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.
Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.
You really think the fact that I went to public school actually is the cause for my saying this about fox? That's quite a leap, considering how many factors go into something a person might choose to type on an internet forum.
Let me clear this up: I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think that's a good idea to censor fox, although I secretly wish it were possibility, because I think they are evil.
Apology accepted.
Welcome home.
Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".
"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."
Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters
You really think the fact that I went to public school actually is the cause for my saying this about fox? That's quite a leap, considering how many factors go into something a person might choose to type on an internet forum.
Let me clear this up: I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think that's a good idea to censor fox, although I secretly wish it were possibility, because I think they are evil.
Apology accepted.
Welcome home.
Don't mistake what i said for an apology. I will never apologize for bad-mouthing a crap "newstation." I was clearing my own name, so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards.
Apology accepted.
Welcome home.
Don't mistake what i said for an apology. I will never apologize for bad-mouthing a crap "newstation." I was clearing my own name, so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards.
I said 'apology' just to jerk your chain.
Worked, eh?
"...so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards."
So much to work with here!
First, Fox News, the premier cable news station is not 'evil'....jerk.
Second, it has more liberals on air than your fav cable stations.
Third, have no fear that you may 'lose all credibility'....you can't lose what you don't nor will ever have.
And, as I end my refrain, I can see why you would seek a niche 'on these stupid boards'....as a 'stupid board' would be your comfort zone.
Step off.
1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"
It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.
Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.
Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.
3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!
So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?
Debate me.
"Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly."
Of course they were used correctly...that's exactly what sticks in your craw.
I've found, and this thread indicates, that those fearful that their worldview is more a house built on a foundation of sand needing just enough of a shaking....and it is gone.
You are a case in point.
Rather than admitting that there numerous cases of foundation-less theories, and therefore no more 'scientific' than many of the ideas found in theology...
...you keep mumbling 'debate me, debate me.'
What new ideas do you bring to the table?
None.
You can't prove that there are multiple universes, or how or why the universe began, or bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory, or why there is not proof that evolution is based on a series of changes leading to new species- but on new species that arise filled with all the properties that differentiate them from other forms....
And, the most momentous of events, the ability of the human mind, and body, which is not found elsewhere in the biosphere.....
...the degree of magnitude explained in only one place:
Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Debate you?
I've destroyed you.
You should really come and visit the United States...you might get a different perspective.
I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?
Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.
1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"
It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.
Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.
Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.
3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!
So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?
Debate me.
Why do so many honest scientists make a comment and it gets out to the creationist then all of a sudden we get a recant of the comment and puppets like yourself get out and spew that is not what was meant. Perfect example Gould and Eldredge.
Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.
Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.
So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?
Debate me.
"Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly."
Of course they were used correctly...that's exactly what sticks in your craw.
If they were, then answer some of my issues with them. They should be perfectly answerable if they were used correctly.
Try actually answering with substance instead of saying "no you're wrong" over and over again.
That doesn't answer my post. Stop with your passive-aggressive insult bullshit and write an actual reply to something I've said. Is saying something actually relevant anathema to you?
If I'm wrong, and the theories we are debating are "foundation-less" than it shouldn't be too hard to answer my points.
Oh look. Yet another excuse to not actually answer what I said. There's a lot of heavy irony in accusing me of introducing no new ideas.
This string of assertions is the closest thing you've actually done to actually reply to me in awhile.
I'm pretty sure I never asserted there were multiple universes, let alone tout evidence that proved it. I said it was hypothesis, which even Dawkins admitted it was. Anyone with two brain cells concerning physics knows its by and large speculation at this point. I'm pretty sure it'd be wrong to take Dawkins' opinion on it seriously, since he isn't a physicist by trade. I sure don't take stock in his opinions on physics that's for sure. So this rapidly commons irrelevant seeing as I said nothing you claim to say.
And oh, look. You've introduced cosmology into the debate. Funny, I don't recall this ever coming up before. It's largely irrelevant. Fun fact though, one of the proponents of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. The Pope at the time tried to claim his new theory validated the Bible. Lemaître wrote him, stressing this was not so.
Why should I have to bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory? You're the one who brought string theory into begin with. I made no claims regarding it. Photonic was correct when he said the general consensus is not to put much stock into it. String theory is actually a theory that hasn't been proven. Don't tell me you believe it, PC.
You do realize you're little tidbit actually makes sense when you input the theory of evolution? It doesn't do much to disprove any part of it. At any rate, we know speciation occurs. I even gave you an example of it happening in a laboratory setting, as well as speciation resulting from the artificial selection of humans. Look at almost anything we've domesticated in our time as modern humans on earth, from bananas to chickens.
And your point is? Oh, I get it. The body and mind is too difficult for people to understand. It is far too complicated and advanced than anything on earth. How haughty. What a poor mindset to take. We understand a bit more than you'd like to admit, but on the whole not as much as we would like.
