Does Evolution Lead to Fear of Aliens?

[james bond]

I agree that your first sentence is the way it should be. However, if you study history, then you'll find the atheist scientists took control in the 1800s with uniformitarianism vs creationism. This lead to evolution and today where the creationists theories will not be peer-reviewed. Science should allow both theories to be peer-reviewed. However, this is not the case and thus we have the two different sciences. I used to believe in evolution and learned it at evolution.berkeley.edu . However, once I started to investigate what the creation scientists were saying, I thought they had the better theories. It's a huge conflict of worldviews. It can't be so far different and that only one can't be right. For science to be decided by atheist scientists is not right. You may call these secular scientists or secular science, but the foundation is atheist science. Charles Lyell was an atheist and he turned his pupil, Charles Darwin, to atheism and disavow his Christianity.

There is only one science. Anything that doesn't fit the definition below isn't science.

What is the ``scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

What are you saying exactly posting this? The scientific method shows aliens? The scientific method should think that aliens do not exist. It's like we question people who have proof aliens by seeing UFOs, abductions, contact from outer space and whatever. Yet, science seems to contradict itself when people like Carl Sagan sent time capsules into space to try and contact them. We have these "scientists," mostly atheist scientists imo, who believe we'll find aliens within the next 10-to-35 years. This is due to the vastness of space that Sagan also believed and because of the million-dollar powerful telescopes they have. What a bunch of crock! That isn't science at all ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Any alien species, assuming they exist, that are capable of interstellar or intergalactic travel would certainly be far more advanced than we are.

That makes perfect sense.

If that is true then they would have noticed that this planet was teeming with life long before they were capable of interstellar travel, long before the dinosaurs walked the earth, long before any human being ever developed the intelligence to wonder what a fart was.

It wasn't that long ago before the dinosaurs walked the earth. You only been led to believe it was 245 million years ago.
.

Secular Humanism Is a Malignant Mutation of Religion

Theists could use the theory that God accelerated the progress of time. What would take 245 million years according to the carbon dating of dinosaur bones would take far less time if time happened faster at the beginning. In fact, it did for awhile after the Big Bang. So, if as postmodern physics says, time is a dimension, then it can be compressed.

I'm sure the atheist scientists will not peer-review your first sentence. Current science won't accept carbon dating of dinosaur bones because it would show a young earth. It won't accept tissue still remaining on dinosaur fossils to show a young earth. All of this because a young earth would show that ToE is wrong.

 

[boedicca]

I'm allergic to AWIENS!

 

[james bond]

The Bible states that God created the earth for us. That is all. I haven't seen any inconsistencies with this yet.

you are way way off man..

The bible states that God created heaven and earth and said, 'let there be light' when the world was without shape and void, which only means that divine law, like a light, was established in the midst of the darkness of a lawless planet which wasn't created for you anymore than it was created for a jellyfish.

Now, we get to the point where we disagree. I think we agree on what the Bible says, but it does state that earth was created for us in Genesis (my view). Now, this type of "geocentric" and "literal" thinking led us to interpret it to mean geocentrism which is way off, but these people did not back up their theory using science. That was one of the mistakes of Christian scientists using "God of the Gaps." Sir Francis Bacon warned us of that. (God of the Gaps was a warning by Christians to their scientists to not use God as an answer when they were stuck. Atheists usurped it for their own purposes when discussing the BBT.)

Does the Bible teach geocentrism?

I have more to say, but will stop here for your response.

The earth exists. To say that it was created for just 'us' is silly because as it exists it sustains all living things which suggests that if it was made for anything it was made for an amoeba as much as it was made for you.


What the bible states is that man was taken from the dust of the earth and formed into a living being to till the soil, which, if you think deeply enough, has nothing whatever to do with farming....

Yeah, we do disagree here. My understanding from reading the Bible is that God created the Earth so we can live on it. It was created for Adam and Eve and not aliens. However, it's been screwed up for "thousands of years" and today because of you know what. It's probably why we've never had world peace, but I wouldn't go that far. I'd go as far as no aliens because God created the universe and Earth for us.

I would say believing in science fiction as science is silly.

EDIT: I just looked up who coined the word, "alien." The fact is that it is based from science fiction.

"The use of the word 'alien' used to indicate extra terrestrial life form was derived from the regularly used English word 'alien' which meant 'foreign' or 'belonging elsewhere' or 'stranger'. If you are in a country you are not a citizen of, you are an alien in the country, in legal terms[1]. The first usage of the word in sci fi to denote an extraterrestrial being was in 1953, by the notable John Wood Campbell in his science fiction magazine[2], Analog Science Fiction and Fact."

https://www.quora.com/Who-coined-the-word-alien

 

[hobelim]

Yeah, we do disagree here. My understanding from reading the Bible is that God created the Earth so we can live on it. It was created for Adam and Eve and not aliens.

