Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Thread for Christopher Gieschen

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,12:13

What is true is that Hitler made any assertion he could make to tighten his grip on power. He also claimed many many times to be a man of God, the one true church, following Christ, Martin Luther, etc. You accepting and parroting the evolution claim about Hitler doesn't convince me that you are NOT some kind of idiot.

Differences in mean values of traits in populations doesn't say ANYTHING ABOUT MORE OR LESS EVOLVED. that is another stupid comment. It doesn't matter what Watson said, 'more or less evolved' is not part of it.

Did you think that the Count in the Princess Bride had a mutation 'in it's brain' to know how to use six fingers? Do you really think spiders 'know' anything? That would certainly be an interesting conversation, and please let's take it there. That is not a position I usually hear creos taking, since it is implicit in their scheme that the world was created for man and animals are mindless automata.

Analogies are ultimately nonsensical. You may alternately call them Lies. But as a wise TA once told me as an undergrad, Models are lies that help us see the truth. And you mistake the model for reality.

As for how we should politely and nicely debunk AIG, why? There is tons of crank pseudoscience out there. Chopping the heads off Hydra just gives you tendonitis. You have to starve it to death.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,12:15

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 23 2007,11:58)

Dear oldman...

Any response on the Dawkins questions?

Dear rest of you,

I am insulted that you treat me as some sort of an idiot. �Obviously I do not have any blood lust or have any intention of killing anyone save in self defense or the defense of my family.

And of course I know that mutations have to happen in the germ line for crying out loud. �That still does nothing for shooting down my statement that the spider needs a mutated alteration of its brain to know how to use the newly evolved structure.

What is true is that Hitler had evolution as his basis for exterminating Jews. �One of your own is now claiming that blacks are less evolved that whites. (see the article on the Evolution News & Views website. �So that is what I was refering to when killing you is neither right nor wrong if evol. is true. �If an asteroid or some catastophe from space wipes out the dinosaurs, and is natural, then if I wipe out anytihng I am just as natural as an asteroid, so what's the beef?

A discussion of the pine pollen is here : http://www.rae.org/pollen.html

A listing of young earth evidences is here : http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

A discussion of morality is here : http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/morality.asp

An evidence for rapid ice build up of the icecaps is here : http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/squadron.asp

Look here for numbers of people after the Flood : http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp

As for the origins of things make any difference on how they work now, all you can come up with is obtuse lawn-mower discussions that make no sense.

As for claiming that AIG will not deal with you realistically, then I invite you to give them your best shot and tell them I sent you. �Perhaps you'll be printed in the skeptics letters section. �I caution you to fully research the site and list specific scientific errors or illogical thinking and back them up. �Be concise as you can.

You still have not answered about the spontaneous formation of specified complexity like these sentences I have written. �All the analogies we use to explain the workings of the cell rely on intelligently designed items. �If intelligent design is not true, then the analogies are nonsensical.

Been there, debunked that.

Is that all you have??? �Pointing to non-science, christian apologetic site???

Their "Young Earth" bullshit has ALL BEEN refuted...over and over again. �I cannot believe you would even attempt to bring that weak ass shit to this debate.

PLEASE...PLEASE GIVE UP TEACHING!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,12:24

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 23 2007,12:58)

What is true is that Hitler had evolution as his basis for exterminating Jews.

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,12:28

I had a look at a few of your links. �They're hilarious. �

I looked through this one:

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 23 2007,09:58)

Look here for numbers of people after the Flood : http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp

and found this:

Quote

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10^43 people today�that�s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given �standing room only� of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is �only� 1.5 x 10^14 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still �only� have a surface area able to fit 10^28 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 10^43 (10^29 is 10 times as much as 10^28, 10^30 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

Do you really think this is a valid argument? �Honestly? �And you're not lying about being a science teacher?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,13:02

Okay, this is on the unanswered list of question on the Ftk thread, but it may bear repeating here.