You're right, we don't know much about the brain. And just like I pointed out awhile ago, we also don't know a lot about physics. But that doesn't invalidate what we already know.
...the degree of magnitude explained in only one place:
Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
A Bible verse. Really. A Bible verse. We should toss away all our knowledge accumulated over the past six hundred years of progress and look to the Bible for answers? Your excuse for mangling physics and biology isn't to prop up another evidence-based theory, but stamp God over everything?
Well hey, at least you've admitted what I've been reading between the lines since the beginning of the thread. If that's what you wanna do, more power to you. But don't insist that modern physics or biology is incorrect or wrong because of it, especially if you can't offer any actual evidence why.
Debate you?
I've destroyed you.
Oooh dramatic. You like putting so much ham into your posts that William Shatner would be jealous. I'm sure your next line will be "Stand aside everyone, I take large steps."
You would have a point, if you had actually bothered to make some points when replying to me. As I've been chiding and chasing you for several pages now.
When Gould and Eldredge say quote-mining Christian Creationist asshats are wrong about what they conclude, then the evidence is clear: Christian Creationists dishonestly pull scientific commentary out of context to advance their retarded agenda.1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"
It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.
Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.
Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.
3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!
So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?
Debate me.
Why do so many honest scientists make a comment and it gets out to the creationist then all of a sudden we get a recant of the comment and puppets like yourself get out and spew that is not what was meant. Perfect example Gould and Eldredge.
It speaks to the unethical lying of scientists to gain wealth. Same that is going on with the lie of global warming.I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....
Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.
Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.
So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?
Debate me.
"Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly."
Of course they were used correctly...that's exactly what sticks in your craw.
If they were, then answer some of my issues with them. They should be perfectly answerable if they were used correctly.
Try actually answering with substance instead of saying "no you're wrong" over and over again.
That doesn't answer my post. Stop with your passive-aggressive insult bullshit and write an actual reply to something I've said. Is saying something actually relevant anathema to you?
If I'm wrong, and the theories we are debating are "foundation-less" than it shouldn't be too hard to answer my points.
Oh look. Yet another excuse to not actually answer what I said. There's a lot of heavy irony in accusing me of introducing no new ideas.
This string of assertions is the closest thing you've actually done to actually reply to me in awhile.
I'm pretty sure I never asserted there were multiple universes, let alone tout evidence that proved it. I said it was a hypothesis, which even Dawkins admitted it was. Anyone with two brain cells concerning physics knows its by and large speculation at this point. I'm pretty sure it'd be wrong to take Dawkins' opinion on it seriously, since he isn't a physicist by trade. I sure don't take stock in his opinions on physics that's for sure. So this rapidly becomes irrelevant seeing as I said nothing you claim to say.
And oh, look. You've introduced cosmology into the debate. Funny, I don't recall this ever coming up before. It's largely irrelevant. Fun fact though, one of the proponents of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. The Pope at the time tried to claim his new theory validated the Bible. Lemaître wrote him, stressing this was not so.
Why should I have to bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory? You're the one who brought string theory into begin with. I made no claims regarding it. Photonic was correct when he said the general consensus is not to put much stock into it. String theory is actually a theory that hasn't been proven. Don't tell me you believe it, PC.
You do realize you're little tidbit actually makes sense when you input the theory of evolution? It doesn't do much to disprove any part of it. At any rate, we know speciation occurs. I even gave you an example of it happening in a laboratory setting, as well as speciation resulting from the artificial selection of humans. Look at almost anything we've domesticated in our time as modern humans on earth, from bananas to chickens.
And your point is? Oh, I get it. The body and mind is too difficult for people to understand. It is far too complicated and advanced than anything on earth. How haughty. What a poor mindset to take. We understand a bit more than you'd like to admit, but on the whole not as much as we would like.
You're right, we don't know much about the brain. And just like I pointed out awhile ago, we also don't know a lot about physics. But that doesn't invalidate what we already know.
...the degree of magnitude explained in only one place:
Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
A Bible verse. Really. A Bible verse. We should toss away all our knowledge accumulated over the past six hundred years of progress and look to the Bible for answers? Your excuse for mangling physics and biology isn't to prop up another evidence-based theory, but stamp God over everything?
Well hey, at least you've admitted what I've been reading between the lines since the beginning of the thread. If that's what you wanna do, more power to you. But don't insist that modern physics or biology is incorrect or wrong because of it, especially if you can't offer any actual evidence why.
Debate you?
I've destroyed you.
Oooh dramatic. You like putting so much ham into your posts that William Shatner would be jealous. I'm sure your next line will be "Stand aside everyone, I take large steps."
You would have a point, if you had actually bothered to make some points when replying to me. As I've been chiding and chasing you for several pages now.