RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 >   
  Topic: Intellectual Honesty, Robert Shapiro "Origins"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,00:58   

Quote
You mischacteized my statement... typical intellectual dishonesty.


You lying sack...

Quote
1 lb force = 1 lb mass * 32.2 ft/sec/sec was my showing that one must use a constant of proportionality to get equality and correct answers.


Just for lying, I will show you how you are wrong.

lb force = lb mass * ft / sec^2

That's how the units are defined.  In standard or metric, your gsubc is unitless as you have defined it, so it is unnecessary in order to make the units match up.

Further,
1 lb mass actually weighs 32.2 lbs force.  You set up an incorrect equation from the start.

So, have I mischaracterized you?  No, I have not.  I pointed out your errors and corrected.  For you to accuse me of being dishonest is beyond the pale, especially since this is all a sidebar way for you to escape the argument that I made in the first place, which you can not answer and you have made that all too clear.  You have NOTHING substantive to offer.  YOU are the liar here, and it is disgusting when you accuse others of it, when I have shown you to be lying multiple times in the course of this one thread.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,04:53   

I have tried to protect your waning intellectual credibility by gently nudging you toward a basic understanding of certain elementary scientific laws. But in your evolutionary hypnotic state, self centered egomania and pitiful ignorance it is sigh perhaps impossible. So in the interest of your colleagues and your community  I must expose your stupidity and apparent dishonesty by posting from one of many possible authoritative sources, in this case Michigan State University and their very fine chemical engineering engineering school.


===============================

http://www.vu.msu.edu/preview/che201/lesson02/glossary.htm

Weight - Weight is the force exerted on an object by gravitational attraction.  The weight of an object can be determined using Newton's second law, as shown below:

W = m . g/gc
Here W represents the weight of the object of mass m, and g represents the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2 or 32.174 ft/s2).  Based upon this equation, it is easy to see that the weight of a 1 kg mass is 9.81 N, and the weight of 1 lbm is 1 lbf.

Thus the Phd types at MSU confirm absolutely my position and destroy your position in two ways:

gsubc is indeed the term used for porportionality and the units normalization in the equation.


your statement:  "one lb mass  actually weighs 32.2 lbs force" is shown to be utter stupidity and summarily dismissed by the URL material.


Force - Newton's second law of motion states that the force exerted on an object is proportional to the mass of the object times the acceleration produced by the force.  In the SI system of units, the proportionality constant is unity if the applied force is expressed in Newtons, the mass is expressed in kilograms, and the acceleration is expressed in meters per second per second.  In the American Engineering System of units, this proportionality constant is 1/gc.

100% confirmatory of my position and diametrically opposed to yours.... get it moron.

g - The quantity g is the acceleration of gravity.  It has a value of 9.81 m/s2 (32.174 ft/s2) at sea level on Earth.  Its value changes slightly as you change elevation on Earth, and would change dramatically if you were to travel to the moon or to a different planet (for example, g has a value of 5.36 ft/s2 on the moon, and 38.6 ft/s2 on Saturn).

gc - The quantity gc is a constant conversion factor.  Its value does not change as you change locations, it has the same value on the moon as it does on Earth (however 1 lbm will not weigh 1 lbf on the moon).  The quantity gc is best viewed as a conversion factor between two different units for force.

Thats a dagger in you guts you're feeling just now... idiot

Mass - Mass is a simple dimension that describes the quanity of matter in a substance or object.  The units for mass are pound-mass, gram, and kilogram in the American Engineering, CGS, and SI systems of units, respectively

Since this idiot will not apologize, admit his ignorance and persists in calling me a liar while demonstating his incredible stupidity and hubris I urge other hopefully more competent posters to get him off the forum as he is a total embarrassment to the already intellectually vacuous arguments advanced in behalf of evolution.

And you wonder why Phillip Johnson, Behe, Myers, and 400 others publically doubt your theory when its backed up by a team who simply has no grasp of basic scientific laws such as Newton's Laws and SLOT.

A formal apology and a lot of groveling would be in order  for this clown

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,05:10   

To Whom It May Concern:

If you don't like MSU try this from the Univeristy of Texas Petroleum Engineering school.

