At 8/24/05 11:17 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

Wait, where the proof for that statement? :

It's in the entire article that YOU quoted. But you said "proof." Are you going to whine about an absolute again?

Wait, where the empirical evidence for synthesis? :

I am speaking in terms of empirical evidence being utilized throughout the body of science. Empirical meaning that we obtain it from postpriori experience...which *GASP* would be gather from facts! Theories would be formulated to explain those facts based off of empirical evidence. OMG LOL OMG!

Besides, follow the cute links that explain synthesis.

Wait, what part of macroevolutin has been observed? :

Shall I post links and explain it to you? Or what would be the point since you practically ignore everything I post anyway and casually brush it aside.

String theory? Who cares about that. That is so contreversial now its stupid. And much less proof for it. :

It served as an anology to quiet your insistant bitching implications that there are numerous theories of evolution and somehow that leads to some magic bullet to debunk it. And there you go with your "proof" word again. Always with the absolutes!

No. You seem to be having trouble seeing what I am saying. Evolution, as the idea of new creatures coming into being. I am arguing the mechanics, which everyone seems to take as fact. We have nothing in the way of "facts" of this. :

What is this hideous strawman you have built? Before I go any further, post the correct definition of evolution and what YOU mean by "new creatures coming into being." I will wait for Teh Funny response.

Futhermore, only now have you clarified that you are aruging against the theory of evolution and not the fact that it occurs. Personally, I think you are full of it and have to back pedal a bit and start a new argument. Apparently, you are beginning to do so.

And so what? There are numerous theories of how evolution occured. I will leave the competing SCIENTIFIC theories to the scientists.

And stop fucking insulting me douchebag. Maybe its possible I do know a thing or two of biology. :

Given the obvious notion that it has take two pages of posts to explain "fact" and "theory" of evolution makes me wonder.

Ya know what, fuck this. You seem to think we know every goddamned thing about evolution.

WE FUCKIN DONT KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW OF EVOLUTION

And you wanna know something? I believe whole heartedly in evolution. I just wanted to shut this fuckin shit up about "WOW EVOLUTION OWNS CHRISTIANITY" Im tired of all these self righteous fucks who show up on the boards, call religious people incorrect, irreconciable, dumbfucks. BTW, I dont believe in any God at the moment. I will, however, keep my doors open, just like my doors are open to new advances in evolutionary science.

And still, you think you know the whole fuckin truth there is to know about evolution and we know it as a fact now? Knock your fuckin self out. However, that is a perversion of science.

Do you all know just how many threads there are exactly the same as this? There are even a couple I got into and straightened up this whole fact/theory/conjecture bullshit. Why do these keep coming up? And why does no one link to previous virtually identical threads?

But anyway, while I'm here, I might as well say a few things that may or may not be relevant.

Evolution is every bit as threatening to Christianity as Round Earth theory, Heliocentric Theory, shit, the irrationality of pi is contrary to the bible if you wanna get into it.

Some people cling to theism so desperately that no matter how little space science leaves for god, they will squeeze him in there, saying god started evolution, god triggered the big bang, yadda yadda yadda bullshit blah blah blah... Is this harmful? Not if the person isn't aspiring to be a scientist, as people can believe whatever they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with the well-being of others.

But without evolutionary science, we wouldn't have a good deal of the medical research we have now that has led to plenty of useful cures and treatments.

What all this bullshit about trying to teach religious fucking creation theory in public schools does do is make it really hard for people who actually are dumb or sheepish enough to buy into it to make it through college in a legitimate research university in any field of life sciences, because if you try to ignore evolution and not believe it, you will NOT BE ABLE TO study modern biology. I for one would not trust a creationist doctor to work on my sick ass.

