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... > the post ID world

Pages: (13) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 >

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:09    No no no no....you are all just being silly There is absolutely nothing scientific about sock gnomes.... bunch of creationist nonsense.... I have a verifiable scientific theory....its called DWT(Dryer wormhole theory)... I verified it with extensive research... this doesnt involve "mythical" or religious gnomes... this is real science...

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:18    Re "As for religious socks, that has only been a problem since the Fall." Ah yes, that "darn"ed fall.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:19    Quote As for religious socks, that has only been a problem since the Fall. No, seems to me like I was noticing it all the way back last Summer. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:25    Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 29 2006,15<!--emo&) No no no no....you are all just being silly There is absolutely nothing scientific about sock gnomes.... bunch of creationist nonsense.... I have a verifiable scientific theory....its called DWT(Dryer wormhole theory)... I verified it with extensive research... this doesnt involve "mythical" or religious gnomes... this is real science... Oh yeah? What can your DWT "science" say about a woman who throws away her child's sock only to find out that she can indeed find the sock's match in Sleeveland.  See, that's a one time occurrence, so your "science" can't say anything about it.  So, that proves that sock gnomes exist, because you can't disprove that they don't exist.  Ergo, my empirical knowledge of sock gnomes is truer than your verifiable stuff, because mine is "empirical". Besides, my theory becomes more true as more and more people believe in it, because it means that more and more people are seeing the empirical evidence that can't be seen.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:27    As a Fundamentalinest, all I have to say is that you are all going to heck for forsaking the holy line and embracing the evil of tumble-dry.  Today it's sucking your socks.  Tomorrow it will be sucking your souls. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:37    Quote (improvius @ Mar. 29 2006,15:27) As a Fundamentalinest, all I have to say is that you are all going to heck for forsaking the holy line and embracing the evil of tumble-dry.  Today it's sucking your socks.  Tomorrow it will be sucking your souls. All I can say is, you guys are clearly LIKELY to set a fundamentalist church on fire. Therefore, you've basically done so. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:51    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,15:37) All I can say is, you guys are clearly LIKELY to set a fundamentalist church on fire. Therefore, you've basically done so. Well, I HAVE started fires in the past.  And I guess there's no denying that I've walked or driven past several chruches.  I've even set foot in a few of them.  And I can't hide the fact that I've used the words "church" and "fire" in daily speech.  And wouldn't you know, I just used them both in the same sentence!  I suppose that's all the empirical evidence anyone needs to lock me away forever.  I should just head down to the police station and turn myself in right now... -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

ptman Posts: 3 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:58    No No No FundamentaLINEists don't worship together, they each have their own lines and worship wherever the spirit moves them. Its the DryerGnomists that burn down their houses of worship.  Geez if your going to do Intelligent Science you have to get your religion straight first so that you know what your science will prove.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,10:51    Hey you guys, Fundamentalineists are a good 39% of all Dryergnomists worldwide, so that's alot of people you're insulting. Besides, Religious bigotry is a bad thing, no matter where it's aimed. ...Well except that sect of the Mother of Socks that Cannot Be Portrayed. I hate those guys. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,11:05    Quote (Faid @ Mar. 29 2006,16:51) ...Well except that sect of the Mother of Socks that Cannot Be Portrayed. I hate those guys. Now now, you know hateful language like that can only serve to inspire violence.  And believe me, the last thing you ever want to see is socktarian violence. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,11:07    Oh and what about Desockism, that theory that says you don't even need gnomes, because after constantly spinning in the Wheel of Dryrma, the sock eventually transcends its sockiness and becomes nothing? Boy, those guys are all holier-than-thou, claiming they're pacifists and such, but I know of many a sockfight done in their sect's name.... Sometimes even with socks stuffed with tissue-paper. The horror! -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,11:14    People....this thread is currently mocking the idea that a claim of "flawed reasoning" is the same thing as discrediting the idea that the "flawed reasoning" is in support of.... Leave the mockery of DaveScot to the Common Pissant thread... Otherwise....thordaddy may become very confused about everything.....

