Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Just One Argument is Sufficient

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,10:16    No line of argument or debate is sustainable and is by definition falsified if it cannot offer a defensible and evidentiary based foundation for its major and minor premises and conclusions. The Neodarwinian theory based primarily on random mutation and natural selection with some arguable nuances is the universal explanation for life as we see it, life as observed in the recent past and as projected from the fossil record in all its magnificence and complexity. It does, has and must of course be based on an underlying belief in ultimate origins of space, time and matter and on abiogenesis, life from non-life by natural processes and phenomenon. This is known as the Big Bang, pre-biotic chemical predestination and evolution. Endless argument about various aspects of the theory dealing with mathmatical probability, fossil record gaps, thermodynamic considerations, information theory... etc. continue. I see no need to debate these various problematical and sometimes fuzzy sub-topics when one can easily illustrate the falsification of the theory and its complete separation from logic, common sense and scientific credibility by simply observing that its proponents to be logically consistent must accept and defend the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself through trillions of chaotic and random unguided, undirected and non-purposeful changes, iteration upon iteration, resulting in the human brain, its network of neurons, synapses, nerves and its capabilities of conscious cognitive thought, memory and self awareness. Anyone who can believe such on blind faith and no demonstrable or historically proclaimed evidence is capable of believing anything, is beyond the reach of logic and philosophically committed to a form of cultism of the most addictive sort.... a kind of intellectual black magic and superstition veiled by abstruce mathmatics. The American public deserves to be fully cognizant of this rather dangerous intellectual cultism since it is the current propaganda of the pseudointellectual, self-absorbed, left leaning scientific and education communities having great influence over young impressionable minds.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,12:31    Thank The Flying Spagetti Monster, sauce be upon him! A fellow Pastafarian, armed with His Noodly Appendage, fearless in the face of Darwinian Pressure Groups, ready and willing to suck helium wind in the endless quest for Truth, Justice, and the Italian-American Way. Sir, I Caesar Salad you. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

American Saddlebred Posts: 111 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,12:37    Was there even a cognizant statement anywhere in there, or was it just babble? evopeach wrote: Quote ...superstition veiled by abstruse mathematics... I guess you've seen ID for the fraud that it is, huh? Oh yeah, you might want to work on this: Paragraph Cohesion

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,16:47    Why helium, anyway? The human brain (or any other part for that matter) doesn't use it for anything. Henry

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,04:00    Saddlebred, Gee! I've never replied to a wirehead that openly advertised having sex with horses. Well evos are a wierd lot. You people are so ignorant of your own position it is laughable. I hold you in derision actually. For you and the other bubble brains that responded you might try plugging the chasm that Eric Chaisson at Tufts and that entire organization open,as they: Insist on the total continuous logical argument of stellar evolution through right now and into the future.. without any doubts. He happens to have about 100 peer reviewed papers and reviews of well recognized scientists work in the field... Paul Davies , etc. While you morons are busy retreating from prebiotic evolution after fifty years of abject failure in explaining such via the logical fallacy of "exclusion of primary contra-evidence"  you have an entire body of suburbly qualified scientists like Chaisson who insist that the entire theory rests on the predicate of big bang to mankind by evolution. Now if you're not familiar with that theory then you might not have sufficient grey matter to comprehend that if at an early stage the majority matter was helium gas then everything came from that stage. Now you can't shoot Chaisson, he's too important and powerful to dismiss so what are you do .. meatball. Oh I know ,more form over substance attacks.

American Saddlebred Posts: 111 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,06:57    You kiss your mother with that mouth?  I have saddlebreds, I don't know where you're from, but around these parts it is not customary to engage in deviant sex acts with animals, so we will leave that to the people of your own home town. What are your problems with any particular aspect of evolution?  If evolution (stellar, cosmological, biological) fails to answer the questions better than anything else can, what should we replace it with?  Tell me what to replace it with, and how that alternative better serves science.