Christopher:

1. What year was the Flood?
2. What was the population of the world that year?
3. What was the population of the world in the year 2030BC?
4. How do you think that happened?

You can get the relevant numbers just about anywhere, including the Unreasonable Kansans Thread here at AtBC.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,13:12

Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 19 2007,06:37)

CG,

Please come back and answer questions about dating methods.

He is taking the intellectual cowardice route. Not that I am surprised.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you�re taking refuge in what we see in the world." �PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,13:39

Quote

I am insulted that you treat me as some sort of an idiot

Christopher, I really don't think that this is true.

I think that as it becomes clearer and clearer exactly what sort of idiot you are, we are adjusting our treatment of you so as to treat you as just that kind of idiot.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,13:45

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 23 2007,11:58)

A discussion of the pine pollen is here : http://www.rae.org/pollen.html

So you will fall for anything that supports young-earth creationism, even if it is shown to be wrong by another young-earth creationist (Arthur Chadwick)?

Burdick was just plain incompetent.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you�re taking refuge in what we see in the world." �PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,13:58

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 23 2007,11:58)

Dear oldman...

Any response on the Dawkins questions?

Mr Gieschen,

I believe the question you are referring is this quote of yours here

Quote

I found Dawkin's failure to answer a simple request for a mechanism or an example of a process which increases the information of a genome very revealing. His response was nowhere near answering the question. And the origins of mitosis, likewise the origin of information still remain.

In the link that I presume we are both talking about there is this statement from Dawkins:

Quote

Gene duplications and deletions have occurred from time to time throughout genomes. It is by these, and similar means, that genome sizes can increase in evolution.

Christopher, when you teach your science class what do you say gods purpose was for creating hexaploid plants? Six in that one, seven in that, job done had some left over. Something like that? In any case, I believe you've had a mechanism (duplication) and an example of a process (er, living things?).
What is your proposed mechanism?

Also Dawkins says this

Quote

if natural selection feeds information into gene pools, what is the information about? It is about how to survive. Strictly it is about how to survive and reproduce, in the conditions that prevailed when previous generations were alive. To the extent that present day conditions are different from ancestral conditions, the ancestral genetic advice will be wrong. In extreme cases, the species may then go extinct.

Presumably in your world the information is about how to survive in the garden of eden right? As thats where we were designed to dwell? So whats *your* information about Christopher? What does it tell us to do? It can't tell us to be moral, as there are many immoral people (more in your world I suspect) too. So we get given a "how to survive somewhere that does not exist" manual?

Ah-em.

Christopher, what do you believe dinosaur teeth were for?
AIG, who you appear to trust, say that they had sharp pointy teeth for opening coconuts
Is that something that you would tell a child, even knowing they had likely seen Jurassic park? Or is that a step too far for a teacher?
Also you said

Quote

I still don't know why you accept Dawkins answer to the genome question when he never really answered it.

What specific question is it that you think needs an answer? Dispute something, a specific point he said not generalize totally please!
In that same post you also said

Quote

I accept dating methods that are corroberated by verifiable history, like dating the mummies. So radiocarbon is fairly reliable with in limits.

link
I don't understand. There appears to be a contradiction here. You believe the earth is, what, 6000 years old? Yet I was reading this

Quote

Oldest North American Mummy A mummy excavated in 1940 and stored at the Nevada State Museum in Carson City was recently dated to ca. 7420 B.C., making it the oldest mummy ever discovered in North America.
Donald Tuohy and Amy Dansie of the Nevada State Museum say the mummy, a male about 45 years old, was one of several gathered from caves in Nevada's Churchill County. Its excellent state of preservation had led earlier researchers to believe it was ca. 2,000 years old. Dansie and Tuohy were astonished when radiocarbon tests of hair and bone and two mats covering the body yielded dates more than 7,000 years older.

Which appears to directly contradict your viewpoint. By virtue of physical evidence that you yourself accept. What will be modified I wonder?
I had a search at AIG for information on mummys and no surprise I found a page or two disputing generally accepted timelines.