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,11:17    Quote (Faid @ Mar. 29 2006,17:07) Oh and what about Desockism, that theory that says you don't even need gnomes, because after constantly spinning in the Wheel of Dryrma, the sock eventually transcends its sockiness and becomes nothing? Boy, those guys are all holier-than-thou, claiming they're pacifists and such, but I know of many a sockfight done in their sect's name.... Sometimes even with socks stuffed with tissue-paper. The horror! Faid, you’re a genius and technically qualified to comment while I am not. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,11:29    BTW Arden, what's your icon about?

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,11:57    Quote ....thordaddy may become very confused about everything..... Too late.  I have empirical evidence thordaddy is already confused about everything - I believe it to be true.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,14:48    See? This is why science isn't respected. All you "scientists" are talking about matching socks, when it's a scientific "fact" that homosocksuality causes AIDS. And "don't" even get "me" started on premarital socks. [extra scare quotes, in case you need 'em: """""]

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,14:58    Also, you can't prove that your parents weren't wearing socks when you were conceived. Why isn't science and public schools debating this with Hanes?

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,15:14    "Homosocksuality" must be like, getting a kick out of wearing identical pairs of socks all the time. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,15:46    The "Put a sock in it" strategy. I think its time we move past destructive socktarian disagreements.  The damning cultural legacies of asockist materialism are responsible for all of the ill-wrapped feet in the present era.  What we need to do is to put all of our differences aside for the time being, and concentrate our forces by focusing on what we can all agree upon: namely that all the socks that have disappeared over the ages cannot be explained by the dogmatic asockist materialism.   I propose we group ourselves inside a "big drawer", where we can work together to restructure society based on sockist values.  I call this the "put a sock in it" strategy.   We will start by permeating the sweatsockshop workers with the sockist tradition.  If we can get the young workers talking about it, then the delicious odors of sockism will spread out into the larger society at all levels by the next generation.  From the sweatsockshops to gyms and locker rooms, from fabricks research and development all the way up to the highest levels of government, our goal is to reorganize the culture. We should, for now, leave aside questions of which fabricks the sock gnome prefers we wear, which washer/dryer combo is most pleasing to the sock gnome, and if the sock gnome pairs his socks by color or if he goes by thickness. After we have the conversation out in the open and we've regained control of the feet, noses, and minds of the country, then we can work on resolving our own socktarian disagreements.  Let's stick to the basics.   We can all agree on one thing: the Holey Sock Gnome is real, because we believe him to be.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,16:13    Bravo!  I haven't laughed this hard in ages!

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,16:18    PuckSR opines, Quote Just because the definition of empirical included the word observation, doesnt mean that anything observed is empircal. Now this is a doozy.  Just because empirical means originating in experience or observation doesn't mean anything experienced and observed is empirical?  OK... now I see the problem.  Your definition of empirical is distorted and limited to suit your scientific bias. Quote Empirical-Derived from experiment and observation Empirical doesnt just mean observed....millions of people have said that they saw aliens...does this prove aliens? Empirical knowledge refers to the knowledge being derived from experimentation and observation.... i.e. the gravitational constant was arrived at empirically the alternative is absolute knowledge...which is still observed knowledge...but it is known without testing. i.e. 2+2=4 So no knowledge was derived from the "millions of people" that have seen "aliens?"  How about the knowledge of potential aliens?  No one said that observation and experience equals universal truth.  It was only said the empirical evidence means evidence originating in observation and/or experience.  Therefore, "faith" is empirical evidence for an IDer, but doesn't necessarily prove its existence. Quote Because you dont understand science.... This is a huge problem for a lot of you people... Science isnt saying that they are absolutely right... science is saying that they have the best natural explanation currently.... I think has more to do with your misunderstanding of the self-imposed limitations of science.   I was mocked when I stated that science and religion were fundamentally identical and so the idea that science and ID reside on antithetical sides seemed ludicrous.  Both science and religion are driven by the same mechanism (human intelligence), both share the same function (search for truth) and only retain a very slight difference in structure (modification in intelligence).  Call it descent with modification in human intelligence. Science merely attempts to take subjective experience and observation and give it objective truth.  Yet, this is exactly what religion attempts to do.  Science claims superiority because it has formalized a method (scientific method) to take the subjective experience/observation and give it objective credibility.  The problem is the definition of objective and the amorphous nature of the scientific method.   Quote When we say that ID(t) isnt science....we are not denying that it is possible...far from it We are saying that it is not a valid natural explanation...it could very easily be true....but since it isnt currently testable or proveable within the realm of scientific definition...we are claiming it isnt scientific right now How could something that "could very easily true" also be considered "not a valid natural explanation?"  ID was the "natural explanation" for many centuries and was debated amongst some of the most brilliant minds in human history and scientists think that people are buying the "no empirical evidence" line?  You can't see that the extremity of the science community's position is merely fuel added to the fire. Quote Thought Experiment: If i claim that socks disappear in the dryer because of a wormhole that dryers create...is that scientific plenty of people have observed socks disappearing wormholes might exist it explains what happened to my socks... but it isnt science....until i actually observe the wormholes..in a testable, repeatable way...either directly or indirectly.. The wormhole might still be in my dryer....and I can feel perfectly free to claim that it is there...I can even start an organization promoting the idea.... but the scientific community will not accept my claim until they can all go out and find wormholes in dryers.... no matter how confident my friends and I are about the wormhole...... If wormholes in your dryer stealing your socks is somehow equivalent to questions concerning the OOL then it is clear that you aren't real serious about what we're discussing. BTW, if a mother drowns her children one by one in a family bathtub, how does psychology (branch of science) "observe" the murders "in a testable, repeatable way...either directly or indirectly..?"

