Creationists

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE]Halton Arp : victim of RATIONAL Scientific society. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Divine Wind]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

I think education and IQ have something to do with it.

 

[daws101]

hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots will argue ignorance continually..

 

[eots]

hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots will argue ignorance continually..

The Ignorance is yours in not accepting the fact we are far from having any definitive answer as the the creation of the universe..I never once said or implied anyone should teach in schools the world is 6000 years old

 

[oldfart]

hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots will argue ignorance continually..

Never trust anyone who gets the date of Guy Fawkes Day wrong.

"Please to remember, the FIFTH of November,
Gunpowder, Treason, and Plot."

Maybe he'll have better luck with the bonfire.

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb


Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.

Well, in all honesty, it is worth pointing out the sleazy tactics used by creationists to press their hyper-religious agenda. Let’s remember also that Meyer is a “senior fellow” at the Disco’tute and apparently has no issue with sleaze, fraud and dishonesty as a tactic to promote his agenda.

I think what is pathetic is the lack of ethics on the part of creationist ministries.

The charlatans staffing the Disco’tute don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. As with virtually all of the creationist ministries, the Disco’tute is simply a front-end for the anti-evolution / anti-science position under which creationists unite in an attack on science.

 

[eots]

hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots will argue ignorance continually..

never trust anyone who gets the date of guy fawkes day wrong.

"please to remember, the fifth of november,
gunpowder, treason, and plot."

maybe he'll have better luck with the bonfire.

I would not trust anyone to dimwitted to realize it is intentional

 

[Hollie]

IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.

Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of them—because there are some really, really, stupid IDiots—but certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?


…


The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.

What the ID’iots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as “creationism”, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and don’t publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the ID’iots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyone’s time.

We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in McLean v. Arkansas wherein ID’iosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.

 

[Hollie]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

I think education and IQ have something to do with it.

I would add that creationism requires a high EQ (Entertainment Quotient)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

I think education and IQ have something to do with it.

As in little of the former and low concerning the latter.

Add to that fear and you’ve got your answer.

 

[jwoodie]

Why do Darwinists feel the need to describe what they think "Creationists" believe? Why don't they concentrate on describing what they themselves believe? Is offense the best defense? Is there anyone on this forum that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old? Why the Big Lie?

Why don't Darwinists explain how one species can perpetuate itself into another species (i.e., that can't procreate with the original species)? Apparently, it is much easier for them to describe a straw man.

 

[eots]

IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.

Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of them—because there are some really, really, stupid IDiots—but certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?


…


The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.

What the ID’iots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as “creationism”, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and don’t publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the ID’iots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyone’s time.

We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in McLean v. Arkansas wherein ID’iosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.

Histrionic ramblings..Who said anything about supernatural ?..an intelligent universe would be perfectly natural if that is indeed what it is ..we just simply would not yet be a the level of science required to understand the mechanics of it

 

[UltimateReality]

really? what you've just posted is the most blindly ignorant hate filled steaming pile of shit you've posted to date!

... says the curmudgeon.

doesn't make any less factual..too bad the same cannot be
said about you ...

You're a legend in your own mind. You have posted a single fact since you started here.

 

[UltimateReality]

Take a couple biology classes.

that statement means nothing

the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive proof of the evolutionary theory

We have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the Evolutionary Theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.

Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.

Oh here we go. The same ignorant argument that attempts to compare a historical science like evolution to a measurable science like physics. Sorry to burst your bubble but evolution is in no way a fact and to compare it to gravity would show you really are as brainwashed as the rest of the Darloons here.

Darwin believed in gradualism, which has never been proven in the fossil record, especially not in the Cambrian explosion. Then along came DNA and genetics and the neo-Darnitwits came up with a simple genetic explanation, natural selection acting on random mutations. After that all they could come up with was about six examples, none of which were evidence of a new species from the process and one of which was a bird brained, errr bird beak story that remains the most atonishing of all that educated people actually fall for this nonsense. Forget God and the third section of Darwin's Doubt that talks about ID and just take the first two parts on their own scientific merit. Darwinian Evolution and Neo-Darwinian Evolution is a lie. A bunch of atheists with an agenda just don't know it yet. In fact, in 100 years people will look back on it and wonder how so many educated masses could be tricked into falling for something so foolish with so little evidence.

Next you're going to tell me some nice Giraffe neck story with a bunch of "might haves" and "could haves" to make it sound real.

 

[UltimateReality]

we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.

Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.

its called the theory of evolution because it is in fact a theory and if there is some evidence to support the theory it does not excluded intelligent design

"It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.

Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.

 

[UltimateReality]

Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb


Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.

Well, in all honesty, it is worth pointing out the sleazy tactics used by creationists to press their hyper-religious agenda. Let’s remember also that Meyer is a “senior fellow” at the Disco’tute and apparently has no issue with sleaze, fraud and dishonesty as a tactic to promote his agenda.

I think what is pathetic is the lack of ethics on the part of creationist ministries.

The charlatans staffing the Disco’tute don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. As with virtually all of the creationist ministries, the Disco’tute is simply a front-end for the anti-evolution / anti-science position under which creationists unite in an attack on science.

Hawly, you have just incriminated thousands of TV Weatherman and thousands of news casters and their guests. So anyone using a green screen is not to be trusted, right? You're stupid.

Guess this guy is a sleazy liar too. He is probably not even in London. You think they would at least run a feed with the Eye moving...



This guy is definitely sleezy...

 

[UltimateReality]

IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.

Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of them—because there are some really, really, stupid IDiots—but certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?


…


The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.

What the ID’iots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as “creationism”, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and don’t publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the ID’iots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyone’s time.

We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in McLean v. Arkansas wherein ID’iosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.

The Darwidiots don't even claim PE anymore!!!! Geez, man! Would you go read a science journal for Charles sake!!!

 

[Hollie]

How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.

Well, in all honesty, it is worth pointing out the sleazy tactics used by creationists to press their hyper-religious agenda. Let’s remember also that Meyer is a “senior fellow” at the Disco’tute and apparently has no issue with sleaze, fraud and dishonesty as a tactic to promote his agenda.

I think what is pathetic is the lack of ethics on the part of creationist ministries.

The charlatans staffing the Disco’tute don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. As with virtually all of the creationist ministries, the Disco’tute is simply a front-end for the anti-evolution / anti-science position under which creationists unite in an attack on science.

Hawly, you have just incriminated thousands of TV Weatherman and thousands of news casters and their guests. So anyone using a green screen is not to be trusted, right? You're stupid.

Guess this guy is a sleazy liar too...

Goofy name-caller, what a shame you're unable to understand the difference between TV weathermen and the phony charlatans at the Disco'tute.

 

[Hollie]

IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.

Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of them—because there are some really, really, stupid IDiots—but certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?


…


The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.

What the ID’iots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as “creationism”, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and don’t publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the ID’iots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyone’s time.

We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in McLean v. Arkansas wherein ID’iosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.

The Darwidiots don't even claim PE anymore!!!! Geez, man! Would you go read a science journal for Charles sake!!!

Geez, but the ID'iots are slow.

 

[UltimateReality]

IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria

Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria



What the ID’iots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as “creationism”, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and don’t publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the ID’iots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyone’s time.

We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in McLean v. Arkansas wherein ID’iosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.

The Darwidiots don't even claim PE anymore!!!! Geez, man! Would you go read a science journal for Charles sake!!!

Geez, but the ID'iots are slow.

Show me some current info on PE Einstein. No one is falling for your dodge.