Yes, we disagree. Still I would like to point out that when Adam and Eve were formed from the dust of the earth and became living beings the earth was already populated with many types of peoples indicated by the talking serpent and all of the trees in the garden of Eden whose fruit was pleasing to the eye and good to eat.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yeah, we do disagree here. My understanding from reading the Bible is that God created the Earth so we can live on it. It was created for Adam and Eve and not aliens.

Yes, we disagree. Still I would like to point out that when Adam and Eve were formed from the dust of the earth and became living beings the earth was already populated with many types of peoples indicated by the talking serpent and all of the trees in the garden of Eden whose fruit was pleasing to the eye and good to eat.

.

Yes, we disagree. Still I would like to point out that when Adam and Eve were formed from the dust of the earth and became living beings the earth was already populated with many types of peoples indicated by the talking serpent and all of the trees in the garden of Eden whose fruit was pleasing to the eye and good to eat.

and not to mention there are no human remains among the many fossil remains, Flora and Fauna predating the late arrival of homo sapiens ...

 

[james bond]

Yeah, we do disagree here. My understanding from reading the Bible is that God created the Earth so we can live on it. It was created for Adam and Eve and not aliens.

Yes, we disagree. Still I would like to point out that when Adam and Eve were formed from the dust of the earth and became living beings the earth was already populated with many types of peoples indicated by the talking serpent and all of the trees in the garden of Eden whose fruit was pleasing to the eye and good to eat.

Yes, we agree to disagree. Another disagreement is there was no talking serpent, but Lucifer using the snake to speak through. I think knowing what I know now that I would've avoided the sexy fruit on the TOK. Maybe, if I was young and perfect, then it may have been tempting and thought worthy. Better to just avoid, no?

 

[james bond]

Besides aliens, another weird claim by the internet atheists is how did plants thrive when there was no light from the sun as the sun was created on the fourth day while plants were created on the third day. Also, how did God create night and day without the sun. The answer is he created the electromagnetic spectrum on the first day as witnessed here. The internet atheists are wrong again.

Northern Lights put on stunning display - CNN Video

 

[Divine Wind]

I agree that your first sentence is the way it should be. However, if you study history, then you'll find the atheist scientists took control in the 1800s with uniformitarianism vs creationism. This lead to evolution and today where the creationists theories will not be peer-reviewed. Science should allow both theories to be peer-reviewed. However, this is not the case and thus we have the two different sciences. I used to believe in evolution and learned it at evolution.berkeley.edu . However, once I started to investigate what the creation scientists were saying, I thought they had the better theories. It's a huge conflict of worldviews. It can't be so far different and that only one can't be right. For science to be decided by atheist scientists is not right. You may call these secular scientists or secular science, but the foundation is atheist science. Charles Lyell was an atheist and he turned his pupil, Charles Darwin, to atheism and disavow his Christianity.

There is only one science. Anything that doesn't fit the definition below isn't science.

What is the ``scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

What are you saying exactly posting this? The scientific method shows aliens? The scientific method should think that aliens do not exist. It's like we question people who have proof aliens by seeing UFOs, abductions, contact from outer space and whatever. Yet, science seems to contradict itself when people like Carl Sagan sent time capsules into space to try and contact them. We have these "scientists," mostly atheist scientists imo, who believe we'll find aliens within the next 10-to-35 years. This is due to the vastness of space that Sagan also believed and because of the million-dollar powerful telescopes they have. What a bunch of crock! That isn't science at all ha ha.

That there are not two or more sciences. It's either science or it is not. The definition of science clearly lays out the process to be used.

Example: Cold Fusion. One group claims to have discovered "cold fusion" but no other scientific groups can duplicate the process. The claim was revealed to be a flawed and had failed to follow scientific methodology.

Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior
...In 1989, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made headlines with claims that they had produced fusion at room temperature — "cold" fusion compared to the high temperatures the process was thought to require. It was the kind of discovery that scientists dream of: a simple experiment with results that could reshape our understanding of physics and change lives the world over. However, this "discovery" was missing one key ingredient: good scientific behavior.

This case study highlights these aspects of the nature of science:

• The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of community members. Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.
• Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.
• Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.
• Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.
• Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.
• In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.
• Data require analysis and interpretation. Different scientists can interpret the same data in different ways.