Although different people look on the force units conversion problem differently, it is perhaps easiest and simplest to consider that we should always write Newton’s Second Law should be written as

F=M*A/gsubc  get it always
(2)
where   is a units conversion factor to convert units of mL/t2 to the desired force unit. (i.e.,   it effectively has units of mL/t2F, even though force is not a fundamental unit.)
In English units, there are two units of mass: the slug and the pound-mass (lbm). There are also two units of force: the pound-force (lbf) and the poundal (pdl). If one pound-mass is accelerated in a standard gravity (a=g=32.1740 ft/s2), the resulting force is one pound-force (lbf). This, in fact, is the definition of the pound-mass.
Therefore, for this case, gc=32.1740 lbm•ft/s2•lbf. If mass is in slugs, then gc=1 slug•ft/s2•lbf. If force is in poundals, gc=1 lbm•ft/s2•pdl or 0.0310810 slug•ft/s2•pdl (0.0310810=1/32.1740). Pounds-mass and poundals are sometimes referred to as a fundamental set of units since gc has a numerical value of one. Slugs and pounds-force are also a fundamental set of units.  


Want more its available

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,07:10   

To everyone except Evopeach:

I think you should leave the poor guy alone to his irrelevant ramblings.  They are hardly a threat to the Law of Evolution.  Everything will become clear to his descendents in time.   :D

--------------
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. 08 2005,07:27   

Captain Midnight,

Nice dodge... but no content just vacuous jargon.

I wouldn't come out in the daylight either if I were you.. just keep whistleing past the GRAVEYARD with your phlogistonite brethren.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,08:00   

Interesting,
So, gc is 1, unless you change the units (not the actual system) and then it becomes some other value, even though the system didn't change, but the result somehow did.  Got it.  Moron.

Lie number 1 from you:
The 2% figure.

Lie number 2 from you:
Quote mine that I pointed out.

Lie number 3 from you:
Misrepresenting my position (multiple times, but I'll give you just one lie for it.)

Lie number 4 from you:
Asserting already debunked Creationist claims.

Lie number 5 from you:
Saying that you did not challenge anyone to look at any text book on modern biology and answer your questions.

Lie number 6 from you:
Saying that Wikipedia backs up your claim when it clearly did not.

Lie number 7 from you:
Falsely claiming scientists are frauds and liars without any evidence.

Also, evasions:
1.  Side bar on F=ma and totally ignoring the reason it was brought up.
2.  Threatening to bring mounds of quotes that were never produced.
3.  Talking nebulously about SLOT, but never backing up why it is a supposed problem for evolution.

I'm sure I could find more, but I'm just going off of memory.

Midnight Voice, I agree with you whole-heartedly.  The only reason I engaged this yahoo was to show that creationists can't make arguments without resorting to distortions, evasions, and outright lies.  I just thought it would be funny, especially with the ironic title of this post.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,08:59   

Poor baby is your little ego so diminished that you can't rationally defend your stupidity any more in the face of the entire US University level of engineering instruction disagreeing 100% with your diatribes?

I mean when 100 percent of my presentation is true and your's is so uncommonly ignorant it must hurt a lot.. though by now I'll bet you're used to losing in any intellectual discussion.

Did it hurt getting it crammed so unequivacably from recognizably irrefutable sources?

Poll from your big time Nature peer reviewed magazine survey to your population as I had suggested was perfectly in line with 2% in context and about 500% different from your estimates.

Nothing vague about SLOT except you haven't the vaguest understanding of the concepts of thermodynamics , physics, math or... come to think of it is there an area of science you understand?

I know how about we play tic tac toe and see if you can manage a tie.

Oh yeah! I teach introduction to logic online at my colllege and I could get you in free as an act of charity.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,11:32   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 08 2005,13:00)
Interesting,
So, gc is 1, unless you change the units (not the actual system) and then it becomes some other value, even though the system didn't change, but the result somehow did.  Got it.  Moron.

Lie number 1 from you:
The 2% figure.

Lie number 2 from you:
Quote mine that I pointed out.

Lie number 3 from you:
Misrepresenting my position (multiple times, but I'll give you just one lie for it.)

Lie number 4 from you:
Asserting already debunked Creationist claims.

