Friday, August 05, 2005

 

"Evolution-A Brutal Ideology" Results In Brutal "Attacks"

A few days ago, I decided to let a portion of my loathing of modern "science" come out in this blog. Personally (I could be biased), I think I did it in a most comical way. My thought at the time was: "If anyone out there is going to comment on this post, it will most certainly be a raving liberal." Well, I was right! A raving liberal DID respond! But so did some others (on another site)-actually using space to "attack" my post as "not representing evolution, fairly" (paraphrased).
How am I supposed to represent such a deceptive belief? Am I to place my trust in a bunch of self-serving idiots whose motive it is to disprove a higher intelligence? (well-I admit, they might actually believe in a "higher intelligence"-one yet to be discovered in the vast void of space!) Am I supposed to accept this deception, which is built on nothing but speculation?
Yes-they will say that their belief is born of centuries of observation-yet there are so many holes in their belief that (I believe) can never be explained! They absolutely refuse to give creedence to any other view! I wonder what they are so afraid of?
Are they afraid that given a choice between the "evolution" view and the "creation" view that some folks might reject their deceptive ploy to recruit others into their way of thinking in order to bolster their false confidence that there is no higher power over them? Or are they afraid that the rejection of evolution by those who are given the view of both sides of the dispute might result in a re-examination of morality-therefore depriving them of the comfy feeling they get by seeing a world becoming ever more immoral?
I dare say-with the growth of the evolution myth came the rise of immorality in the world! My opinion on this is supported by the fact that not one of my "attackers" have answered a simple question-On what do you base your morality?
Oh-I get the standard "Evolution doesn't neccessarily exclude God" by the "religious evolutionists". (Kinda comical when you think about it, huh?) They say: "the word of god (sic) is only poetry", or some crap like that! I'm sure they came to that conclusion by placing their "faith" in some yahoo/intellectual/theoligist-or maybe from some idiotic "church" edict. The atheists wouldn't touch the question with a ten foot pole-how could they?
I don't care if they call me foolish-I believe that much more "faith" is required to accept the evolution deception than it does to accept the existence of an intelligent creator! But get this-even though they have placed their faith in this rediculous idea-they refuse to admit that it is their "religion"!
I thought that one of the "touts" of both liberals and libertatians was their high regards for tolerance-guess not!

Comments:
Oh man this is too much.

Firstly, I love how you claim your post was a joke only after several rounds of arguing in which you responded to fewer and fewer of my points. Hm.

Secondly, I think you'll find that more than just 'raving liberals' accept evolution, unless you consider Santorum and millions of Republicansa 'raving liberals' too.

Thirdly, it is not the scientists who are being deceptive. You constantly say that the motive behind evolution is to 'disprove a higher intelligence'. It isn't. You say that evolution is built on 'nothing but speculation', one of the most ignorant things I've heard anyone say. You say there are so many holes in the theory, yet the only one you bring up is dinosaur/human footprints, which are regarded even by creationists as a sham. You say that evolutionists get a 'comfy feeling' by seeing the 'world becoming ever more immoral', yet obviously can't back that statement up even remotely.

I made the point of saying that the Bible is written in poetic language, evident by the verses that talk about the world resting on pillars in space. Or are you going to say that the space pillars really exist too? You do a good job at avoiding answering my points.

On what do evolutionists base their morality? Same as other people, clearly! I've made this point again and you avoid it: if evolution erodes morality, how come evolutionists aren't going around stealing and killing? Obviously you trying to connect evolution and morality is laughable.

I give anti-evolutionists about as much tolerance as I give astrologers or people who think that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Start responding to my points instead of changing the subject and we'll see how it goes.
 
Oh, by the way, I just saw your comment about the 2nd law of thermodynamics over on proscred. And you're wrong, evolution doesn't go against the 2nd law.

The 2nd law says that the amount of entropy is always increasing...in a closed system. The problem with your argument is that Earth isn't a closed system; we're constantly getting enormous energy input from the sun. The amount of order created by evolution is easily offset by the disorder from spent energy.

This, like many anti-evolution arguments, stems from incomplete understanding or selective quoting of a law.
 