 

[james bond]

I agree that your first sentence is the way it should be. However, if you study history, then you'll find the atheist scientists took control in the 1800s with uniformitarianism vs creationism. This lead to evolution and today where the creationists theories will not be peer-reviewed. Science should allow both theories to be peer-reviewed. However, this is not the case and thus we have the two different sciences. I used to believe in evolution and learned it at evolution.berkeley.edu . However, once I started to investigate what the creation scientists were saying, I thought they had the better theories. It's a huge conflict of worldviews. It can't be so far different and that only one can't be right. For science to be decided by atheist scientists is not right. You may call these secular scientists or secular science, but the foundation is atheist science. Charles Lyell was an atheist and he turned his pupil, Charles Darwin, to atheism and disavow his Christianity.

There is only one science. Anything that doesn't fit the definition below isn't science.

What is the ``scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

What are you saying exactly posting this? The scientific method shows aliens? The scientific method should think that aliens do not exist. It's like we question people who have proof aliens by seeing UFOs, abductions, contact from outer space and whatever. Yet, science seems to contradict itself when people like Carl Sagan sent time capsules into space to try and contact them. We have these "scientists," mostly atheist scientists imo, who believe we'll find aliens within the next 10-to-35 years. This is due to the vastness of space that Sagan also believed and because of the million-dollar powerful telescopes they have. What a bunch of crock! That isn't science at all ha ha.

That there are not two or more sciences. It's either science or it is not. The definition of science clearly lays out the process to be used.

Example: Cold Fusion. One group claims to have discovered "cold fusion" but no other scientific groups can duplicate the process. The claim was revealed to be a flawed and had failed to follow scientific methodology.

Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior
...In 1989, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made headlines with claims that they had produced fusion at room temperature — "cold" fusion compared to the high temperatures the process was thought to require. It was the kind of discovery that scientists dream of: a simple experiment with results that could reshape our understanding of physics and change lives the world over. However, this "discovery" was missing one key ingredient: good scientific behavior.

This case study highlights these aspects of the nature of science:

• The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of community members. Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.
• Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.
• Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.
• Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.
• Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.
• In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.
• Data require analysis and interpretation. Different scientists can interpret the same data in different ways.

I think I've demonstrated that today we have creation science vs atheist science. It's the atheist scientists who violate the CoC. They refuse to peer-review the work of creation scientists. You're avoiding the examples I've brought up and continue to disavow the points being made with definitions.

 

[james bond]

Divine Wind, I think it's interesting that you brought up Cold Fusion. However, that experiment you mentioned was relegated to pseudoscience. Was it fraud? I'm not sure what you think, but we know that the Piltdown Man was fraud; A whole generation was tricked into believing this evolutionist nonsense. The same with Lucy and the rest. Can I help it if evolution scientists continue to deny and believe in their theories?

As for Cold Fusion, here's what creation scientists say and apparently, there has been a resurgence as the DoD is funding its new research. I suppose you still think it's pseudoscience and a fraud. Thus, the science has not been settled yet as thought.

"In The Lab
Potassium carbonate is a suitable replacement for calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate when used as a drying agent in the lab. It is not a good replacement if the material that needs to be dried is acidic. The organic drying phase can be done with the potassium carbonate to carefully remove small traces of acidic impurities for better preservation of dried specimens.

In the nuclear fusion field, potassium carbonate can be formed into an electrolyte that aids in cold fusion experiments. The electrolyte is used in the calorimeter along with heavy water to measure heat. It can also be used in hydrogen production, which can be used in different ways with an electrolysis setup.

Potassium carbonate is used to maintain the anhydrous (without water) conditions possible when used in a way that will not react with other reactants or any products that are formed from the processing of said reactants. Potassium carbonate can also be used to dry ketones, alcohols, and amines before they are distilled."

Potassium Carbonate Dihydrate

 

[Divine Wind]

Divine Wind, I think it's interesting that you brought up Cold Fusion. However, that experiment you mentioned was relegated to pseudoscience. Was it fraud? I'm not sure what you think, but we know that the Piltdown Man was fraud; A whole generation was tricked into believing this evolutionist nonsense. The same with Lucy and the rest. Can I help it if evolution scientists continue to deny and believe in their theories?

As for Cold Fusion, here's what creation scientists say and apparently, there has been a resurgence as the DoD is funding its new research. I suppose you still think it's pseudoscience and a fraud. Thus, the science has not been settled yet as thought.