Lie number 5 from you:
Saying that you did not challenge anyone to look at any text book on modern biology and answer your questions.

Lie number 6 from you:
Saying that Wikipedia backs up your claim when it clearly did not.

Lie number 7 from you:
Falsely claiming scientists are frauds and liars without any evidence.

Also, evasions:
1.  Side bar on F=ma and totally ignoring the reason it was brought up.
2.  Threatening to bring mounds of quotes that were never produced.
3.  Talking nebulously about SLOT, but never backing up why it is a supposed problem for evolution.

I'm sure I could find more, but I'm just going off of memory.

Midnight Voice, I agree with you whole-heartedly.  The only reason I engaged this yahoo was to show that creationists can't make arguments without resorting to distortions, evasions, and outright lies.  I just thought it would be funny, especially with the ironic title of this post.

No sweat.  You see I have a secret - I know the truth because I talked to God - and Boy!! is she pissed at you lot!!  :D

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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,12:34   

MidnightVoice said:

Quote
You see I have a secret - I know the truth because I talked to God


Did you talk over the phone?  What's the number?  I want to call her up and see if she's free tomorrow night. :)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,15:44   

GCT and Midnight

I wondered how long it wold take you two, having lost every debate point to date, to resort to blasphemy; as though I would be surprised.

The ignorant, usually resort to the lowest common denominator in even less time.

Fun after 25 years in this debate I just expect the heathen of your movement to behave just that way .. as ignorant heathen.

Looks like you and the other piglets need some time to lick your wounds and regroup af such a through butt kicking as I have delivered.

As for Shapiro, my supposed enemy, his appeal "The Life Force" just puts in good company with Crick, Hoyle and others who having run the numbers (order 10**-40000) on evolutionary hypotheses turn to the occult, science fiction, cultic religious beliefs and such.

I'm with Patterson and Grasse you know... " tell me just one thing that evolution has claimed that has been  demonstrated to be true... just one"

Imagine spending your entire life on a fruitless quest to prove God doesn't exist... what a laughable waste.

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,23:56   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 31 2005,10:15)
... and yes I think a global flood is well evidenced in history, tradition, geology and quite explanatory.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

eeeeeh stop it stop it. My stomach hurts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Someone actually believes this? I mean seriously?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Next they'll be telling us the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

aaaah ... this is too much.

Sorry. Don't mean to be rude.

But ... global flood?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,04:32   

Tim,

Thanks for the enlightened, stimulative, mature and clearly well reasoned post.

I always wondered what happened to those kids you grew up breathing the fumes from yellow spray paint.

Now I know.

Of course if you had read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris ( a Phd who also wrote a few text books used at places like Rice where he also taught, etc.) then we could give you opinion more credibility than the message in a Chinese fortune cookie.

Go home little boy!!!!!!!!!

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,05:16   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 09 2005,09:32)
Of course if you had read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris ( a Phd who also wrote a few text books used at places like Rice where he also taught, etc.) then we could give you opinion more credibility than the message in a Chinese fortune cookie.

I'm sorry, who?

Henry Morris, Phd?

Tell me, is this the same Henry Morris who said in his farcical book The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, ; "As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets."

As early as 1984, astronomers discovered that dark clouds of matter which obscured distant stars were indeed planets. Since that date 20 years ago, the Hubble telescope, through direct observation, has identified that around half of the one hundred or so stars observed so far in the Orion nebula alone have planets orbiting them. Source

Direct confirmation of a planet in another system has been made by independent astronomers in 1999, orbiting the star Pegasus 51. NASA and Berkeley

Is this also the same Henry Morris, Phd, who has failed time and again to deny the Bible's geocentrism. The Bible refers to the earth as the centre of the universe, which goes to show how poor a basis for scientific fact it actually is. Henry Morris, Phd, has tried and failed to deny this fact. Source

If you believe Henry Morris' gibberings which have been proven false, it's no wonder you believe there was a flood.

A big, Global flood.