As to whether or not you believe in the FACT of Evolution (before you even try to argue with me using the word fact, do a fucking search on this forum), you might as well talk about whether you believe that if i hold a hammer at shoulder level and let go on the planet fucking earth, it will fall. You wanna take bets? There is no believing or disbelieving in the THEORY of evolution, because scientific theories aren't something you can believe or disbelieve, but something scientists use as a tool. If you believe or don't believe in the theory of evolution, you don't know what the fuck a theory is, and you shouldn't be talking about it. The theory exists, it is used to make predictions in population trends, and it is used to develop medicine, and if you don't believe in the theory, you're pretty much saying you don't believe scientists are working in the field of life science using the theory of evolution, that the theory of evolution was never developed, etc.

If you don't believe the FACT of evolution, you might as well not believe any proven observations that have furthered our persuit of understanding of the workings of the universe outside of MYTH and CONJECTURE, such as the judeochristian story of creation.

Once again, before you try to dispute anything I've written here, I strongly recommend that you a.) search previous topics, and b.) learn a little about the scientific method and specifically evolution theory, or preferrably, a lot.

And bottom line, how could anyone think it would be the slightest bit cool to legislate for the teaching of a RELIGIOUS BELIEF in the science class of a GOVERNMENT RUN public school in a country where I.) congress shall make no law... respecting establishment of religion...

At 8/24/05 11:22 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 8/24/05 11:07 PM, Drow1 wrote: Well um You obiously didn't "CRITICALLY EXAMINE"(yeah i said it) your frikin history book!!!!!!!! Why were most of those people in power? hmmm.... Could it be that a lot of them were religious leaders? umm the pope, the Pharaoh, the King, the Czar, the President,(most of them were religious and obviously leaders thereby making them "religious leaders") the dispusted prophets, and uhh Damn! there are so many and I don't have MY history book on hand!

Just cause they have a religious title you think they are religiously motivated?

Well, guess what. They aint. Look at the Borgias. They bought the Pope. Look at the Medicis. Bought into the College of Cardinals and Pope. The Caliphate was an empty title for many years. Constantine converted to Christianity to consolidate power, not because he believed. The Holy Roman Empire wasnt either Holy or Roman. Henry VIII made his own Church so he could divorce. Religion was used during feudal times to keep the peasentry in cheeck.

Do I need to go on? Is it really this diffcult?

Uhh Hello!!! I was saying that these people are in power because of religion! Which is why I said that ultimately religion brings disagreement! Are you that thick headed?
Read!Critically Examine! Do something besides talking out your ass when you comment on something I say and totally take me out of context on misunderstand what is clearly said!

At 8/24/05 07:40 PM, Solamnus wrote:

At 8/24/05 06:24 PM, afliXion wrote: Drow1, you have missed the point entirely. Do you even know what the sticker said?
Here is a link to what the sticker said. Its not the 'theory' part that had evolutionist pissing there pants. Its the part that told them to have an 'open mind' and to 'examine it critically.':

The problem with the stick is that it shows how ignorant people are. "Evolution is a theory and not a fact." WRONG. Evolution is a FACT and THEORY. It is also nothing more than a push from ignorant religious persons to slowly pry their bullshit religious beliefs and concerns into the classroom IMO.

lol. A very deceitful trick you and other evolutionist have. There are so many different definitions of evolution you say its fact and theory at the same time but you never care to tell us WHAT is still theory and what is fact. You think I don't know what your talking about?
Life evolves, that is fact. Darwinian evolution is a theory on how it happened.
Is that what your getting at? I'll bet it is. So here is more hypocracy from evolutionists. They say creationists are unscientific because they have there answer first, and then draw the facts from it. Well well, look what you do! Evolution is fact, and you draw up theories on how it happened! Now your doing the same you thing those ignorant creationists are.
But evolution, and I mean real macro-evolution, most certainly is not a fact.

Now, you yourself have already admitted evolution is a theory. So where is the harm in examing a scientific theory critically? Is that not what all scientists do? If evolution is a theory as you say, why do you and other evolutionists treat it as law? Hypocracy!;

Hardly. The goal of ignorant creationists is to fight this battle on emotion and policy rather than SCIENTIFIC MERIT. High School teachers and students are not qualified to "critically examine" the merits of a scientific fact AND theory which has an international body of supporting scientists, studies, and evidence from over 100 years. Science is not literature class where one can read a passage from a book and argue that "well it means this."