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,17:00    Wow.  I took the anti-troll pledge, but I'm bored and just couldn't help but respond. Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,22:18) Quote Just because the definition of empirical included the word observation, doesnt mean that anything observed is empircal. Now this is a doozy.  Just because empirical means originating in experience or observation doesn't mean anything experienced and observed is empirical?  OK... now I see the problem.  Your definition of empirical is distorted and limited to suit your scientific bias. empirical: verifiable or provable through experimentation. An observation isn't empirical unless it can be verified through experimentation/testing.  How shall we test/experiment to verify that you watched the eclipse today?  I can think of one test off the top of my head: do you live in the path of the eclipse.  How shall we test/experiment to verify that you saw a dragon attempt to swallow the sun? Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,22:18) So no knowledge was derived from the "millions of people" that have seen "aliens?"  How about the knowledge of potential aliens?  No one said that observation and experience equals universal truth.  It was only said the empirical evidence means evidence originating in observation and/or experience.   No, certainly some knowledge was gained "from the 'millions of people' that[sic] have seen 'aliens'."  The knowledge that was gained is that 'these' people claim to have seen aliens.  By the way, what's a "potential" alien? You're also still trying to use your own definition of the word empirical.  Either accept the given definition from a dictionary or find a word or phrase that means what you're intending. Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,22:18) I was mocked when I stated that science and religion were fundamentally identical and so the idea that science and ID reside on antithetical sides seemed ludicrous.  Both science and religion are driven by the same mechanism (human intelligence), both share the same function (search for truth) and only retain a very slight difference in structure (modification in intelligence).  Call it descent with modification in human intelligence. No.  Science is driven by intelligence; religion is driven by ignorance.  Science searches for the best explanation for a phenomenon; religion claims to have The One, Absolute Truth.  Science uses a method of verifiability; religion uses a method of personal revelation.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,17:47    Is anyone else wondering why td is obsessed with Susan Smith? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,19:16    UnMark opines, Quote empirical: verifiable or provable through experimentation. An observation isn't empirical unless it can be verified through experimentation/testing.  How shall we test/experiment to verify that you watched the eclipse today?  I can think of one test off the top of my head: do you live in the path of the eclipse.  How shall we test/experiment to verify that you saw a dragon attempt to swallow the sun? You're not representing the entire definition, but only the part that helps define science. empirical Then you say, Quote No, certainly some knowledge was gained "from the 'millions of people' that[sic] have seen 'aliens'."  The knowledge that was gained is that 'these' people claim to have seen aliens.  By the way, what's a "potential" alien? You're also still trying to use your own definition of the word empirical.  Either accept the given definition from a dictionary or find a word or phrase that means what you're intending. So now knowledge can be gained even though the observation doesn't need verification or experimentation?  Interesting? What is a potential alien?  An alien that might possibly exist.  What else would it be? And the definition for empirical is above.  Please do tell me how I've used my OWN definition when I have copied the PRIMARY one from the dictionary verbatim. And the cake-taker, Quote No.  Science is driven by intelligence; religion is driven by ignorance.  Science searches for the best explanation for a phenomenon; religion claims to have The One, Absolute Truth.  