Hmph. Ahahahaha.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Move along folks, nothing to see"

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,05:56   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 08 2005,17:34)
MidnightVoice said:

Quote
You see I have a secret - I know the truth because I talked to God


Did you talk over the phone?  What's the number?  I want to call her up and see if she's free tomorrow night. :)

I am keeping that to myself.  She is hot  :D

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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,06:37   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ Sep. 09 2005,10:56)

I am keeping that to myself.  She is hot  :D

Hey MV, I hear she's got enough "love" for all of us. :p

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,06:52   

Tiny Tim,

In what forum would like me to arrange a debate ay my 100% expense between Dr. Morris and you on geology, hydrology or the correct interpretation of scriptural comment?

Yes turd head I'll pay for it gladly.

Give me the exact textual references to your assertions or stick them up your b___and please stick to the subject which was evidence for a global flood.. red herrings  are logical fallicies.. oops that's you sewer peoples stock in trade.. fallacies and personal attacks.

Go home before you get thumped little boy

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,07:44   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 09 2005,11:37)
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Sep. 09 2005,10:56)

I am keeping that to myself.  She is hot  :D

Hey MV, I hear she's got enough "love" for all of us. :p

I'm greedy.  And I was naturally selected for a conversation.  It might evolve into something more serious.  :D

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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,08:12   

Quote
I'm greedy.  And I was naturally selected for a conversation.  It might evolve into something more serious.  

Hmmm, I can't beat that.  You win.  I'm gonna be ready to swoop in if it doesn't work out though.  I can handle being a rebound. :)

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2005,08:15   

Evo you present a reason your posts should be ignored right from the get-go:

1) The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics....Your open, unreasoned, vitriolic hostility toward anyone, no matter how credible their credentials, work and experience who disagrees the slightest bit with the standard evolutionary dogma is, I asure you,  anathema to the great majority of fair minded, well reasoned Americans.

Your own vitriol, hostility and arrogance, self-congratulatory attitude, elitism, etc are obvious and apparent throughout this thread. You are the prime exemplar of that which you protest and you have been hoisted by your own petard.
By your own definition you are not worthy of consideration.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2005,11:48   

How revealing,

The egomaniacs who make up the evolutionary community are of course primarily interested in demonstrating the superiority of their intellect by whatever means whether friend or foe the name of the game is

I am the master of my fate... blah blah blah

God is a figment of your imagination

Look at me ... I am so smart

I assure you my interest is about the issue at hand and I don't care about having gained anyones approval.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2005,08:19   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 14 2005,16:48)
The egomaniacs who make up the evolutionary community are of course primarily interested in demonstrating the superiority of their intellect by whatever means

Sorry old bean, but you are a tad in error here.  The majority of those supporting evolutionary theory are primarily interested in keeping religion out of science classes and keeping it in religous education classes; and in demonstrating the validity of the Law of Evolution.  Most of them have read their history books, and know that the earth is not flat, the sun does go around the earth, the solar system is not at the center of the universe and the earth was not created in 6 days.

And furthermore, many of them believe in a God of some description, and are members of one of the mainstream religous groups.  It is mainly in America that a minority cult of Christians has a problem with science, and I partly blame the lack of a good educational system for that.

--------------
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. 16 2005,11:10   

PLease enlighten me as to a few people in the ID or IC movement who hold that the earth is flat, etc.

Otherwise I might conclude you are just another clown throwing up meaingless red herrings.

Just waht is the LAW of evolution since its never been described as a such before.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5045
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2005,19:03   

The closest thing to a "law of evolution" that I can think of offhand is simply that a complex organism is descended from previous nearby organisms functionally very similar to itself.

There's also the principle that extensive similarity in nonadaptive features (such as DNA sequences) implies copying from a common source, which would be presumed to be an earlier organism (i.e., an ancestor).

That's my 2 cents on the question; but of course a trained biologist might have other ideas.

Henry

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2005,04:40   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 16 2005,16:10)
PLease enlighten me as to a few people in the ID or IC movement who hold that the earth is flat, etc.

Otherwise I might conclude you are just another clown throwing up meaingless red herrings.

Just waht is the LAW of evolution since its never been described as a such before.

I was merely putting creationism in a historical context - religion usuaally fights science in certain areas, and eventually accepts reality.

Evolution is as close to a Biological Law as gravity is a physical.  It is a Law in the sense that it is accepted as accurate, and no one with valid scientific credentials suggests otherwise.  It is merely that some of the mechanisms are theories.