You have no idea what the goal of creationists is. Don't act like you do. Its obvious your to arrogant to even consider looking into what creationists really believe and are fighting for.
Now you kind of nailed your own grave here. If a high school teacher is not qualified to examine the theory, then what business do they have teaching it as fact, other than the evolutionists being to afraid to let the kids know of anything else? Hell I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be, but I say it only takes common sense to see that evolution is a lie.
And I could say the same things about creation that you said, that it has supporting scientists, studies... evidence.... it means nothing. You failed to mention any of this 'evidence' you had even though its been piling up for atleast 100 years.
And actually, science is a class where one can read a passage from a book argue 'it means this.' Since every one starts out with there own presuppositions, they will automatically try and fit the evidence within that presupposition. Evolutionists do it, creationists do it. This is just how it is.

In all honesty, i dont see why we're required to learn evolution.

You really are ignorant to sit there a say evolution is a lie.

At 8/25/05 12:47 PM, Drow1 wrote: You really are ignorant to sit there a say evolution is a lie.

Who? Me? Because i havent said anything about evolution being a lie.

At 8/25/05 08:46 AM, Drow1 wrote: Uhh Hello!!! I was saying that these people are in power because of religion! Which is why I said that ultimately religion brings disagreement! Are you that thick headed?

Damn, dude. Religion DOES NOT bring disagreement. It is a TOOL of the powerful. It is the powerful that are at fault.

Read!Critically Examine! Do something besides talking out your ass when you comment on something I say and totally take me out of context on misunderstand what is clearly said!

Read critically and talking out of my ass? Damnit dude, I bet you have no fuckin clue who the Borgias are. You wanna blame religion for all the problems in the world? Knock your fuckin self out. However, it aint religoin at fault. It is PEOPLE.

How do you explain Hitler, Nazism, nationalism, xenophobia, Stalin, communism, Mao Zedong, all NON RELIGIOUSLY motivated, somehow being or using these tools?

Jesus, dude, if you are to damn ignorant to think only religions are at fault, well, you are an ignorant idiot. Fuckin A. I cant believe how self righteous some of you assholes are.

Someone is either really dense or hasn't been reading.

At 8/25/05 12:14 PM, afliXion wrote:

tell us WHAT is still theory and what is fact.

If you knew what we were talking about, you wouldn't be asking WHAT is "still" theory, because to ask a question like that would indicate that you don't even know what the fuck a theory is. Look it up.

Life evolves, that is fact. Darwinian evolution is a theory on how it happened.

We don't use most of Darwinian evolution anymore as far as I know, and when you say Darwinian evolution theory, you are thinking Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis. There is no "theory" on how it happened. Scientists use theory as a model to work in evolutionary science. I know it's hard to wrap your pretty little head around exactly what a theory is, but once you figure it out, this will all make a lot more sense.

Is that what your getting at? I'll bet it is. So here is more hypocracy from evolutionists. They say creationists are unscientific because they have there answer first, and then draw the facts from it. Well well, look what you do! Evolution is fact, and you draw up theories on how it happened! Now your doing the same you thing those ignorant creationists are.

Creation is unscientific because it starts with an assertion taken as fact and "digs up" so-called "proof" to solidify this assertion. Real science starts with a question, takes as many possible hypotheses as the scientist can think of, rules out the stupid ones, tests the logical ones, and the theory is the model based on the data from these tests.

So actually there is no Creation Theory. Can you make predictions or do anything useful in the field of life science using Creation? Can you show me one thing anyone has done for health care or the environment using Creation "Theory"?

Bottom line, Creation falls under the fallacy of pet hypothesis.

But evolution, and I mean real macro-evolution, most certainly is not a fact.

As easily as you said that, I can say that evolution, and I mean real macro-evolution, most certainly is a fact.