Science uses a method of verifiability; religion uses a method of personal revelation. You still haven't even touched on the fundamental aspects of either human endeavor.  Both are driven by the same mechanism (human intelligence), both share the same function (search for greater truth) and the structures are only differentiated by a slight modification in interpreting empirical evidence.   But for something driven by ignorance, I must say it is a quite persistent ignorance.  So persistent as to signify intelligence.   But I digress, science, by your own implication, cannot give us an answer on issues of OOL.  Now who should we look to for the answer?  Science is out of the game.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,19:25    Quote Now this is a doozy.  Just because empirical means originating in experience or observation doesn't mean anything experienced and observed is empirical?  OK... now I see the problem.  Your definition of empirical is distorted and limited to suit your scientific bias. Umm actually...we are using the one that applies to scientific study.... empirical can also mean [archaic] Relying on medical quackery gravity can be used to refer to "a manner that is serious and solemn"... but if we are speaking of gravity in the scientific sense...you cant start mouthing off about our obsession with "a serious and solemn manner" (-1) bad definition BTW...once again your logic sucks "just because A means originating in B doesnt mean anything B is A"...absolutely correct just because humans originate from a sperm and ovum doesn't mean anything from sperm and ovum based is human... (-1) Bad Logic Quote Science merely attempts to take subjective experience and observation and give it objective truth.  Yet, this is exactly what religion attempts to do.  Science claims superiority because it has formalized a method (scientific method) to take the subjective experience/observation and give it objective credibility.  The problem is the definition of objective and the amorphous nature of the scientific method. Really, cause last time I checked the 2 major world religions are based on books not observation and experience...the only rational faith system I am currently aware of is Deism....but I will give you Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confucism if you ask nicely;) Quote How could something that "could very easily true" also be considered "not a valid natural explanation?"  ID was the "natural explanation" for many centuries and was debated amongst some of the most brilliant minds in human history and scientists think that people are buying the "no empirical evidence" line?  You can't see that the extremity of the science community's position is merely fuel added to the fire. (+1)  fallacy on my part What I should have said is that ID could very easily be true, but no empirical evidence has been submitted...your right...my comment didnt make any sense Now, almost every debate pro-ID in the past, by brilliant minds was made from a philosophical perspective.... I can think of at least one pro-ID guy in the past who was a brilliant mathematician...but he didnt argue it mathematically...he argued it philosophically BTW...the same people who supported ID in the past...a lot of them also espoused the virtues of man-boy love.... So i guess there is empirical evidence for the benefit of having homosexual relationships with teenagers.... There was also huge support for bleeding people who were sick....i guess we have a lot of evidence for the medical advantages of that too...? (-1)  Just because it was popular in the past, that doesnt indicate any particular advantage to the belief Quote BTW, if a mother drowns her children one by one in a family bathtub, how does psychology (branch of science) "observe" the murders "in a testable, repeatable way...either directly or indirectly..?" I'm sorry...but what is your point.... This was a rare occurence....we study rare occurences We try to get as much information on these rare occurences as possible... I havent heard any psychologist claim that they have "empirical evidence" about anything related to this.... I havent heard any "child drowning theory" come from this... Yes they are studying this case SO? Total Score = -3