"In The Lab
Potassium carbonate is a suitable replacement for calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate when used as a drying agent in the lab. It is not a good replacement if the material that needs to be dried is acidic. The organic drying phase can be done with the potassium carbonate to carefully remove small traces of acidic impurities for better preservation of dried specimens.

In the nuclear fusion field, potassium carbonate can be formed into an electrolyte that aids in cold fusion experiments. The electrolyte is used in the calorimeter along with heavy water to measure heat. It can also be used in hydrogen production, which can be used in different ways with an electrolysis setup.

Potassium carbonate is used to maintain the anhydrous (without water) conditions possible when used in a way that will not react with other reactants or any products that are formed from the processing of said reactants. Potassium carbonate can also be used to dry ketones, alcohols, and amines before they are distilled."

Potassium Carbonate Dihydrate

Thanks for understanding that science proved flawed ideas to be either flawed or hoaxes.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think I've demonstrated that today we have creation science vs atheist science. It's the atheist scientists who violate the CoC. They refuse to peer-review the work of creation scientists. You're avoiding the examples I've brought up and continue to disavow the points being made with definitions.

There is only one science, not two. If it doesn't fit the parameters of science, it isn't science regardless of the opinions of you, me or anyone else.

 

[james bond]

Divine Wind, I think it's interesting that you brought up Cold Fusion. However, that experiment you mentioned was relegated to pseudoscience. Was it fraud? I'm not sure what you think, but we know that the Piltdown Man was fraud; A whole generation was tricked into believing this evolutionist nonsense. The same with Lucy and the rest. Can I help it if evolution scientists continue to deny and believe in their theories?

As for Cold Fusion, here's what creation scientists say and apparently, there has been a resurgence as the DoD is funding its new research. I suppose you still think it's pseudoscience and a fraud. Thus, the science has not been settled yet as thought.

"In The Lab
Potassium carbonate is a suitable replacement for calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate when used as a drying agent in the lab. It is not a good replacement if the material that needs to be dried is acidic. The organic drying phase can be done with the potassium carbonate to carefully remove small traces of acidic impurities for better preservation of dried specimens.

In the nuclear fusion field, potassium carbonate can be formed into an electrolyte that aids in cold fusion experiments. The electrolyte is used in the calorimeter along with heavy water to measure heat. It can also be used in hydrogen production, which can be used in different ways with an electrolysis setup.

Potassium carbonate is used to maintain the anhydrous (without water) conditions possible when used in a way that will not react with other reactants or any products that are formed from the processing of said reactants. Potassium carbonate can also be used to dry ketones, alcohols, and amines before they are distilled."

Potassium Carbonate Dihydrate

Thanks for understanding that science proved flawed ideas to be either flawed or hoaxes.

We're still not on the same page. I like to think smart humans who understood science did that. We're still disagreeing on who did what. I'm not trying to be difficult, but when it comes down to it, it's a disagreement between two groups of scientists.

I think in the Piltdown Man fraud, there aren't any scientists anymore who believe in it. Creation scientists proved it was false.

As for Cold Fusion, there is a group of physicists who are working on it. They have funding from DoD and other sources. These scientists are working undercover because most physicists would think badly of them. Since I do not know the background of these scientists, it's one group who believes that cold fusion can be demonstrated one day vs ones who think it's pseudoscience.

 

[james bond]

Another example is Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis. It is pretty much a dead issue. The atheist scientists may still claim that it is a transitional fossil, but the public will not buy it. No one will fund another tour of its fossils. They tried it once and it was a huge money loser. Today, it represents a racist way of thinking. Lucy remains in Ethiopia and probably will not be dealt with any time soon. You may see a replica in a museum, but it won't be something that people take seriously. The Creation Museum has an exhibit for it to debunk it. The Creation Museum makes lots of money while this part of the secular museum can just be ignored. Is it any wonder that evolutionists and the mainstream media continue to try and "sell" Lucy and evolution?

 

[Divine Wind]

Another example is Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis. It is pretty much a dead issue. The atheist scientists may still claim that it is a transitional fossil, but the public will not buy it. No one will fund another tour of its fossils. They tried it once and it was a huge money loser. Today, it represents a racist way of thinking. Lucy remains in Ethiopia and probably will not be dealt with any time soon. You may see a replica in a museum, but it won't be something that people take seriously. The Creation Museum has an exhibit for it to debunk it. The Creation Museum makes lots of money while this part of the secular museum can just be ignored. Is it any wonder that evolutionists and the mainstream media continue to try and "sell" Lucy and evolution?

Not sure what you mean by "atheist scientists" or "transitional fossil". Again, it's either science or it isn't.