Now, you yourself have already admitted evolution is a theory. So where is the harm in examing a scientific theory critically? Is that not what all scientists do? If evolution is a theory as you say, why do you and other evolutionists treat it as law? Hypocracy!;

Scientists examine hypotheses and observations and models critically as necessary. After a while, they can be pretty damn sure of the facts. And once again you prove that you have no clue what a theory, law, or fact actually are.

The deal with this sticker is that it singles out evolution for political purposes. It's redundant and useless if you want to point out it's educational validity. The intentions of those who fought for the legislation to put it there are obvious. They want to get their foot in the door for putting junk science with purely RELIGIOUS motives into PUBLIC, SECULAR education, and to make a law regarding this would be unconstitutional, and I don't want my tax dollars going into it.

You have no idea what the goal of creationists is.

I do. I have studied, hung out with, debated, and carried on friendly discussions with creationists. Their goal is to have public schools teaching religion as science.

Now you kind of nailed your own grave here. If a high school teacher is not qualified to examine the theory, then what business do they have teaching it as fact, other than the evolutionists being to afraid to let the kids know of anything else?

For one, an education degree in every college I know of has the lowest minimum GPA requirement of any major, so most high school teachers aren't really qualified to do anything but parrot from books, and if people who are completely NOT SCIENTISTS are taking a say into what goes into SCIENCE books, we are in trouble.

For two, if there actually was another working model being used in the scientific community competing with evolution theory, and the fact of evolution was not indeed a fact, scientists would have no reason to object to these alternatives. But the above two conditions are untrue.

Hell I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be, but I say it only takes common sense to see that evolution is a lie.

You're not a scientist, therefore you have no authority to say a scientifically proven fact is a lie.

ah christ not this again, from now on no more evolution threads outside my own. for the scientific community evolution is the best thoery they have on creaton. 300 years ago most scientists believed the world was made from 4 elements,was that correct.

one final not, how any of you people that say christians are dumb in the ways of evolution ever actually read up and identify evolution material.

At 8/25/05 06:05 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: one final not, how any of you people that say christians are dumb in the ways of evolution ever actually read up and identify evolution material.

I don't think I've actually attacked people as christians as much as individuals who choose to ignore actual science, but i'll take this as addressed to me anyway and say that I've taken some college level biology in which we did study evolution, and have studied independently for debate purposes.

At 8/25/05 05:27 PM, jobelow wrote:

At 8/25/05 12:14 PM, afliXion wrote:

tell us WHAT is still theory and what is fact.

If you knew what we were talking about, you wouldn't be asking WHAT is "still" theory, because to ask a question like that would indicate that you don't even know what the fuck a theory is. Look it up.

You have succeded in taking a sentence so far out of context as to change its meaning entirely. Here's what I said originally. "There are so many different definitions of evolution you say its fact and theory at the same time but you never care to tell us WHAT is still theory and what is fact." I even answered the question myself in that paragraph. Next time try leaving atleast a complete sentence so you canhave an idea of what I was talking about before you respond.

Life evolves, that is fact. Darwinian evolution is a theory on how it happened.

We don't use most of Darwinian evolution anymore as far as I know,

No, its old and out dated. That was what we call an 'example.' :p

Is that what your getting at? I'll bet it is. So here is more hypocracy from evolutionists. They say creationists are unscientific because they have there answer first, and then draw the facts from it. Well well, look what you do! Evolution is fact, and you draw up theories on how it happened! Now your doing the same you thing those ignorant creationists are.

Creation is unscientific because it starts with an assertion taken as fact and "digs up" so-called "proof" to solidify this assertion. Real science starts with a question, takes as many possible hypotheses as the scientist can think of, rules out the stupid ones, tests the logical ones, and the theory is the model based on the data from these tests.