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,19:44    Quote I digress, science, by your own implication, cannot give us an answer on issues of OOL.  Now who should we look to for the answer?  Science is out of the game. I don't think science is out of the game, myself.  But since you're so sure, why don't you tell us? Quote I will give you Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confucism if you ask nicely. Pretty please with a waterballon on top?  Not like it'll ruin my day, but I'm curious as to why at least Taoism isn't rational.  Either I pick and choose the passages I agree with, or I'm completely misreading the essence of Taoist philosophy.  Or, I guess another possibility is that I'm irreconcilably irrational.  Perhaps on another thread sometime.  I'm still having too much fun on this one to get sidetracked.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,20:14    I'll make it quick.... Deism is a form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation.   None of the others are arrived at through reason alone, and while they are grounded firmly in reason...they all can potentially have their mystical side....I have never heard of mystical Deism.  I think Dao-Chiao would be a good example of mystical Daoism I excluded several of the others because of some involvement with metaphysics, well except Buddhism, but seriously if you figure out where to Buddhism let me know.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,21:47    PuckSR opines, Quote Umm actually...we are using the one that applies to scientific study.... empirical can also mean [archaic] Relying on medical quackery gravity can be used to refer to "a manner that is serious and solemn"... but if we are speaking of gravity in the scientific sense...you cant start mouthing off about our obsession with "a serious and solemn manner" (-1) bad definition BTW...once again your logic sucks "just because A means originating in B doesnt mean anything B is A"...absolutely correct just because humans originate from a sperm and ovum doesn't mean anything from sperm and ovum based is human... (-1) Bad Logic But thordaddy already stated, Quote You're not representing the entire definition, but only the part that helps define science. And stated before that, Quote Just because empirical means originating in experience or observation doesn't mean anything experienced and observed is empirical?  OK... now I see the problem.  Your definition of empirical is distorted and limited to suit your scientific bias. I stand by my defintion because you have already conceded in another thread that, Quote PuckSR:  Science cannot tell you when life begins, science cannot tell you what conciousness is, and science cannot tell you if the world is designed. So if science can not do these things then it makes no sense to use the scientific definition for empirical.  It only assures ignorance. Then you say, Quote Really, cause last time I checked the 2 major world religions are based on books not observation and experience...the only rational faith system I am currently aware of is Deism....but I will give you Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confucism if you ask nicely;) I believe the bible contains historical references which would certainly encompass observation and experience.  But, my experience and observations, as of yet, have had nothing to do with any organized religion or the books they proffer. But more to the point, religion attempts to answer those questions above that you readily concede science won't or can't.  The attempt at finding those answers using religion are certainly via interpretation of empirical evidence.  There is no other process in the natural world, is there?   But do you agree that science and religion are at least fundamentally identical in that they share the same mechanism, function and very similar structure? Next you opine, Quote (+1)  fallacy on my part What I should have said is that ID could very easily be true, but no empirical evidence has been submitted...your right...my comment didnt make any sense What you mean to say is that no empirical evidence has been submitted that resides within the scientifically-restricted meaning of empirical.   What you also have said with this concession is that ID could be a "valid natural explanation."   This is equivalent to saying empirical evidence for an IDer exists in the natural world, but science as of yet is not an endeavor of sufficiently advanced intelligence.   Quote Now, almost every debate pro-ID in the past, by brilliant minds was made from a philosophical perspective.... I can think of at least one pro-ID guy in the past who was a brilliant mathematician...but he didnt argue it mathematically...he argued it philosophically BTW...the same people who supported ID in the past...a lot of them also espoused the virtues of man-boy love.... So i guess there is empirical evidence for the benefit of having homosexual relationships with teenagers.... There was also huge support for bleeding people who were sick....i guess we have a lot of evidence for the medical advantages of that too...? I'm simply bewildered by this excerpt. Quote (-1)  Just because it was popular in the past, that doesnt indicate any particular advantage to the belief And because it is popular in the present just assures it to be relegated to being only popular in the past.  We need only to wait. I'll allow you to retabulate the score.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,00:14    Quote (UnMark @ Mar. 29 2006,17:13) Bravo!  I haven't laughed this hard in ages! hear, hear!

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,01:48    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 30 2006,03:47) blah blah blah In response, I say, blahditty, blahditty, blah... OK, now for the real stuff: I fully endorse the "Put a sock in it" strategy.  I propose we come up with a "fundraising" document that outlines our strategy for gaining a "toehold" in the current scientific dogmatic paradigm that we can ultimately use to overthrow said paradigm and re-establish the cultural superiority of homosocksualness.  I propose we call it the "toehold document." GOALS: Governing Goals -To defeat dogmatic non-socksualism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. -To replace non-socksualist explanations with the homosocksual understanding that socks are stolen by sock gnomes. Five Year Goals -To see SGT (sock gnome theory) as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of SGT. -To see the beginning of the influence of SGT in spheres other than dryer science. -To see major new debates in education, dryer issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals -To see SGT as the dominant perspective in science -To see SGT application in specific fields, including dryer anatomy, dryer application, and gnome physics in the dryer sciences, dryer history, gnome history, gnome trickiness, and gnome philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts -To see SGT permeate our laundromatic, cultural, moral and political life.

Pages: (13) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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