1) I didn't say the view I stated was a joke-I said the way it was delivered was intended to be humorous (and inflammitory to intolerant idiots, I admit). I succeeded in both attempts, it seems!
2)I'm well aware of the fact that "not only 'raving liberals'" accept the evolution faith-though I thought only a 'raving liberal' might respond.
3)I couldn't begin to list the never-ending stream of inconsistencies that your faith requires-and have been exposed as fraud in many, many cases!
4)Anyone who actually reads the Bible, keeping things in context, not relying on some imperfect priest's interpretation, will be able to clearly distinguish what is symbolic and what is not.
5)"evolutionists aren't going around stealing and killing" HA, ha, ha, ha ha! Look around you! Are you blind? Your own liberal agenda is based on the fact that that most people are being stolen from! Your "key" issues in political "progress" is abortion and gay rights!
On one hand-the murder of innocents (which fits in with the belief that humans are animals-you know sometimes a bitch will kill a pup or two if it means the survival of the rest of her litter), and the growth of sex-crime murders!
The other hand, people acting like animals in their moral actions!
6) Tolerance-I'll allow your bullshit to be put up against what you percieve as mine ANY day of the week. You seem to be the one who's afraid to let a different viewpoint be heard!
You refuse to give my point of view any creedence, whatsoever, dude. Is your lack of confidence so much that you won't let your "pro-choice" spirit allow you to let people hear another view?
It seems that in your view-I have no right to my point of view! Hypocrite!
 
hahaha and when did this become about abortion? You have no idea how I stand on the subject, don't pretend that you do.

1) you mentioned the post "which was honestly intended as a joke". Hmmm now changing your mind...

2) the only reason that Republicans put up with your creationist crap is because they need your votes.

3) you couldn't begin to list the errors? It looks pretty poor when you claim to have a huge list but then the only 'hole' you can dig up can be shot down with a 5 second google search. Put up or shut up.

4) ok, not too worried about that.

5) haha again you assume to know my feelings on social policy! The nerve. Look around you: evolutionists are productive members of society. Clearly your idea of them being immoral miscreants is a joke. Maybe you'll start claiming that you actually did mean it as a joke...

6) if I didn't want to hear your viewpoint, I wouldn't keep coming back. You are unable to tolerate the fact that creationism cannot hold up to scientific investigation. You canot tolerate the fact that millions of people act morally without believing in a God, let alone creationism.

You have every right to your view, and I have every right to disagree with you. So cut out trying to paint this as a battle of free speech. You could start by getting back to the argument.
 
You keep refering me to others of your faith-but I don't accept your faith, dude. On your blogsite, you ridicule Bush for his endorsement of Intelligent Design-this IS about free-speech, dude!
Your side is petrified that the truth mat get out and your lies will finally be exposed!
I've been to your site-you claim to be "socially liberal" -I can put two and two together (even comes out to four).I don't have to pretend anything.
Still haven't admitted to your religios worship of science, have you?

Not a free-speech issue? What a stupid statement. All along, during this debate, my aim has been to show what hypocrites people like you are!
 
Haha but you haven't shown one hypocritical thing! Talk about stupid: free speech is all about different points of view and being able to disagree! Another great thing related to free speech is that we don't have to agree with each other! However, just because people should be allowed to think whatever they want doesn't mean that whatever they think is true. You're welcome to your views on science, but they're still wrong. Free speech means that someone can stick their fingers in their ears and sing the national anthem, but it doesn't mean they're right. No one is stopping Bush from believing in Intelligent [sic] Design, goddaym. By your reasoning any argument anyone has is stifling free speech. Talk about stupid.

If you think my 'faith' is science, and you don't accept my faith, that means you don't accept science. Apart from being a ridiculus statement, as all of us reap the constant benefits of science, that means that no amount of evidence could ever sway your mind. Science is about proof, and if you're not willing to accept the scientific method, we have nothing to argue about.
 
Your faith is in man's perception of scienc! It is faith. I believe in scientific law-not scientific assumptions!
agin, and agai, and again-if the creation view is so flawed, why are you adamant that it not be taught-your theory can't be proven!
 
One question you have skillfully avoided-where did your "big bang" energy come from?
 
