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.
...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!
Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, Im hardly the leader of any brigade.
I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the scienceminded. The atheistic evilutionists can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, quote-mining and edited / parsed quotes. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent quotes and the laughable green screening by the Discotute.
Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!
You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.
Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, Im hardly the leader of any brigade.
I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the scienceminded. The atheistic evilutionists can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, quote-mining and edited / parsed quotes. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent quotes and the laughable green screening by the Discotute.
Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!
You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.
Gee whiz, thumpie. Here I was hoping you could finally ofter a coherent defense for creation "science", you know, by hurling bible verses at me and threatening me with what will happen when the jeebus returns.
To borrow a slogan from the creation ministries: I suppose the chances of you actually constructing a meaningful thought are so miniscule, to do so would be proof of the gods.
You're befuddled. I get it. Unless you're cutting and pasting from the charlatans at the creation ministries you are in thrall to, you really have nothing to contribute.You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.
Gee whiz, thumpie. Here I was hoping you could finally ofter a coherent defense for creation "science", you know, by hurling bible verses at me and threatening me with what will happen when the jeebus returns.
To borrow a slogan from the creation ministries: I suppose the chances of you actually constructing a meaningful thought are so miniscule, to do so would be proof of the gods.
Of course you would miss the meaning of my last post. It has been done so many times for you in the last 1100 pages but until the scales fall from your eyes and the wax is cleared from your ears, it is useless to waste another breath or keystroke on you, Viper.
only a half wit would make such a false comparison..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
really?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.
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
wow! that was a stinger!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.
You are always one step behind...
funny how you always say that when your ass is handed to you...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.
Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.
bullshit alert :!!!!!!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.
This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
bump!And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
Wow... that was ignorant. The irony! Insults aside, you didn't answer my question. If ignorant people are unaware of their ignorance, how do you know you are not yourself ignorant and simply unaware of it? You don't. That's the point, so writing these cute aphorisms as if they bolster your position is delusional, since it can applied to yourself as well, and you have no defense against it, as you clearly just demonstrated with this nonsensical response.
your about as religious as a human can be...everything you argue is done with a religious zealotry only matched by your wilful ignorance.is the same true for real religion?
i don't know ask someone who is religious
and as always you'd be wrong on both counts .your about as religious as a human can be...everything you argue is done with a religious zealotry only matched by your wilful ignorance.i don't know ask someone who is religious
it seems the zealot here is you i have made no religious reference anywhere in this thread
and as always you'd be wrong on both counts .your about as religious as a human can be...everything you argue is done with a religious zealotry only matched by your wilful ignorance.
it seems the zealot here is you i have made no religious reference anywhere in this thread
as usual when a statement of fact, "and as always you'd be wrong on both counts" -meand as always you'd be wrong on both counts .it seems the zealot here is you i have made no religious reference anywhere in this thread
As usual you babble empty statements backed with nothing..No where in this thread did I reference religion and you can provide no link to any such statement...as ususal
as usual when a statement of fact, "and as always you'd be wrong on both counts" -meand as always you'd be wrong on both counts .
As usual you babble empty statements backed with nothing..No where in this thread did I reference religion and you can provide no link to any such statement...as ususal
is above your comprehension level ,you say it's babbling.. your zealotry and religious belief is blatantly obvious to everyone but you..
it is unnecessary for you to proclaim you made no such statement ,as YOU are the statement.
I guess you never heard the phrase "it goes without saying"...meaning it needs no further explanation or a link.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS: "Its funny watching puny lil humans thinking they know how the universe was created and the essence of the life force...." EOTS
THAT SENTENCE IS A QUASI RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.
dodge!as usual when a statement of fact, "and as always you'd be wrong on both counts" -meAs usual you babble empty statements backed with nothing..No where in this thread did I reference religion and you can provide no link to any such statement...as ususal
is above your comprehension level ,you say it's babbling.. your zealotry and religious belief is blatantly obvious to everyone but you..
it is unnecessary for you to proclaim you made no such statement ,as YOU are the statement.
I guess you never heard the phrase "it goes without saying"...meaning it needs no further explanation or a link.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS: "Its funny watching puny lil humans thinking they know how the universe was created and the essence of the life force...." EOTS
THAT SENTENCE IS A QUASI RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.
That is just a fact..all science is open for revision...only bad science would claim to have unquestionable evidence for the creation of the universe or the origins of all life on earth..we are not even close to the level of technology required to think otherwise is total arrogance.. the other-side of the same shit-coin..a faith based "science" zealot
bullshit alert :!!!!!!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.
This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
Empirical Science is what we call Science
Historical Science is what we call Speculation
bullshit alert :!!!!!!This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
Empirical Science is what we call Science
Historical Science is what we call Speculation
Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
