversity of life on the planet.

Your claims to gawds are no better supported than claims to Bigfoot or theLoch Ness monster.

I have no reason to believe you ever attended further education beyond christian home schooling. Quite clearly, your abilities to articulate christian creationism is limited to cutting and pasting from some of the more notorious and sleazy of the christian creationist ministries.

 

[Hollie]

Happy anniversary (two days late), to science, open inquiry and the rejection of christian creationist fear and superstition being imposed upon the public schools.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Hollie, no doubt secular views are represented in the schools the question should be why ?

As usual, you’re unable to separate your christian fundamentalist views from the mechanisms of exploration and discovery.

The methods of science are not “secular”. I understand your goal is to denigrate the methods of science, but using fear and superstition that is derived from your belief in the supernatural doesn’t further that goal

 

[CandySlice]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.

Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic will bear.

Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?

And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.

Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.

As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.

Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?

My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.

Many scientist may believe in Bigfoot. Who cares?

Christian creationist have never offered even a plausible explanation for supernaturalism as the mechanism describing diversity of life on the planet.

Your claims to gawds are no better supported than claims to Bigfoot or theLoch Ness monster.

I have no reason to believe you ever attended further education beyond christian home schooling. Quite clearly, your abilities to articulate christian creationism is limited to cutting and pasting from some of the more notorious and sleazy of the christian creationist ministries.

They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.

Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing thing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic will bear.

Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?

And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.

Is this your attempt at changing the subject ?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?

My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.

Many scientist may believe in Bigfoot. Who cares?

Christian creationist have never offered even a plausible explanation for supernaturalism as the mechanism describing diversity of life on the planet.

Your claims to gawds are no better supported than claims to Bigfoot or theLoch Ness monster.

I have no reason to believe you ever attended further education beyond christian home schooling. Quite clearly, your abilities to articulate christian creationism is limited to cutting and pasting from some of the more notorious and sleazy of the christian creationist ministries.

They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.

Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.

"They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.

There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.

 

[Hollie]

Klinghoffer clangs

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco ‘Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger’s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein’s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).

Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course–how could he?–but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there – a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer’s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here’s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI’s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger’s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.

Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?

And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.

Is this your attempt at changing the subject ?

Speaking of changing the subject, you seem hesitant to address the issue of your Christian creationist “scientists” attempting to phony-up a research lab.

What is obviously lacking on the part of the Christian creationist syndicates is that there is no research being undertaken. How humiliating for the Christian fundies: they don’t even have an appropriately equipped or staffed lab. They were forced to dishonestly phony-up and purposefully misrepresent themselves. But honestly, how does anyone perform research into baseless claims of supermagical entities?

How humiliating for the Christian fundies to be embarrassed into admitting that no research lab exists in the entirety of the Christian creationist syndicate.

So why do you think it is that the Christian fundies are not acquiring funding grants? With the goal of the Christian syndicates to promote Christianity, why isn’t there a vigorous research program to prove this “design” that you rattle on about?

 

[Hollie]

Westboro Baptist Creationist Loses School Board Bid

Westboro Baptist Creationist Loses School Board Bid - The Panda's Thumb

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) – Carolyn Campbell lamented that she didn’t court enough voters in northeast Kansas in seeking her second term on the State Board of Education.

Her opponent, Jack Wu, was outspoken on teaching evolution and has ties to an anti-gay Topeka church notorious for picketing military members’ funerals. Campbell, a Democrat, worried GOP voters would simply follow Wu’s Republican party affiliation.

In the end, Campbell, a Topeka Democrat, received more than enough votes in Tuesday’s election, easily defeating Wu, according to unofficial results.

“I’m happy I have four more years to work for our children. That’s all I wanted to do,” Campbell said.

…

Wu, a Topeka computer programmer, made opposition to teaching evolution the centerpiece of his campaign. He described evolution as “Satanic lies” and said on a website that public schools were preparing students to be “liars, crooks, thieves, murderers, and perverts.”

Wu also raised eyebrows by saying that he was lured to Kansas from California in 2008 by Westboro Baptist. The Topeka church, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., is known internationally for picketing with anti-gay slogans and proclaiming that American soldiers’ deaths are God’s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. Wu is not formally a member, but he’s attended services regularly.


Here’s a bit more from Jack Wu’s own website: Mission - A WebsiteBuilder Website

My mission, in running for the Kansas State Board of Education, is to throw out the crap that teachers are feeding their students and replace it with healthy good for the soul knowledge from the holy scriptures.

Let’s be specific. Evolution should never be taught in public schools as science. Evolution is false science! God made the heaven and the earth and created humans from the dust of the earth! The very bad teachers that teach that men descended from apes via evolution need to have their teaching licenses revoked. Yes, students should be taught that God created everything.

Gee whiz. This whack-job would find a willing audience in this thread.

Well, praise hey-zoos that one of his whacky minions won't be able to spread his message of christian hate and intolerance to school kids.