Why am I adamant that something incorrect not be taught in public school? Come on, I shouldn't have to answer that.

Like I've said before, theories aren't "proven". They're upheld by being supported by evidence, which evolution definitely is.

When you say "big bang energy", do you mean energy that the big bang created, or are you trying to say energy that created the big bang? Thanks for saying I skillfully avoided that question, but I don't think it's been asked yet.
 
Where did anything come from-you have faith in your view of "origins" but can't explain where the basic building blocks of the universe come from-by the way, our universe is a "closed system", no?
 
As far as we can tell, yes, the universe is a closed system. So if you apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics within the mindset of the entire universe, entropy is always decreasing.

The thing about the Big Bang is that it was a singularity. That means that, as space and time and matter came into existence (or formed existence), the laws of physics broke down (or didn't even exist yet, I'm not sure which). Think of it like a black hole, in which gravity is so immense that not even light can escape...at the center of a black hole is a point of singularity.

Now I'm not as solid with astrophysics as I am with biology, plus I thought were were talking about evolution. That's anothing thing about scientists; they know what they don't know. If scientists thought they knew everything, why would they publish new findings and articles?
 
In order to cover for mistakes-the ones thwey make because they DON" know?
It's hard to deny that you've been wrong when the proof is before the world!
Nothing about the "evolution" theory has ever been "proven".

However, Biblical archaeology supports scripture-which might support the "literal" translation you think is so foolish!
 
Biblical archaeology does support scripture. For example, there was a town called Bethlehem. In no way does anything support "intelligent" design. Because it's WRONG.

I read an interesting editorial on this issue earlier today. Basically the gist of it was that "i"d should be taught in a "blue box," one of those sidebars in standard textbooks. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that other people believe other things. But the inclusion of "i"d in a bio textbook side-by-side with evolution is the equivalent of giving credit to the concept of phlogiston in a physics text (unless you believe in that, too).



-sam
 
That's it-it's ok to teach "religion" in school, as long as it conforms to scientist's perception of truth....is that it?
 
Liberals-they gripe about how much money our troops get, then praise NASA for wasting billions in its ill-fated quest to find life beyond our planet....wow!
 
I sincerely hope you meant "gripe" as in liberals want troops to get paid more, cause if you look around...

Stop talking about truth. You're wrong that scientific theory seeks out truth, for the last time.

I don't want religion to be taught in public school as anything more than part of history, sociology, or philosophy. When a religious viewpoint tries to hijack legitimate science, then we have a problem. If a religion is going to make claims about science, you better as hell expect us to hold it to the same standards as science. Otherwise it's apples and oranges.
 
"Same standard as science"-what a freaking joke!
Okay then, more accurately, science seeks out lies!
The bottom line is-you and your fellow worshippers of man are afraid to let another viewpoint be heard!
 
hahaha we've already gone over this. You already tried to frame this as a free speech issue, which it clearly isn't for numerous reasons already stated, along with common sense.

If you're going to present an alternative scientific theory, you better make it scientific, not religious. It's as simple as that.

There's no way to test if God exists, which isn't to say that he doesn't exist, just that He shouldn't be included in scientific investigation.
 
There's no way to "test" whether evolution exists-if so, give a concrete example!

You admitted that science doesn't seek out truth! Evidenced by the fantasies promoted on networks like "Discovery" who run these illegitimate programs about dinosaurs and their behaviour-give me a break!
In most instances, "science" takes a few bone fragments and creates a complete profile of a creature which they claim has not existed in millions of years!
There was one instance (Nevada Man,if I'm not mistaken) where three fragments of fossilized bone was used to build a profile of "early humans". It was published in all the scientific journals-even taught as fact in both colleges and high-schools-turned out, one of the fragments (a fragment of jaw-bone) was proven to be that of a pig!
Recently, "scientists" uncovered parts of a t-rex which actually had pliable tissue attached-including muscles and blood vessels, I belive). The "scientific" community has the balls to actually say that the tissue has suvived for hundreds of millions of years....HA-HA-HA!!!
Evidence stares these idiots in the face and they try to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.
You say :"Science is always changing".Yeah-to suit the needs of dumbasses who want to perpetuate an exposed lie! I say: "Scientific Law NEVER changes!"
It's in the design!
It's funny hoe "scientists" can have their cake and eat it too!
While you don't want religion taught in schools (as if humanism isn't), I don't want a blatant lie taught and presented as fact! Hell, you people don't even want stickers put on text-books explaining that evolution is only a theory!
Again, I say: "Hypocrites!"
 