Evolution does the same. When an evolutionists digs up a fossil, he will interpret it with an evolutionary mind set. No matter how stupid his excuses are. Evolution is not as scientific as you would think. Consider what Dr. George Wald, a former nobel prize winner said on evolution. "That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.."
Wow, believing what is scientifically impossible.... how very scientific!

So actually there is no Creation Theory. Can you make predictions or do anything useful in the field of life science using Creation? Can you show me one thing anyone has done for health care or the environment using Creation "Theory"?

Uh uh... I'm sure that murdering of african tribes for there bones to put in museums as evidence for the missing link was very 'healthy' for the environment. Or like Haeckle (sp?)
faked his evidence for evolution but it was still put into text books for kids learn as fact? Are these the 'usefull things in the field of life' that evolution has given us?

Scientists examine hypotheses and observations and models critically as necessary. After a while, they can be pretty damn sure of the facts. And once again you prove that you have no clue what a theory, law, or fact actually are.

Once again you prove that you don't know that scientists will interpret data with there own presuppositions.

regarding this would be unconstitutional, and I don't want my tax dollars going into it.

You have no idea what the goal of creationists is.

I do. I have studied, hung out with, debated, and carried on friendly discussions with creationists. Their goal is to have public schools teaching religion as science.

O wow. Hey I've studied, hung around, debated, and carried friendly discussions with loads of atheistic evolutionists. (no sarcasm) So I guess by your logic I can state as fact that I know all the goals of evolutionists. And surely you don't really think hanging out with your friends who are creationists qualifies as talking with an educated ph.d scientist do you? lol.

For two, if there actually was another working model being used in the scientific community competing with evolution theory, and the fact of evolution was not indeed a fact, scientists would have no reason to object to these alternatives. But the above two conditions are untrue.

lol. Yea, cause evolutionists are always so open minded aren't they.... As I've already shown, evolutionists will believe what they want and interpret the evidence how they want, regaurdless if its right or wrong. So its easy to see why they call it 'fact' and everything else an 'unscientific law.'

Hell I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be, but I say it only takes common sense to see that evolution is a lie.

You're not a scientist, therefore you have no authority to say a scientifically proven fact is a lie.

Likewise.

At 8/25/05 06:14 PM, afliXion wrote:

:: You have succeded in taking a sentence so far out of context as to change its meaning entirely. Here's what I said originally. "There are so many different definitions of evolution you say its fact and theory at the same time but you never care to tell us WHAT is still theory and what is fact." I even answered the question myself in that paragraph. Next time try leaving atleast a complete sentence so you canhave an idea of what I was talking about before you respond.

no, I didn't take your sentence out of context. if you have to ask what is "still" theory, you don't know what a scientific theory is. I've posted the definition in previous threads. For my intents and purposes, no, you did not answer your own question thoroughly.

Creation is unscientific because it starts with an assertion taken as fact and "digs up" so-called "proof" to solidify this assertion. Real science starts with a question, takes as many possible hypotheses as the scientist can think of, rules out the stupid ones, tests the logical ones, and the theory is the model based on the data from these tests.

Evolution does the same. When an evolutionists digs up a fossil, he will interpret it with an evolutionary mind set. No matter how stupid his excuses are. Evolution is not as scientific as you would think. Consider what Dr. George Wald, a former nobel prize winner said on evolution. "That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.."
Wow, believing what is scientifically impossible.... how very scientific!

Evolution doesn't "do" anything. It's a model scientists work with. Belief and knowledge are two different things. Science is the persuit of knowledge and understanding, and does not deal with belief or religion as working models. Pretty much the whole above block of text is irrelevant.

Uh uh... I'm sure that murdering of african tribes for there bones to put in museums as evidence for the missing link was very 'healthy' for the environment. Or like Haeckle (sp?)
faked his evidence for evolution but it was still put into text books for kids learn as fact? Are these the 'usefull things in the field of life' that evolution has given us?

I'm not commenting on the actions of PEOPLE, as this has nothing to do with the veracity of facts or theories.

But for examples, some of the useful things that evolution theory has given us our vaccines, gene therapy, modern ecology and conservation, and plenty of advances in veterenary and human medicine.