--------------
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. 20 2005,07:52   

Actually you were shouting nonsense. If you think every one in the ID and IC movement are without scientific credentials then you are totally ignorant and apparently can't even read your own literature.

I suggest a good read of Doubting Darwin might enlighten you to the calliber of people who have grave problems with evolution and particularly mutation and natural selection.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,13:13   

Evopeach wrote:
Quote
I suggest a good read of Doubting Darwin might enlighten you to the calliber of people who have grave problems with evolution and particularly mutation and natural selection.


It isn't about the "calliber" of people, it is about the substance of their claims.  For example, you can have the best sports team on paper, but if they don't win any games, they're obviously not the best team.  Since these people are of such a high "calliber," Where is the research in the scientific journals?  Where is the Theory of Intelligent Design?  How does the non-cultic, intellectual and rational side you're on explain where the "broken" vitamin-C gene in humans and chimpanzees originated?  Coffee on the blueprints?

You're in here demanding to know how helium turned into a human brain.  While someone could sit you down and explain this to you, Richard Dawkins' "Cosmos" series is a start.  I want to know HOW a lump of clay, rib, magic reed, or the urine and excrement of the gods turned into a human brain, you know, like what processes were involved and how the 2nd law of thermodynamics applied.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,04:12   

Saddlehorn,

First I think you meant Carl Sagan not Dawkins but ignorance of your own position is commonplace with your crowd.

What you mean is that someone could spin a just so story totallt fictional without a scintilla of observed or experimentally demonstrated evidence that chemical predestination or some variant is the way it happened.

Of course when one of your team tells us we can't understand the processes at the time of the big bang because all the known laws of math and physics break down at a singularity point.. that's just hunky dory... yet you insist on a detailed explanation of the Creative Processes of God at the beginning of time, space and matter.

Your psychobabble is rather boring.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,05:53   

Yes, I meant Carl Sagan billion.  Thank you for the response, although none of them were answers to any questions.  I answered your question, I'd appreciate it if you'd have answered mine.  Once again you've failed to provide anything that even resembles a response.  Considering that you are undoubtedly using English as a second language, your responses are still incoherent garbage.  

You said you have two engineering degrees, but you don't have a phD in metallurgy do you?  Coming here and making baseless challenges with your level of education would be like me taking an arc welding course at a local community college and proclaiming to know as much as you about engineering.  Are you aware of how stupid you look when you issue "challenges" to evolution an area in which you have ZERO expertise?

I guarantee that you know things I don't know.  I guarantee  that you are knowledgeable about things on which many of the brilliant posters on Panda's Thumb know next to nothing.  But they have the same edge on you, this IS their area of expertise, they aren't some troll schlepp with a Master's degree in engineering, they are scientists.

For an idea as to how bad your English is, this guys writing sounds ALOT like yours are you the same person?

James Randi Challenge Applications

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:11   

Once again your posts are just spittle and dribble from an illogical mind.

First the overlap between most so called science degrees and engineering degrees is about 90% in any college catalog you care to examine. For my part I have more math and physics than 95% of the Biology Phd's in the universe.

You might try examining the credentials of Phillip Johnson  ( a lawyer) which according to  Monod and other honest evolutionists has prepared himself to the 99%th percentile in evolutionary principals.

Of course the idea that only specialists in a narrow field can be knowledgeable and have the right to debate comes from the far left union mentality... I'll bet you're a Gore Man... the most counter-productive mentality in the history of the country.

I suppose that guy Da Vinci should have stuck to one area like painting or architecture and not ventured off into those other fields of science .... what a moron.

Now before you grade my paper .. try thinking of a logical statement instead of form over substance and pure newspeak.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:34   

Ok I am making a logical statement from a Biblical literalists perspective.  I am making a prediction wearing my "Bible glasses" as Ken Ham told me to do.  In the Bible story of the Tower of Babel, people were able to climb up the tower and esentially watch what God was doing several thousand years ago.  If you could do it then, you could do it now.  I predict that we will be able to build a tower into heaven and see what God is doing.

   
  228 replies since July 25 2005,16:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]