I agree that univeral law never changes. We're constantly revising our scientific laws to get closer and closer to a perfect theory.

Considering how a five second google search has destroyed your anti-evolution example before, I'm going to let you find sources for those two claims. Then I'll tell you exactly how you're being bamboozled.

There's a difference between scientific theory and science. Dinosaur behavior doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

You have a wonderful writing style of making broad, completely indefensible claims. Although they may sound good to you when you read over your post, anyone else with a shred of common sense can see that your castles are made of sand. "In most instances", give me a break. Put up or shut up, once again.
 
What evidence have you supplied to give your religion credence, Kyle? Reffering me to other idiots whose goal it is to make a name for themselves by coming up with the "current" version of the evolution model-one, I'm sure, that tomorrow or the next day will change, not because your prophets have proven anything, but because their previous dead-end explanation demands that another avenue be taken. An avenue, I am most confident, will take your believers down another short, dead end alley!
Make sure your back-up beeper is working, boys and girls, you'll see these "experts" changing their stories time and time again throughout your lives!

"Dinosaur behaviour has nothing to do with evolution or scientific theory"-Oh, it must be fact, then, huh? My point in all of this is to show what intolerant hypocrites you evolutionists are-I've succeeded. You keep telling me I haven't come up with any "facts" supporting my case. Where, dear Kyle, are yours?
You cannot come up with anything but egotistical fantasies!
 
Look, man. This is going to be hard for you, because you're so entrenched in your monotheistic, absolutist viewpoint, but I'm gonna try.

You can say science is wrong. If that's the case, if you absolutely, positively believe that nothing that comes from science is valid, then there's nothing we can do to convince you otherwise. We are making arguments based on a rational system of observation, experimentation, and testing. You get an idea, you form a hypothesis, you test your hypothesis, others test your hypothesis, and, provided that enough people agree with it, and provided the scientific method (the process of observation, etc) and the available data supports your hypothesis, it becomes a theory. If at any time it turns out that the evidence doesn't support your hypothesis, it's either discarded or modified. It takes a long time for a theory to be disproved (which provides anti-science types with a lot of fodder), but it is almost impossible to fully, truly "prove" a theory. The best science can do is say, "Given everything we know at this moment, this particular model explains the most things in the easiest way." If you don't agree to those terms, the debate is effectively over. We can't convince you to "believe" in science, and you can't convince us to be willfully ignorant.

It may turn out that "Intelligent" Design is right, as in, someone conclusively and within the terms of modern science, proves the existence of a higher being that created the universe in a purposeful, intent-oriented fashion. By that same token, heliocentrism might be right (and, indeed, why wouldn't it be if the biblical account of creation turned out to be true?). But evolution is currently the "best fit" theory for the origin of life on earth.

Now, the evidence game. Your counterargument against kyle's petition for "i"d-supporting info, in your classically elegant and effecacious style, was "You don't have any either." While that would certainly win you some supportive "oohs" if we were holding this debate at Bob Jones University, it's simply not a valid argument. Plus, there is evidence of evolution:
Whales have hips. Yep, hips, similar to those found in modern land mammals. Whlaes don't need hips, seeing as they don't have legs as such. Now either god, in his divine ineffability, put pointless hips in whales, or they evolved from some sort of ancient land mammal. Which sounds more crazy to you?
It has been proven in a lab that certain isotopes of carbon (unusual, unstable carbon atoms) decay at a certain fixed rate (e.g. if you start with 10 grams of a given carbon isotope, in [let's say] 100 years, you'll have 5 grams). Given this information, and given the fact that carbon is present in high amounts in every living organism (the technical distinction, in fact, between organic and non-organic chemistry is the presence of carbon in whatever you're studying), and is continually generated by living organisms up until the point of death, it is possible, using math (another shaky voodoo invention of secular humanists, I'm sure), to determine when something died very, very accurately. The numbers we get from carbon-dating, coupled with geological information, more-or-less conclusively prove the earth is way older than 6009 years. Now, either the earth is way older than 6009 years, or god, in his ineffability, "fixed" the rocks and fossils to give us these numbers. I don't know why god would purposefully provide "evidence" that "proves" that "his" account of what "he" did is false, but maybe you do. He's just too ineffable for me.
A last piece of evidence for you, before I lob the ball gently back into your court, is that all mammals, as well as amphibians, most reptiles, birds, and turtles, all share essentially the same bone structure in their forearms. If you look at the bones of a bat's wing, the bones of a human arm, and the bones of a turtle flipper, the same bones (in different size proportions to one another) will all be present. Does it make more sense to assume that these animals all evolved from a common ancestor, or that god just really liked this particular bone combination?