Scientists examine hypotheses and observations and models critically as necessary. After a while, they can be pretty damn sure of the facts. And once again you prove that you have no clue what a theory, law, or fact actually are.

Once again you prove that you don't know that scientists will interpret data with there own presuppositions.

How do i do that?

O wow. Hey I've studied, hung around, debated, and carried friendly discussions with loads of atheistic evolutionists. (no sarcasm) So I guess by your logic I can state as fact that I know all the goals of evolutionists. And surely you don't really think hanging out with your friends who are creationists qualifies as talking with an educated ph.d scientist do you? lol.

No, it doesn't, but it does mean that they've personally told me their goals.

lol. Yea, cause evolutionists are always so open minded aren't they.... As I've already shown, evolutionists will believe what they want and interpret the evidence how they want, regaurdless if its right or wrong. So its easy to see why they call it 'fact' and everything else an 'unscientific law.'

Evolutionists don't "believe" anything. They either take a fact or don't. If there's something out there research-wise that can be debated and refuted in this field or any other, competing scientists out there for the research dollars will go out there and do it. It has nothing to do with closed-mindedness.

Hell I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be, but I say it only takes common sense to see that evolution is a lie.

You're not a scientist, therefore you have no authority to say a scientifically proven fact is a lie.

Likewise.

It also takes common sense to see that round earth, heliocentrism, and the existence of electrons are lies. I've never seen any of them. yeah, you're right, those dumb scientists are just making shit up.

At 8/25/05 07:48 PM, Tal-con wrote: Everything is science is "just a theory", I'll give you that, but that doesn't mean it can't be the wrong theory. Personally I like Intelligent Design.

Do you like it enough to go to
this thread and defend it?

dont call it a theory, call it a fact and if another theory comes along then alow it to be in question. and i mean a real theory not something that was in a book

At 8/25/05 01:34 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 8/25/05 08:46 AM, Drow1 wrote: Uhh Hello!!! I was saying that these people are in power because of religion! Which is why I said that ultimately religion brings disagreement! Are you that thick headed?

Damn, dude. Religion DOES NOT bring disagreement. It is a TOOL of the powerful. It is the powerful that are at fault.

Read!Critically Examine! Do something besides talking out your ass when you comment on something I say and totally take me out of context on misunderstand what is clearly said!

Read critically and talking out of my ass? Damnit dude, I bet you have no fuckin clue who the Borgias are. You wanna blame religion for all the problems in the world? Knock your fuckin self out. However, it aint religoin at fault. It is PEOPLE.

How do you explain Hitler, Nazism, nationalism, xenophobia, Stalin, communism, Mao Zedong, all NON RELIGIOUSLY motivated, somehow being or using these tools?

Jesus, dude, if you are to damn ignorant to think only religions are at fault, well, you are an ignorant idiot. Fuckin A. I cant believe how self righteous some of you assholes are.

Listen dumbass!!!

Alot of those leaders were able to do what they did and rule becuse they used religion! which is why I said ultimately religion brings disagreement. Would alot of those rulers have been able to rule had they been proclaimed atheists? or satanists? or some other religion that didn't fit with the norm of the people that followed them?!

At 8/25/05 08:07 PM, dabboy wrote: dont call it a theory, call it a fact and if another theory comes along then alow it to be in question. and i mean a real theory not something that was in a book

why it's still labeled theory much like einstiens theory of relativity.

evolution pwns. 7 day theory not so pwn. evolution more feasible. 7 day theory less feasible. smart scientists. ignorant christian conservatives. disagreement. stuff explodes. end of story.

any of you read about the monkey trial?

At 8/25/05 09:09 PM, Drow1 wrote:

At 8/25/05 01:34 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 8/25/05 08:46 AM, Drow1 wrote: Uhh Hello!!! I was saying that these people are in power because of religion! Which is why I said that ultimately religion brings disagreement! Are you that thick headed?