Nothing disputing the veracity of that particular time for that mummy. Any comment on that?

EDIT. All of it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,14:31

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 23 2007,13:02)

1. What year was the Flood?

Near as I can tell, it was in the same year as the death of that Methusalah (sp?) guy.

Hope that helps.

Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,16:01

Christopher admitted that he filters information thru his religious filters to determine what he believes. Rather than judging information on its own merits.

This makes Christopher intellectually dishonest because he will not acknowledge information that his religious filter will not let through. That type of information just does not exist in his eyes and therefore, he can never be proven wrong.

It's just not worth it as he has no honest desire to learn. It's the exact same issue with FTK.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Oct. 23 2007,21:08

I looked at several of the websites you linked to and found it underwhelming. For example, the link on morality had absolutely no discussion on the fact that, compared to atheists and agnostics, Christians are over-represented in prisons. Indeed, I did not see any reference to it.

The claim that some aircraft were deeply buried by snow and ice after a few years (and I have learnt to never trust a creationist site so I will reserve judgement on whether it is true) is taken as proof that snow normally accumulates this rapidly. For some reason, this trumps all the evidence from ice cores where it is possible to see known volcanic eruptions recorded at relatively shallow depths.

With respect to the age of the earth, why do you think geologists are convinced that they are looking at rocks millions of years old if the evidence is so weak? Do you think that every single geologist (well, except for perhaps one in 10,000) is either weak in the head or a liar who is participating in some massive global conspiracy? I just cannot imagine how your mind deals with this.

By the way, for a maths course I once got the students to estimate how many people built the Great Pyramid, assuming the world population started with two people 6000 years ago and increased at a steady rate to today's population. They also had to make reasonable estimates for the proportion of the population who lived in Egypt, were adult male and not in the army or the priesthood. IIRC my own estimate was 176. Of course, if I had allowed for Noah's Flood that would have thrown a spanner in the works. For the benefit of the one student who looked concerned, I pointed out that clearly at least one assumption was wrong.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,20:34

Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 23 2007,22:08)

The claim that some aircraft were deeply buried by snow and ice after a few years (and I have learnt to never trust a creationist site so I will reserve judgement on whether it is true) is taken as proof that snow normally accumulates this rapidly. For some reason, this trumps all the evidence from ice cores where it is possible to see known volcanic eruptions recorded at relatively shallow depths.

With respect to the age of the earth, why do you think geologists are convinced that they are looking at rocks millions of years old if the evidence is so weak? Do you think that every single geologist (well, except for perhaps one in 10,000) is either weak in the head or a liar who is participating in some massive global conspiracy? I just cannot imagine how your mind deals with this..

They were deeply buried by snow in relatively few years ... near the coast, in an area where annual snow accumulation is much, much higher than the areas from which ice cores are taken. Claim CD410. It's a PRATT. Mr. Gieschen is almost as gullible as afdave.

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,12:57

oldman, my reply to you is on a separate post.

So none of you like AIG, fine with me. Let's try these on for size...

As to why I am not convinced by the science facts of your side, go here and read both sets of responses concerning the chimp-human DNA myth. We are not the only ones who are stubborn and refusing to face facts.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Go here if you think Christians cannot be scientists

http://www.boston.com/news...._reason

Another reason why I reject the evolutionary logic is that you want it both ways. The appendix is said to be evidence for evolution as it has no function and is a vestige from our past (but Lamarck was proven wrong so the concept of vestigial organs is bogus.).

But now it has a function and this makes evolutionary sense...so now we can use it to prove evolution is true. Go here for the proof that it has a function.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007....be.html

So we all have filters. You on this blog claim that every thing has to have a natural explanation (naturalism).
(and I forget who, but how you can guarentee I won't come back as a snail, just how do you scientifically prove the Hindus wrong?)

Up to a point naturalism is okay, but not for the origins of specified complexity like our sentences...which you all convienently avoid. I have my filter on the issue of origins. You believe lawn mowers put themselves together...fine. I hold they have designers. We both can explain how they work and the issue of origins is moot.