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,08:48    Easy, Intelligent design or special creation postulates that the creation required the injection of logos, information, cognitive thought, purposeful consciousness from outside the rhealm of time and space by a God or an Intelligent source of immence capabilities. If that is the case we would be studying the universe from a different perspective: 1) What can one learn from a roulette wheel other than the results are mindless, unpredictable and without purpose. 2) All substantial progess in understanding life at the molecular level has come since the discovery of the DNA molecule and the genetic CODE,, CODE,, CODE. 3 The application of information theory, IT, systematics, systems engineering approaches to problem solving etc. would become and to some degree have become the paradigm for success in biological and related medical research in the last decade and should be the primary paradigm. Example:  Evolution and pure chemistry gives us chemotherapy ( poison) while information theory and logos gives us Herceptin II ( intelligent drug)for cancer treatments. 4) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on origin of life experiments by the billions trying to prove there is no God, which after 100 years are 100% failures. 5) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on ETSI or anything related to it.

American Saddlebred Posts: 111 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:02    evopeach wrote: Quote Intelligent design or special creation postulates that the creation required the injection of logos, information, cognitive thought, purposeful consciousness from outside the rhealm of time and space by a God or an Intelligent source of immence capabilities. How will we discover how/when the designer injected information?  Is it important how/when the designer injected the information, and if not is it still science?  How do we determine if it was a purposeful conscientious intelligence and not random panspermia?  Do humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?  How does the alternative interpret the fossil record, and how would it determine the age of newly discovered fossils?

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:04    Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 22 2005,13:48) 4) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on origin of life experiments by the billions trying to prove there is no God, which after 100 years are 100% failures. Wow - we agree on something!!  Thank God (:D) that science is not trying to prove there is no God. Science is mute on this matter, as it deals with the natural and leaves the supernatural to religion.  Some scientists are, however, far from mute on this subject.  Richard D comes to mind, but one should be able to separate his scientific arguments for evolution from his philosophical and logical arguments against the existence of God. -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:33    Saddlebred, The point is why does anyone care in the context of scientific progress? All of those issues are curiousity issues and have little or nothing to do with helping people, coping with the human condition, illness, hunger, etc. I am hard pressed to see how knowing the age of a broken pile of bones helps resolve any real worthwhile problems yet billions have been spent on grants to do just that ... rediculous. Most medical breakthroughs have come from observing how biology works as it is found right now and then synthesizing a drug or therapy based on such. No one says let's look at all the so called junk DNA sequences, supposedly left over evolutionary useless stuff, to find the cure to diseases... they look at the right now genes and learn from them. The most authoratative view of the when regarding the injection of logos onto matter is at the time when creation occurred when time, space, matter, energy  and most everything else was created. Who cares when it was .. it is of no material significance beyond curiousity... just take things as they are, study them empirically and do science that solves real problems that plague humanity. No I don't think chimps and humans have a common ancestor but what does it matter. Not a whit of real problem solving depends on it. We have spent 100 years off track wasting money and time and brainpower on useless non-productive efforts to show that the biblical story is false and unscientific and nothing else worthwhile. Does evolution build better bridges, better air planes, even better food or anything else that depends on mutations being induced  ... I think not. Radiation therapy is horribly debilitating and most often ineffective.. just a stop over to death. All those questions may be of curiousity and even interesting but lets not pretend they solve or resolve anything except the desire of man to be the master of his fate not dependent or in recognition of his Creator.

American Saddlebred Posts: 111 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:50    You can have a much larger soapbox to stand on over at this yahoo discussion group  Since you are apparently banned from Panda's Thumb.  All you need is your yahoo ID, you will be able to post within hours.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,08:26    Shouldn't that be hydrogen gas to the human? Life doesn't use helium directly, and hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant chemical element. Then again, why start with a chemical element? Why not go from subatomic particles (electrons and quarks) to the human? Henry

VoR Posts: 3 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,01:37    On the idea that evolutionary theory is useless: any evolutionary biologist will tell you, over and over again, despite your uneducated protests, that evolution is central to all other biology. PT tells you so and gives a nice example here. As for the from-hydrogen thing, I'm no astrophysicist, and have no real knowledge of the subject, but I have faith in the thousands of people who have spent years studying the subject. What you are doing is simplifying the debate: 'helium, left over time, forms into a human brain? Ridiculous'. As for common descent, one of the most convincing arguments for, that I have seen, lies here