Damn, dude. Religion DOES NOT bring disagreement. It is a TOOL of the powerful. It is the powerful that are at fault.

Read!Critically Examine! Do something besides talking out your ass when you comment on something I say and totally take me out of context on misunderstand what is clearly said!

Read critically and talking out of my ass? Damnit dude, I bet you have no fuckin clue who the Borgias are. You wanna blame religion for all the problems in the world? Knock your fuckin self out. However, it aint religoin at fault. It is PEOPLE.

How do you explain Hitler, Nazism, nationalism, xenophobia, Stalin, communism, Mao Zedong, all NON RELIGIOUSLY motivated, somehow being or using these tools?

Jesus, dude, if you are to damn ignorant to think only religions are at fault, well, you are an ignorant idiot. Fuckin A. I cant believe how self righteous some of you assholes are.

Listen dumbass!!!

Your really pissing me off you stupid fuck.

Would alot of those rulers have been able to rule had they been proclaimed atheists? or satanists? or some other religion that didn't fit with the norm of the people that followed them?!

YES. And if not them, someone as equally as powerful using another tool to supress or manipulate the masses. Like feudalism (derrr not religion). Or communism (derr not religoin). Or natinalism (derr not religion).

If you dont get this, well, to fuckin bad. Religion isnt the problem.

At 8/25/05 11:26 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 8/25/05 09:09 PM, Drow1 wrote:

At 8/25/05 01:34 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 8/25/05 08:46 AM, Drow1 wrote: Uhh Hello!!! I was saying that these people are in power because of religion! Which is why I said that ultimately religion brings disagreement! Are you that thick headed?

Damn, dude. Religion DOES NOT bring disagreement. It is a TOOL of the powerful. It is the powerful that are at fault.

Read!Critically Examine! Do something besides talking out your ass when you comment on something I say and totally take me out of context on misunderstand what is clearly said!

Read critically and talking out of my ass? Damnit dude, I bet you have no fuckin clue who the Borgias are. You wanna blame religion for all the problems in the world? Knock your fuckin self out. However, it aint religoin at fault. It is PEOPLE.

How do you explain Hitler, Nazism, nationalism, xenophobia, Stalin, communism, Mao Zedong, all NON RELIGIOUSLY motivated, somehow being or using these tools?

Jesus, dude, if you are to damn ignorant to think only religions are at fault, well, you are an ignorant idiot. Fuckin A. I cant believe how self righteous some of you assholes are.

Listen dumbass!!!

Your really pissing me off you stupid fuck.

Would alot of those rulers have been able to rule had they been proclaimed atheists? or satanists? or some other religion that didn't fit with the norm of the people that followed them?!

YES. And if not them, someone as equally as powerful using another tool to supress or manipulate the masses. Like feudalism (derrr not religion). Or communism (derr not religoin). Or natinalism (derr not religion).

If you dont get this, well, to fuckin bad. Religion isnt the problem.

You wanna resort to name calling? Huh dumbass? I don't think I can argue with you anymore because your obviously to much of an ignorant jackass to see the big picture! And by that I mean things on the whole! One thing leads to another to another! I said religion Utimately brings disagrement! Did i say anything about feudalism? Where the hell did communism come from!?! Lsat time I checked that was a political/social stance! Since you can't see things from a diff. P.O.V don't include something else when you can't even comprehend the first issue!
nuff said.

Drow, your a fuckin idiot.

Here, RELIGION HAS BEEN USED AS A TOOL. IN ITSELF, IT IS NOT BAD. IF RELIGION WASNT AVAILABLE, THE POWERFUL WOULD USE SOMETHING ELSE TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.

And name calling? You fuckin called me a dumbass in like every post. You are one of the rare people I have ever wanted to meet over the BBS so I could fuckin smack your fuckin face. Not even reveiwer has ever made me this pissed.

Fuckin stupid ass bigot fuck.