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,13:24

who said christians can't be scientists? no one.

now, it does make it difficult, for people who believe against all evidence that the earth is 6000 years old or that an old drunk floated a giant tugboat full of monkeys rhinoceri kangaroos and beetles around the globe for a year, to be a scientist. but you could always be an engineer.

and there is absolutely nothing keeping someone from being a science teacher, even if in their own mind, and repeating false religiously inspired crap assertions to young impressionable minds. except you can't do it in public school anymore, legally.

hey christopher, here is a news flash: LAWNMOWERS AREN'T LIVING THINGS. YOU PICKED ANOTHER STUPID ANALOGY THAT DOESN'T WORK.

by the way, WTF do you mean by vestigial organs and Lamarck? not sure if you know.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,13:36

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 25 2007,12:57)

oldman, my reply to you is on a separate post.

So none of you like AIG, fine with me. Let's try these on for size...

As to why I am not convinced by the science facts of your side, go here and read both sets of responses concerning the chimp-human DNA myth. We are not the only ones who are stubborn and refusing to face facts.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Go here if you think Christians cannot be scientists

http://www.boston.com/news...._reason

Another reason why I reject the evolutionary logic is that you want it both ways. The appendix is said to be evidence for evolution as it has no function and is a vestige from our past (but Lamarck was proven wrong so the concept of vestigial organs is bogus.).

But now it has a function and this makes evolutionary sense...so now we can use it to prove evolution is true. Go here for the proof that it has a function.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007....be.html

So we all have filters. You on this blog claim that every thing has to have a natural explanation (naturalism).
(and I forget who, but how you can guarentee I won't come back as a snail, just how do you scientifically prove the Hindus wrong?)

Up to a point naturalism is okay, but not for the origins of specified complexity like our sentences...which you all convienently avoid. I have my filter on the issue of origins. You believe lawn mowers put themselves together...fine. I hold they have designers. We both can explain how they work and the issue of origins is moot.

With each new post, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance, which is an unforgivable position for a teacher--especially a science teacher--to be in. Note that it's difficult to tell with creationists whether they're ignorant, dishonest, or some combination of the two, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

There are people here who know a lot more biology than I do, but I can see the (obvious) problems with your characterization of vestigial body parts:
1) "Vestigial" does not necessarily mean that the thing in question has no present function.
2) The concept of Lamarckism has nothing to do with vestigial body parts. Lamarck's idea was that traits or characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its progeny.
3) Scientists recognize the provisional nature of knowledge, thus the idea that no function had ever been discovered for the vermiform appendix doesn't mean that anyone believed that no function would ever be discovered. To say "We don't understand x" is not the same as saying we'll never understand it, unless you're a creationist. Science allows for ignorance to be remedied.

Aso, I'm not sure why you think that substituting one creationist source (the Discovery Institute) for another (AiG) helps your case. If you're not interested in actual data, that's fine unless you're pretending to be interested in it.

Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers, or ones for which origins and designs are not in evidence, your analogy will hold water. "Specified Complexity" has been shown to be nothing more than tautological dembskispeak.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,13:46

Quote

Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers,

They probably evolved from Behe's mousetraps.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,13:49

Mr. Gieschen needs to put down the AIG type nonsense and get a decent biology education. That would make it harder for him to accept the obviously false claims of the nuts.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,13:51

Several people here will send him basic textbooks in biology, geology, genetics, physics, etc. If he wants to get a decent grounding in science, we can help him. If he just wants sciency-sounding excuses for believing YEC nonsense, this thread will be no more productive than FtK's.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,13:53

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 25 2007,13:49)

Mr. Gieschen needs to put down the AIG type nonsense and get a decent biology education. That would make it harder for him to accept the obviously false claims of the nuts.