It's all about Occam's razor, buddy.

So, now that I've provided evidence for our side, how about you smite we heretical humanists with some righteous pro-creationist evidence. What do you say?



-sam
 
When the vast majority of educated people agree with evolution, the burden of proof in this argument, my dear sir, is yours.

The evidence I supply is a hundred years of scientific work honing Darwin's original ideas into the foundation of genetics, biochemistry, physiology, and numerous other fields.

The evidence you supply? Supposed human footprints that even the founder of which doesn't use them as arguments because they're so blantantly false. I've asked you numerous times to come up with anything more than that and you avoid the challenge.

Here's a heuristic for you: if there were already available a scientific way to debase evolution, it would have been done sometime in the past hundred years. Sorry dude, but any substantial arguments you have against evolution aren't scientific.
 
yeah, and what sam said. so there.
 
I'm defeated. I admit it! The "evidence" foe evolution is just overwhelming me! Oh golly, what am I to do...my whole outlook on life is changing!

Couldn't "sharing the same basic structure in their forearms" be consistent with common design? You know, every wheeled vehicle ever made shares numerous similarities-I guess that is evidence that automobiles "evolved" from the basic minerals they are made up of, huh?
As for science-as I've stated, there is scientific fact and scientific theory. I refuse to place my faith in
the findings of man-I prefer the truth that I have real experience with, in Christ!
You know...I can't think of ONE real benefit mankind gets from the evolution myth-except , of course, having an excuse to live like animals!
If there were a "scientific" way to "debase" God, the atheists would have already proven He doesn't exi. So until you prove it to me...I'll continue to play the "dumbass" in the eyes of idiots!
T-Rex tissue....intact after hundreds of millions of years-that may fool the followers of "science" 9though, I swear I can't figure out how!), but it doesn't fool me!
There have been several instances, by the way, where creatures that have been labeled as extinct for untold millions of years, which have ended up being discovered, alive and kicking, mind you,constructed EXACTLY the way the "fossil" record shows them to have been "millons" of years in the past!
Another wake-up call for "science"! Another reason to change their story....of course they ALWAYS have an explanation, don't they?
You believe your way, I'll believe mine-I'll have lost nothing in the end-what about you?
 
As much as you guys are defending my attack-your confidence must be pretty weak!
If I'm such a wacko for the way I believe, why do you feel the need to defend your position?
I mean, if intelligent people will always choose the most reasonable route, why is it that so many of them believe in creation?
And why is it that ahteists see such a need to attck religion? Their intelligence MUST be much higher than the average Christian-after all, how could an intelligent person fall for such blatant lies as biblical ones?
And another thing-how the hell do you parse links in these comment boxes? Mind helping a friendly foe out?

Really guys, if you stop by when you're in town-as I've told other opponents-we'll hop in the rig and drive the 50 mile round trip to the nearest liquor store and get a twelve-pack or something!
 
Well I think you've kinda helped our point. We're not trying to prove scientifically that God doesn't exist, because it can't be done. We recognize that there are questions that science can handle, like how did life develop, and there are questions that science cannot answer, like how should we act and is there a god. One realm belongs to science, the other to philosophy/religion. The problem that we're having with you is that you're trying to seize part of the science realm with wholly religious arguments. It just doesn't work that way. In the same way that I can't use science to tell you which religion to believe in, you can't use religion to tell me that evolution is wrong. Well, you can tell me, but it's going to be as silly as this argument has been.