As for "Lucy": Lucy's Story | Institute of Human Origins
How do we know she was a hominid?

The term hominid refers to a member of the zoological family Hominidae. Hominidae encompasses all species originating after the human/African ape ancestral split, leading to and including all species of Australopithecus and Homo. While these species differ in many ways, hominids share a suite of characteristics that define them as a group. The most conspicuous of these traits is bipedal locomotion, or walking upright.

 

[Divine Wind]

We're still not on the same page. I like to think smart humans who understood science did that. We're still disagreeing on who did what. I'm not trying to be difficult, but when it comes down to it, it's a disagreement between two groups of scientists.

I think in the Piltdown Man fraud, there aren't any scientists anymore who believe in it. Creation scientists proved it was false.

As for Cold Fusion, there is a group of physicists who are working on it. They have funding from DoD and other sources. These scientists are working undercover because most physicists would think badly of them. Since I do not know the background of these scientists, it's one group who believes that cold fusion can be demonstrated one day vs ones who think it's pseudoscience.

Smart people either understand science or they admit they do not. It's idiots and political asshats pushing an agenda who either don't understand it or deliberately twist the truth to fit their agenda.

 

[james bond]

Another example is Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis. It is pretty much a dead issue. The atheist scientists may still claim that it is a transitional fossil, but the public will not buy it. No one will fund another tour of its fossils. They tried it once and it was a huge money loser. Today, it represents a racist way of thinking. Lucy remains in Ethiopia and probably will not be dealt with any time soon. You may see a replica in a museum, but it won't be something that people take seriously. The Creation Museum has an exhibit for it to debunk it. The Creation Museum makes lots of money while this part of the secular museum can just be ignored. Is it any wonder that evolutionists and the mainstream media continue to try and "sell" Lucy and evolution?

Not sure what you mean by "atheist scientists" or "transitional fossil". Again, it's either science or it isn't.

As for "Lucy": Lucy's Story | Institute of Human Origins
How do we know she was a hominid?

The term hominid refers to a member of the zoological family Hominidae. Hominidae encompasses all species originating after the human/African ape ancestral split, leading to and including all species of Australopithecus and Homo. While these species differ in many ways, hominids share a suite of characteristics that define them as a group. The most conspicuous of these traits is bipedal locomotion, or walking upright.

I'm tired of your "It's either science or it isn't." It sounds like what the ignorant internet atheists would say. Science is about disagreements. It is about people who dedicate their lives to a scientific theory such as strings, cold fusion, Big Bang and so on. I think most end up being wrong and their lives at a dead end.

I would consider ASU as one of the home of atheist scientists. These people do not even know Lucy is made up clap trap. If this is proved science, then why do the people not accept it as fact? Just listening to how Donald Johanson found the fossil makes me believe that he's wrong. And why would apes become bipedal when we do not think it's a convenient method of transportation? The apes were able to transport themselves just fine through the trees and on fours through the flat lands. We still have apes that do this instead of being bipedal. Isn't the observation we make of apes today proof to you that they're not our ancestors. Why do we need an ancestor anyway? You need to explain things in your own words as I'm being bored to tears.

 

[james bond]

We're still not on the same page. I like to think smart humans who understood science did that. We're still disagreeing on who did what. I'm not trying to be difficult, but when it comes down to it, it's a disagreement between two groups of scientists.

I think in the Piltdown Man fraud, there aren't any scientists anymore who believe in it. Creation scientists proved it was false.

As for Cold Fusion, there is a group of physicists who are working on it. They have funding from DoD and other sources. These scientists are working undercover because most physicists would think badly of them. Since I do not know the background of these scientists, it's one group who believes that cold fusion can be demonstrated one day vs ones who think it's pseudoscience.

Smart people either understand science or they admit they do not. It's idiots and political asshats pushing an agenda who either don't understand it or deliberately twist the truth to fit their agenda.

I understand science and religion while it appears you only understand what the internet and the liberal elites tells you. I've already stated atheism leads to communism. I've read Karl Marx. It's pushing a political agenda.

Now, you need to present a more interesting argument or else we're done. If you believe in what ASU profs tell you, then explain it in your own words. Show me you understand something.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm tired of your "It's either science or it isn't." It sounds like what the ignorant internet atheists would say.....

Of course you are because I disagree with you. Petty people are often persnickety and snippy when others disagree with them.

I understand science and religion while it appears you only understand what the internet and the liberal elites tells you.....

Thanks for a more direct insult rather than the usual gutless innuendo you usually post. Have a nice day, sir. I hope you find an echo chamber to your liking.

/subscribe