However, he is doing a great job demonstrating that the way to maintain a YEC belief is by perserving massive ignorance, not just ignorance of a few things.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you�re taking refuge in what we see in the world." �PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

improvius

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:09

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 25 2007,13:57)

As to why I am not convinced by the science facts of your side, go here and read both sets of responses concerning the chimp-human DNA myth. We are not the only ones who are stubborn and refusing to face facts.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

You can get different "percentages of difference" between humans and chimps depending on what you are specifically measuring. Including indels and CNVs will increase that difference, obviously. So let's try to look at the bigger picture, without getting you all confused with too many numbers.

Genetically, the closest living organisms to humans are chimps. No matter how you measure genetic difference, this is going to be true. Now, before you respond, consider this next fact. Genetically, the closest living organisms to chimps are humans. Think about that for a minute. If ape-kind is separate from human-kind, we would expect chimps to be closer to gorillas and orangutans than they are to humans. Here's what your side predicts, at best, with your "parts bin" hypothesis:

((G, O, C) H)

And here's reality:

(G, O (C, H))

Now, unless you want to look at chimps as some sort of prototype human that God wasn't quite satisfied with, you're going to have a hard time explaining these facts.

--------------

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.

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:14

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 25 2007,13:51)

Several people here will send him basic textbooks in biology, geology, genetics, physics, etc. If he wants to get a decent grounding in science, we can help him. If he just wants sciency-sounding excuses for believing YEC nonsense, this thread will be no more productive than FtK's.

I think he has the books; isn't he a high-school teacher in Indiana?

I don't think education is the key here. As long as he is willing to keep the conclusion (goddidit) and hunt around for the right "facts" (whether from AiG or the DI or the good old-fashioned AfDave-style pull it out of your ass), it will do no good to try to argue with him.

Maybe FtK can move to Indiana and enroll her kids in his class.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

improvius

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:17

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 25 2007,14:36)

Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers, or ones for which origins and designs are not in evidence, your analogy will hold water.

--------------

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.

Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:22

I honestly do not believe Christopher to be a Science teacher. His logic and and ability to reason don't sound like someone with an education, let alone a Science teacher.

His absolute dismissal of fact, facts that can be tested and proven, belie his so-called intellectual honesty.

In short, he is a Troll.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:31

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 25 2007,14:17)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 25 2007,14:36)

Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers, or ones for which origins and designs are not in evidence, your analogy will hold water.

Sorry, but I'm not going to take the bait. It's not my job to match your pathetic level of detail. I'll need to see both the contents of the goat's digestive system, and a photo of Christopher holding the goat by its hind legs, guiding it around his yard.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:37

Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 25 2007,15:22)

I honestly do not believe Christopher to be a Science teacher. His logic and and ability to reason don't sound like someone with an education, let alone a Science teacher.

His absolute dismissal of fact, facts that can be tested and proven, belie his so-called intellectual honesty.

In short, he is a Troll.

He might technically be a science teacher. I have a relative in Kentucky who teaches middle school, including science classes, despite being completely credulous and believing in conspiracies related to the moon landings, evolution, vaccination, the UN, 9/11, she consumes colloidial silver, etc etc.

Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:45

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 25 2007,14:37)

Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 25 2007,15:22)

I honestly do not believe Christopher to be a Science teacher. �His logic and and ability to reason don't sound like someone with an education, let alone a Science teacher.

His absolute dismissal of fact, facts that can be tested and proven, belie his so-called intellectual honesty.

In short, he is a Troll.

He might technically be a science teacher. I have a relative in Kentucky who teaches middle school, including science classes, despite being completely credulous and believing in conspiracies related to the moon landings, evolution, vaccination, the UN, 9/11, she consumes colloidial silver, etc etc.

Does she take the tinfoil off her head when she goes out in public?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,15:00

Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 25 2007,14:45)

Does she take the tinfoil off her head when she goes out in public?

You laugh, but I actually do have a cousin (who lives in the most inaptly-named burg in the world, Liberal, KS) who lines her her cap with aluminum foil to ward off the "thought rays" from aliens whenever she goes outside.

These people walk among us, and I actually share some genes with some of them. That may explain a lot, actually...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007