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,02:54    And one of the most convincing arguments against an intelligent designer is the fact that Creationists exist.   -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,05:05    VOR, First the  flaws in all those chimp to human comparisons at the molecular level were exposed years ago by Denton's book. Second a harmful mutation is only harmful if the environment declares it so in the natural selection process. Any mutation that is older than the current populations life time cannot be judged because: If it were so bad as in harmful why is it still extant and not totally disgarded from the genome after all those eons. How can you judge whether it is harmful if its not being expressed and you have no idea of the natural selection conditions of the environment at the time the mutation may have occurred... clearly impossible. If as your theory claims mutations are random copying errors etc. and therefore by definition come from a uniform distribution where any alelle is equally likely to mutate then it is impossible that over time two species would not have similar numbers of mutations good or bad given the design has common elements of operation and construction. Look if two casinos have a 30,000 side dice game and 28,000 of the numbers are same and they roll 1 million times at each place recording the outcomes each time the true frequencies of each possible outcome has to emerge from both genomic casinos.... it proves not one darn thing except reconfirming the strong law of large numbers .. not exactly a breakthrough. As for Creationists they have been around a long time before evos and many of them are responsible for major scientific advancements as history records. The helium gas to human brain is the logical imperative and the only conclusion that can can reach which intellectually honest people like Shapiro, Crick and Hoyle et al admit. Thus comes forth panspermia and Life Force as their explanations. You can run but you can't hide from this embarrassing and unsupportable logical disconnect from reality. Gasheads like you two are examples of an incomplete process. Evopeach

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,17:16    Re "the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself" Life as we know it requires hydrogen. Hydrogen can't be made from helium. Ergo, living things can't be made out of helium gas. Btw, who exactly is it that allegedly claimed helium to life forms? Besides, akaik no life on Earth uses helium (gas or otherwise) in its metabolism. How could it when the stuff doesn't react chemically with anything? (It's the most inert element known.) Also, astrophysics* is NOT part of biology, so how much sense does it make to demand that a biological theory explain it? (*The fusion of lighter elements such as H or He to form heavier elements happens in stars.) Henry

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,03:41    The Law of Cause and Effect is pretty well established for most of the population except for evos I guess. If after the big bang the majority of all matter overwhelmingly was helium and through stellar processes formed the precursor molecules (carbon for instance, the basis of all biological life) for abiogenesis and all that followed then helium is the prenultimate source of the human brain. Please just read Eric Chaissons web page on epochs and then tell me the piece that says there is no connection between epoch 1,2,3, etc. and 4,5,6,7... the common understanding fopr fifty years is his.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,05:47    Hydrogen is way more abundant than helium. From Hydrogen - Quote Hydrogen is the lightest element. It is by far the most abundant element in the universe and makes up about about 90% of the universe by weight.

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,08:00    Henry, The context is the cause effect time history and the logical imperative that demands evos agree or disagree with the entire origins theory and not cherry pick the replicator forward period. Either they have no plausable explanation or they adopt the prevalent one as Chaisson and the community of scientists lay out. In that case the cause is the predominent element after the big bang helium gas... period.. beyond dispute. We are not talking about today.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,09:27    Evo, You are (yet again) dead wrong.  Helium is formed in stars (like our very own sun) by the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei.  Hydrogen is the main fuel of every star you can see at night.  Hydrogen is, always was, and will always be the most abundant element in our universe.  All the way from the time when the bath of quarks cooled down enough to form protons to the very second you read this to the time when our universe has expanded to the extremes of coldness.  At no point has Helium ever been more abundant than Hyrdogen in this universe.  Perhaps you can point out the source of your information. This, however, is just a side issue to your point.  But one that illuminates your ignorance and stubbornness (at least to us).  Why should anyone listen to someone who not only can't get basic facts correct, but also refuses to admit it, and correct the error?  I'm certainly tired of your baseless rantings. -Dan