Oh, you wanna compare credentials? Ive gotten a 4 in American History and 5 in European History AP classes. Im a history major now. I like reading history books. Im currently taking middle east history class and Western Civ class.

Oh, what the hell you got to show? Fuck off asshole. You dont know what the fuck you talking about.

LMFAO Your gettin played in a political argument by a 16 yr old!!! : ) Dumbass

take all your AP courses and shove them! Because those classes don't show your level of intelligenge! Your level of intelligence shows it! I've met plenty of book smart people who are dumb as hell. You might not be one, but you are coming off as a thickheaded stubborn ignorant DUMBASS!

Wow! He has AP corses! WOW! a 4! I don't care about your credentials.

Earlier I made a thread which i'm sure for a very good reason no longer exists, in which I challenged proponents of Intelligent Design to show the progression of ID through the scientific method. On my last reading before said thread's disappearance, I counted one failed attempt.

I have since found a source claiming to prove that ID has indeed gone through the scientific method, and attempts to show this.

...AND, believe it or not, I was going to provide a link straight to that table, but now I seem to not be able to find it, but the main page of the site is

http://www.intellige..etwork.org/index.htm

and earlier I was indeed able to find a diagram of the scientific method with claims of ID having followed each step.

The predictions made based on the hypothesis of Intelligent Design in this example were partially similar enough to predictions made based on the hypothesis of Evolution, and the other part of these predictions was "proven" true with all-out lies, a refutation of which can be pretty easily found on talk.origins.

Also on thorough examination of ID as presented on ideanetwork, I did find, among a few other sordid details, one pretty big snag:

One assertion of Intelligent Design: an object of specified complexity must have a designer.

Fact: a designer necessarily must be of specified complexity, and therefore must have a designer.

Intelligent Design's answer (according to ideanetwork): It is beyond the scope of Intelligent Design to investigate the nature of the designer.

Just thought that was pretty funny, and hope it pulls this somewhere near back on topic instead of you all whining about your AP scores (which btw amount to about shit after your freshman year of college, speaking from experience).

At 8/26/05 03:41 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:
And name calling? You fuckin called me a dumbass in like every post. You are one of the rare people I have ever wanted to meet over the BBS so I could fuckin smack your fuckin face. Not even reveiwer has ever made me this pissed.

Fuckin stupid ass bigot fuck.

Lol But I bet Reveiwer has gotten close :)

I agree with you, this guy does need to be smacked and atleast know what he is talking about. This is a good learning exp. but a stubborn dick will always be a stubborn dick. Thats why we can ignore posts ^^.

I would have to say that Evolution is a theory, becuase its a proposal based on men who weren't there.

You could say that about nearly anything with that reasoning, but I must admit it doesn't make it any less true. I myself may be clouded about this issue because I attend a catholic school, but tthe textbooks never had "the Disclaimer" or left out evolution entirely.

But seriously people, whatever happened to the separation of church and state (which runs the majority of the schools)?

lAkiyoshil don't you a dick yo blow somewhere?

At 8/26/05 08:03 AM, lAkiyoshil wrote:

I agree with you, this guy does need to be smacked and atleast know what he is talking about. This is a good learning exp. but a stubborn dick will always be a stubborn dick. Thats why we can ignore posts ^^.

I would have to say that Evolution is a theory, becuase its a proposal based on men who weren't there.

Who cares what you gotta say? You are also a dumbass who doesn't know what they're talkin bout.

At 8/26/05 11:04 AM, Drow1 wrote: Who cares what you gotta say? You are also a dumbass who doesn't know what they're talkin bout.

Seriously. if your gonna stoop to name callign Drow I suggest you stop. All you calling people a dumbass does is make YOU look like one.

And as for you saying that FABOLOUS having thos courses means he is book smart and not intelligent...please go and find a thesaurus. I'm pretty sure if you look up the word Intelligent the word Smart will be there as an alternative to use.

And what do you know?
LINK

Being smart and intelligent are one and the same thing and someones grades in courses they've taken are normally a very good indication of how intelligent they are.