UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
Go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan Richard Dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Creationists
- Thread starter cbirch2
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan Richard Dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
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.
Gee whiz - the YEC'ers sure get angry when their religious tales and fables are challenged.
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.
I'm afraid there's not a lot of detail on jeebus and miracles in the science literature dealing with PE.
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.
Go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan Richard Dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
Oh my. You have sunk to the lowest levels of the of the Christian creation charlatans who are left only with lies, deceit and limp attacks on science to defend your religious fundamentalism.
Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.
Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.
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.
Go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan Richard Dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
You still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of Christian fundies at the Discotute.
The Discotutes green-screened lab is much more than just another example of Christian creationist lies and deceit. Its really an appropriate metaphor for the entire IDiot / (angry) Christian creationism syndicate. The Ann Gauger charade is simply another episode in the long history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that IDiosy, AKA Christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade masquerading as a science.
It's almost comical that Flat Earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the ID'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the ID'iot syndicates.
eots
no fly list
goofy name-caller, what a shame you're unable to understand the difference between tv weathermen and the phony charlatans at the disco'tute.
go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan richard dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
you still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of christian fundies at the disco’tute.
The disco’tute’s green-screened lab is much more than just another example of christian creationist lies and deceit. It’s really an appropriate metaphor for the entire id’iot / (angry) christian creationism syndicate. The ann gauger charade is simply another episode in the long history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that id’iosy, aka christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade masquerading as a science.
It's almost comical that flat earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the id'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the id'iot syndicates.
I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of bible stories
Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 929
- 245
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.
For the record, I'm a physics student. I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.
Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.
However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.
go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan richard dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
you still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of christian fundies at the disco’tute.
The disco’tute’s green-screened lab is much more than just another example of christian creationist lies and deceit. It’s really an appropriate metaphor for the entire id’iot / (angry) christian creationism syndicate. The ann gauger charade is simply another episode in the ulong history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that id’iosy, aka christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade masquerading as a science.
It's almost comical that flat earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the id'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the id'iot syndicates.
I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of bible stories
I can't help but notice your inability to recognize that the creationist/ ID'iot agenda is driven by fundamentalist christians, hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
you still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of christian fundies at the disco’tute.
The disco’tute’s green-screened lab is much more than just another example of christian creationist lies and deceit. It’s really an appropriate metaphor for the entire id’iot / (angry) christian creationism syndicate. The ann gauger charade is simply another episode in the ulong history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that id’iosy, aka christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade masquerading as a science.
It's almost comical that flat earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the id'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the id'iot syndicates.
I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of bible stories
I can't help but notice your inability to recognize that the creationist/ ID'iot agenda is driven by fundamentalist christians, hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
No that's just your strawman ...you have trouble defending Darwinism hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
eots
no fly list
"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.
For the record, I'm a physics student. I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.
Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.
However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.
So Einsteiin is the theory of relativity a fact that can not be questioned ?...lol
Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 929
- 245
Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
eots
no fly list
Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box Bookmark and Share
Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity neutrinos travel faster than light
PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.
In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.
"This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."
Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.
Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online
http://www.whatsontianjin.com/news-...-s-theory-of-special-relativity-in-doubt.html
Last edited:
Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 929
- 245
That experiment was found to be flawed (the clock was miswired or something like that). Einstein was right.
Large Hadron Collider at CERN: Einstein 'was right all along' - Telegraph
CERN's Mea Culpa: Einstein Was Right, Neutrinos Do Obey The Speed Of Light - Forbes
Einstein was right! CERN says particles DIDN'T travel faster than light - and something was 'not quite right' with last year's experiment | Mail Online
Neutrino researchers admit Einstein was right | Science | guardian.co.uk
Large Hadron Collider at CERN: Einstein 'was right all along' - Telegraph
CERN's Mea Culpa: Einstein Was Right, Neutrinos Do Obey The Speed Of Light - Forbes
Einstein was right! CERN says particles DIDN'T travel faster than light - and something was 'not quite right' with last year's experiment | Mail Online
Neutrino researchers admit Einstein was right | Science | guardian.co.uk
eots
no fly list
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nTYZ6rvz4]Big Bang Theory wrong again? Plank telescope data doesn't 'fit' theory of Big Bang cosmic inflation - YouTube[/ame]
I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of bible stories
I can't help but notice your inability to recognize that the creationist/ ID'iot agenda is driven by fundamentalist christians, hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
No that's just your strawman ...you have trouble defending Darwinism hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
If by Darwinism you are referring to the theory of evolution, then no, I have no trouble defending it. Or, by using such terms as Darwinism, are you referring to many fields of science which support evolutionary science and well get to that in a moment.
Let me guess. You are one of those delightful fellows who is convinced that science is a global conspiracy intended to further the spread of communism and atheism.
I think what you have trouble with is an ability to separate yourself from the propaganda spewed by creation ministries. To help you out, I can advise you that evolutionary science (or evilutionary science if that makes you feel better), employs disciplines from many science discipliness. Evolutionary science is really the synthesis of many scientific fields (geology, biology, botany, population genetics, paleontology, microbiology, embryology, and more).
The reason why you devote such hatred toward science and knowledge is simple: Creationists are largely Christian Fundamentalists; literalists, who take every word of the various bibles to be the true and unalterable word of the gods.
Many echo the sentiments of the thankfully dead Henry Morris:
"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."
-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey
Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 929
- 245
Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.
Thanks.
Thanks.
eots
no fly list
That experiment was found to be flawed (the clock was miswired or something like that). Einstein was right.
Large Hadron Collider at CERN: Einstein 'was right all along' - Telegraph
CERN's Mea Culpa: Einstein Was Right, Neutrinos Do Obey The Speed Of Light - Forbes
Einstein was right! CERN says particles DIDN'T travel faster than light - and something was 'not quite right' with last year's experiment | Mail Online
Neutrino researchers admit Einstein was right | Science | guardian.co.uk
funny how all these non- scientist are still exploring the subject...maybe you need to tell them theories and models are in fact laws...
Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box Bookmark and Share
Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity neutrinos travel faster than light
PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.
In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.
"This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."
Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.
Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online
Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt - What's On Tianjin
Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos | Science/AAAS | News
Oh my gawd! Peer review?Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online
That experiment was found to be flawed (the clock was miswired or something like that). Einstein was right.
Large Hadron Collider at CERN: Einstein 'was right all along' - Telegraph
CERN's Mea Culpa: Einstein Was Right, Neutrinos Do Obey The Speed Of Light - Forbes
Einstein was right! CERN says particles DIDN'T travel faster than light - and something was 'not quite right' with last year's experiment | Mail Online
Neutrino researchers admit Einstein was right | Science | guardian.co.uk
funny how all these non- scientist are still exploring the subject...maybe you need to tell them theories and models are in fact laws...
I'm sure you offer some comprehensive research undertaken by the AIG folks, right"
Anything yet from the ICR "researchers"?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 217
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 397
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 148
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 79K
- Views
- 2M
- Replies
- 99
- Views
- 467
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8520
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-