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,03:56    Dan, Your ignorance is appalling of your own theory. http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html The Universe's light-element abundance is another important criterion by which the Big Bang hypothesis is verified. It is now known that the elements observed in the Universe were created in either of two ways. Light elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while elements heavier than helium are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the Universe. Both theory and observation lead astronomers to believe this to be the case. In fact, it is observed that upwards of 25% the Universe's total matter consists of helium---much greater than predicted by theory! A similar enigma exists for the deuterium. According to stellar theory, deuterium cannot be produced in stellar interiors; actually, deuterium is destroyed inside of stars. Hence, the BBFH hypothesis could not by itself adequately explain the observed abundances of helium and deuterium in the Universe. http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html The net result of the early nuclear reactions Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is to transform all of the neutrons, along with the necessary protons, into Helium nuclei plus traces of 2H (deuterium), 3He, 7Li, 6Li, 7Be. gold--were forged in repeating cycles of starbirth and death. And, although stars continue to produce helium, scientists believe that 98% of the helium in the universe today was produced in those first few seconds http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html     During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons—the building blocks of atoms—formed when photons collided and converted their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe also cooled during this time, from about 1032 (100 million trillion trillion) degrees to 10 billion degrees. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium. So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources. Please tell me one subject you have a basic knowledge of ... just one.

Pastor Bentonit Posts: 16 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:05    Quote Please tell me one subject you have a basic knowledge of ... just one. I have some knowledge in bacterial systematics. The Bacillus cereus group of spore-forming soil bacteria consists of (at least) three species, B. cereus, causing food poisoning through toxin production; B. thuringiensis, which infects and kills insect larva; and B. anthr*cis, the cause of anthr*x. The main difference between B. anthr*cis and the two less virulent species is the non-chromosomal genetic elements (plasmids) pXO1 and pXO2, which carry the anthr*x toxin genes. There is ample evidence for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) within and between these species. Furthermore, chromosome size varies by almost one order of magnitude within the group, and insertion/excision of very large plasmids in the chromosome have been reported. This group is interesting in that it demonstrates: i) large - but possibly differential - genetic plasticity. Case in point, B. anthr*cis isolates are, relative to natural isolates of the other two species, more genetically uniform. This (relative uniformity between worldwide isolates) also applies to the mosquitocidal israelensis subspecies of B. thuringiensis, which carries an insect toxin-production plasmid that is genetically related to pXO1 of B. anthr*cis. ii) HGT can be accomplished in the lab, effectively transforming one species into another. This works both when "increasing information" (addition of plasmids) and "decreasing information" (curing - removal - of plasmids) within the cell. We must note that the bacterial species concept is a bit different from that in "higher" (sexually reproducing) organisms, and is based traditionally on measurable traits (phenotype) such as cell shape, physiology/biochemistry, production of toxins and fermentation products etc., but today, any bacterial systematics is simply not done without comparative genetic data, whenever they become available (they do in virtually exponentially growing amount). References are available on request (or search PubMed). Now one may put forward a couple of questions to a creationist (IDC, YEC or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist - Sauce be upon Him! ) - -Why should we view the gazillion more or less different natural isolates within the Bacillus cereus group as each one separately created by YHWH/Allah/His Noodly Appendage? Or does YHWH/Allah/His Noodly Appendage not meddle with such unimportant organisms as the non-sexually reproducing ones? -In case of Divine Creation, why was B. anthr*cis created with a point mutation in plcR, the gene encoding a virulence (disease-causing) regulation protein that in turn stimulates production of several extracellular toxins involved in infection? Note that B. anthr*cis carries functional copies of those other genes, but the corresponding proteins are not produced. Note also that we (scientists) have at least one putative hypothesis here (also available on request, but I´m interested in the Creationist answer first). If that point mutation is "allowed" within "microevolution", does it mean that YHWH/Allah/His Noodly Appendage will not meddle with such unimportant mutations - as compared to...what? Large-scale insertions/deletions (see above)? That´ll do for now, I think it is enough to start up a fruitful discussion. Cheers, /The Rev. (no, not that Rev.)