Christ is a great source of moral instruction. I don't think he said anything about science, however. Are ancient Hebrews really the best source of scientific information? I'd say no.

Again, you bring up the t-rex issue after being asked a couple times to cite it. Still waiting...

Why do we feel the need to defend our position? What if some whacko came up to you claiming to have proven through the Bible that woman was made before man? I have a feeling you'd scratch your head and point to the clear Genesis evidence that the whacko is wrong. You'd probably not have very much respect for his biblical analysis skills. Maybe not the best example, but that's kinda how we feel when you try to attack evolution through pseudoscience. Evidence for evolution is clear as day throughout science, just as evidence for man coming before woman is pretty damn straightfoward in the Adam/Eve account.

Links, by the way, are [a href="http://whateversite.com"]whatever text you want to make a link out of[/a], except you use < and > instead of [ and ]. Hope that makes sense.
 
You sat that "evolution is clear as day". Then you also say that evolution can't be proven...so what you are saying is that science has adopted it's own faith and that that faith should be taught in schools to the exclusion of all other faiths. I admit that my argument is more "philisophical" than "scientific". Where your belief in science lines up with your philosophy, my philosophical beliefs line up with my science.
I don't expect to convert anyone by stating my views on evolution-but I expect my views to be shown the same respect demanded by those who believe the evolution myth.

href=http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=article&action=view&ID=3033/">The Here's your link!

Thanks for the tip!
 
Well, I thought I had it right, anyway!
 
We're having semantic troubles with 'evolution' and 'true' and stuff like that, I'm not really sure how to explain myself. Maybe it'll come to me.

Subjects in school should be taught without a religious flavoring. Science's so-called "faith" in experiment, reason, logic, and observation is much different from the faith required for a religion.

I couldn't get to the link provided. Noticing that it is from a clearly biased website, maybe I'm not missing much.
 
"biased website"....heh, heh!

Evolutionist to creationist: "I can clearly see the "mote" in your eye, but I don't have a cross-tie in mine...huh-uh...not me buddy...no way. Jose'!"

You've admitted that evolution can't be proven-then continue to deny your faith....same old crap!
 
It can't be proven in that we can't go back in time and fastfoward, watching creatures evolve, right. That's about the only step we're missing, though.

Bias in science involves unscientific arguments. Evolutionists aren't biased because they depend on science. Creationists are biased because their arguments rest on unscientific (philosophical/religious) grounds. Simple as that.
 
If you say so, Kyle!

You are right in that you can't go back to prove yourselves! Time is the one element your faith-and its feeble defense-depends on!
 
"If you say so, Kyle!"

Quite the argument. I do say so, and because you can't argue evolution scientifically the debate is over.

If I'm not mistaken, time is something very important to creationism too. Your arguments make no sense.
 
Time supports US, by the way. But that's never really the point, is it?

Look, it's pretty clear by now that you don't see any validity whatsoever in the scientific method. And that's fine, really it is. If you don't agree with the principles that made the existance of your "rig" even possible, that's fine. I wouldn't put you in charge of anything more important than, say, making sure someone else doesn't stand on a particular square on the sidewalk, but it's fine.

You claim to have beef with American education, and its "bias." It seems to me, however, that your real problem is with those who believe in the scientific method as opposed to biblical literalism. And that's fine. You can hold that belief. I'm not even going to take the easy route out and use any sort of appeal-to-the-majority-type arguments. I don't need to. You're free to believe whatever you want. This is America. I'll defend your right to hold the beliefs you hold to my death, if necessary.

The thing is, the scientific method was adopted precisely because it produced theories and experiments that yielded the greatest positive benefits for mankind. Heliocentrism was discarded because it simply did not explain things that actually happened very well, and was replaced by a theory that did. Evolution explains things better than creationism, and is also more beneficial to mankind.

Let's take a look at those benefits you were asking about earlier:
The main benefit of creationism, since it's not a scientific theory and can't really produce any new theories or innovations (indeed, that's the whole idea), is a warm feeling inside, because Man is superior to animals, and, indeed, to the rest of the universe.
Evolution (and its implication that humans are animals, too) has yielded a bevvy of results. Do you know anyone who's ever gotten a pig-heart valve put in their body? Thank evolution. Anyone you know use chemicals first tested on animals, such as most pharmaceuticals? Thank evolution. Ever hear of endangered animals being brought to term in the body of a related, more common species? Thank evolution.

But enough of this. Your problem with evolution is that it contradicts the word of the bible. Therefore, it follows that you would like a biblical interpretation of the world to become the norm. Fine. Let's chuck evolution, along with the modern taxonomical system (congratulations, bats! you're birds again!), modern astronomy (take that, sun!), most modern political theories, women's rights, abolition (slaves are OK in the bible), not to mention more or less all modern science and the benefits it hath wrought. Now, you can live in Iran, and that's fine. But I like it here in America.



-sam
 
Sam, your last argument is so idiotic it as not to be taken seriously! Really, evolution making possible implants and animal testing for humans-how utterly weak!
It continues to strike me as funny that neither of you "intellectuals" have admitted that your faith in the areas of
science we have discussed. I admit my disdain for haughty-taghty folks who consider their own views as the only ones worthy of consideration! You are afraid to consider mine! I have been swarmed by yours all my freaking life-and reject it utterly!
I easily accept the science that has been proven to work-yours hasn't-can't!
I'm just a simple hillbilly, boys! I take things in, including your biased observations, and try to look at them in an uncomplicated way. That's best, for me!
You guys REALLY amuse me!

Go teach the inner-city kids your load of crap-I'm sure it is bound to make life better for them!
 
They'd certainly have a chance to become educated members of society.

Way to not address over half of Sam's excellent post, too.

The thing is, your view takes about thirty seconds of consideration before one realizes that it's not scientific, and therefore shouldn't be taught in school. Simple.
 
What is "scientific"? Your view or creationist's view of "scientific"? You want a monoploy on it so you quote others who agree with you never considering-no-never allowing another view!

You are afraid that your grip on the minds of our young people will be loosened-you can't stand it so you ridicule any other view-well, my purpose here is to reveal that fact-and I believe I have, magnificently!

Perpetual motion-rules!!!!
 
What is "scientific"? Science. You can call creationism 'scientific', but you'll be changing the meaning of the word. Check a dictionary, bud.
 
I have always understood that the word "science" meant the study of how things work. You haven't figured that out yet-your perception changes as to how you arrive at your conclusions with every failing or new discovery-you think you know, but you can't really be quite sure because you know-at any moment-an undeniable article (the only kind you'll accept) could appear on one of your college web-sites that could make you rethink things to suit your end!

Admit it, Kyle! You place your faith in a mythical god. One of your own design! You're a good preacher of the word of The Great Energy that Came From Nothing". ( sorry-couldn't think of a catchier name) Go down to the corner of your street where the store-front church(abandoned in order to move into bigger facilities because of growth)might be for rent.

But don't teach your self-serving religion to our kids!!!!!!!!!
 
My science-The study of how things work.

Their science-The study of how things MIGHT work.
 
It basically comes down to you not knowing what you're talking about. There's not really anything anyone can do to change that. It's like arguing with a brick wall, quite literally in that you know about as much about evolution and science as does a brick wall.
 
Where is your evidence, dude? You think your going to convince people I don't know what I'm talking about because its you-a religious follower of the evolution theory?
Anyone who reads these comments will see that it is you who does not respond coherently to my queries-just accuse me of not doing so!
I've given you the links and a few questions you repeatedly refuse to answer!
 
You've given me one link, and I already said that the link didn't work. You've been spewing lies this whole time. I've posted reams of evidence and you say it's all biased. Ok dude. Then look at any credible science organization. This is getting retarded.
 
"Realms of evidence"? What dream world are you living in? You've given me nothing but opinions by men. I've given you opinions by men. Any reader will clearly see you're arguments are weak.
"http://www.icr.org Type this address into your browser if you dare-sorry I'm too ignorant to figure out how to parse text!

Guess you'll use that to attack me with next.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?