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,14:03    Re "During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons?the building blocks of atoms?formed" Proton = nucleus of hydrogen atom. Helium is made by fusing these, so there's no way it could come first. Henry

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,14:38    Evo, Quote Your ignorance is appalling of your own theory. Why do you call this my theory? You said in a previous post (emphasis mine): Quote If after the big bang the majority of all matter overwhelmingly was helium and through stellar processes formed the precursor molecules (carbon for instance, the basis of all biological life) for abiogenesis and all that followed then helium is the prenultimate source of the human brain. Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours.   In your latest post on this thread you point out sources that say: Quote Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium. And... Quote In fact, it is observed that upwards of 25% the Universe's total matter consists of helium---much greater than predicted by theory! However, maybe you don't realize that the "protons" that combined with neutrons to form Helium are Hydrogen!  And yet to this day there is less Helium than Hydrogen.  I wonder if you think that the Helium atoms broke down into Hydrogen, to form the way we see the universe now.  They portion of Helium that turned into heavier atoms is an insignificant fraction. Here is the relevant part from one of your sources: Quote Era of Nuclear Reactions # Nuclei can begin to hold together, e.g. p + n => 2H + Photon # At this time the baryons are divided into about 87% protons 13% neutrons. End of Nuclear Reactions neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei It's one thing to be cocky.  It's another thing to be cocky and wrong.  I hope you'll be the big man and apologize for your error.  Maybe you can modify the apology that you wrote up for Midnight.  Although I'm not going to hold my breath. -Dan

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,05:20    Apparently none of you can read the the posts from the several major university physics profs who take the 100 percent opposite view to your own. Helium, duterium and lithium were the first to be created and that is the concensus of these people and the entire field. When you examine the graphs of percentage by weight at that time, Heluim dominates the other two and its real helium not an isotope like duterium and lithium was a trace element at best. If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds. Gosh I can't believe I'm arguing a point that has been universally excepted for three decades with you egomaniac idiots. I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms. Up your's you are the idiots who need to apologize.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,06:26    evopeach wrote I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms. [QUOTE] A hydrogen nucleus is a proton. They are identical; the same thing. Add an electron and you have a hydrogen atom. Two protons, two neutrons combine to make a Helium nuicleus. Add two electrons and you have a heium atom. This is basic stuff. I notice you post prolifically here. None of your posts serve any useful purpose other that to demonstrate your wilful ignorance and your poor skills in the use of insults. Is it some form of obsession? Why not take up a more satisfying hobby?

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,08:29    Evopeach, Just for the record, I learned my information while taking a graduate level survey course in Galaxy formation at Caltech from a hotshot Caltech professor.  I also learned the same info in another course called Open Questions in Physics (it was concerning dark matter and dark energy as one of it's topics). I see where you were misread the information on the websites.  You saw how Helium is much higher in that chart.  But, you failed to realize that those are percentages compared to each other.  If you'll notice Hydrogen isn't even on the chart.  Hydrogen didn't form by means of nucleosynthesis (the protons didn't have to do anything to become Hydrogen).  The other elements, however did form via nucleosynthesis and are on the chart.  Perhaps you forgot to notice this next to the chart: "The predicted abundance of elements heavier than hydrogen, as a function of the density of baryons in the universe (expressed in terms of the fraction of critical density in baryons, Omega_B and the Hubble constant, h)."  I've also pointed out from your sources where they say "90% of the universe was Hydrogen, the other 10% Helium".  It amazes me that you are keeping this up at all. I thought I could guide you to the correct information, but apparently you can't comprehend anything that opposes your viewpoint.  Try, try again. I hope to hear an apology soon.  By replying with more cockiness and insults you will only make things worse for yourself. Quote So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources. Just so you know, absolutely nothing in science is "incontrovertible".  Theories do change and adapt as new evidence comes to light.  Everything in science is open to criticism.  Not everything is as stubborn as you are. -Dan

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,09:37    Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,10:20) If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds. Would this be the same world community of physics PHDs that you deem to be elitist ivory tower atheistic/socialist/communist liberals for daring to accept biological evolution, perchance? -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,10:03    Quote (Wonderpants @ Oct. 08 2005,14:37) Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,10:20) If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds. Would this be the same world community of physics PHDs that you deem to be elitist ivory tower atheistic/socialist/communist liberals for daring to accept biological evolution, perchance? I really, really do need a ROFL smile soon.   -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,12:54    Ask and you shall receive.   http://lever.suntliv.com/gastbilder/rotfl.gif -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard