Quote:

Your an idiot.

That's one opinion, but I bet he knows how to abbreviate "you are".

Do you treat people in the same manner when face to face?

Lin

Quote:

Quote:

Your an idiot.

That's one opinion, but I bet he knows how to abbreviate "you are".

Do you treat people in the same manner when face to face?

Lin

Which treatment are you referring to? Oh you mean my indignant response to being called a plagiarist? Or any of the other things you have yet to provide hard evidence to?

Actually in the real world I would respond by slapping you with a lawsuit or maybe I'd forgo the lawsuit and have Guido pay you a visit.

"You're" a plagiarist.

Quote:
Actually in the real world I would respond by slapping you with a lawsuit or maybe I'd forgo the lawsuit and have Guido pay you a visit.

A law suit? You're seriously out of the debate at this point. How far can this plane fly on one engine? ...Straight to the scene of the crash.

Let's keep this on track. You don't want to explain red hair? Fine.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually in the real world I would respond by slapping you with a lawsuit or maybe I'd forgo the lawsuit and have Guido pay you a visit.

A law suit? You're seriously out of the debate at this point. How far can this plane fly on one engine? ...Straight to the scene of the crash.

Hey retard this "debate" was never in. Your senseless remarks and empty statements peppered with insults and insanity have rendered this a mud flinging contest. But I suppose you are too dim to see it.

Here's mud in your eye...

Quote:
"You're" a plagiarist.

Proof?

May I remind you of your very first post in this thread.

Quote:
The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible. Creationists believe the bible is the WORD and is to be taken literally. One major problem with taking the bible literally is that it says the earth has 'ends' and 'corners' essentially that the earth is flat.

Creationists are in the process of creating an intellectual underclass for themselves. They are evolving into retards.

Lin

Quote:
May I remind you of your very first post in this thread.

Quote:
The problem with Creationism is that it is based on the bible. Creationists believe the bible is the WORD and is to be taken literally. One major problem with taking the bible literally is that it says the earth has 'ends' and 'corners' essentially that the earth is flat.

Creationists are in the process of creating an intellectual underclass for themselves. They are evolving into retards.

Lin

And your point is?

It seems to me that at this point that post has proved to be quite prophetic. No?

Actually "retards" was an over estimation of their inevitable plight.

At this point I feel "idiots" is a better fit. Don't you agree?

Quote:

Quote:
"You're" a plagiarist.

Proof?

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your

Lin

Quote:

Hey retard this "debate" was never in. Your senseless remarks and empty statements peppered with insults and insanity have rendered this a mud flinging contest. But I suppose you are too dim to see it.

Here's mud in your eye...

My point?
I thought you were talking about yourself in this post.

Lin

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
"You're" a plagiarist.

Proof?

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your

Lin

Now you really have lost it. Even "idiot" is giving you too much credit.

Yo Scott:
You are trying to discuss things with two people who work on belief systems. No amount of proof will satisfy someone who uses belief instead of facts or truth. LS couches his belief system in a refusal to accept facts and proof the greater scientific community agrees on. preistube relies on the Bible for everything.
Both base their beliefs on what they want things to be. Neither can be swayed by anything that doesn't fit their specific beliefs.

Quote:

Quote:

Hey retard this "debate" was never in. Your senseless remarks and empty statements peppered with insults and insanity have rendered this a mud flinging contest. But I suppose you are too dim to see it.

Here's mud in your eye...

My point?
I thought you were talking about yourself in this post.

Lin

Given your limited abilities, that's quite understanable. You'll be fine just try to keep up with what being said and who's saying it.

Actually it's been a long day maybe you should go lay down for a while.

Quote:
Yo Scott:
You are trying to discuss things with two people who work on belief systems. No amount of proof will satisfy someone who uses belief instead of facts or truth. LS couches his belief system in a refusal to accept facts and proof the greater scientific community agrees on. preistube relies on the Bible for everything.
Both base their beliefs on what they want things to be. Neither can be swayed by anything that doesn't fit their specific beliefs.

Thanks man. I know its hard to tell who the real idiot is at this point. (or maybe not)

As I eluded to earlier, I'm just having fun throwing mud. I'm dirty now so why not?

Quote:
...A puppet and a hypocrite idiots both. Why would anyone waste their time?

Alas, I have failed. I have committed the ultimate sin. I have argued with idiots and I have been drawn down to their level. Now that I'm down here in the mud the gloves are coming off. May god have mercy on my soul.

...fricken retards...

Quote:
Yo Scott:
You are trying to discuss things with two people who work on belief systems. No amount of proof will satisfy someone who uses belief instead of facts or truth. LS couches his belief system in a refusal to accept facts and proof the greater scientific community agrees on. preistube relies on the Bible for everything.
Both base their beliefs on what they want things to be. Neither can be swayed by anything that doesn't fit their specific beliefs.

You are missing the point, evolution is a THEORY so it is a belief system also. If it were proven it would no longer be a theory, but holes remain whether you want to believe it or not. Nothing proven by science has made the Bible invalid. I have studied the scientific evidence from both sides. The main reason I was using the Bible earlier was because several people were making false claims about it.
If I erroneously made the claim that Darwin wrote, "if you take a penguin from the Arctic circle to Africa it would turn into an elephant in a year", I would not expect you to actually test it and provide proof when you could easily refute the statement by quoting from Darwin's book.

Lin

Quote:
You are missing the point, evolution is a THEORY so it is a belief system also. If it were proven it would no longer be a theory, but holes remain...

Un-frickin-believable...

Quote:
it's been a long day maybe you should go lay down for a while.

To hell with you. That's what I'm going to do.

Out.

No! You're missing the point. In science the word theory does not mean the same thing it does in religion. In science, theory means it is the best explanation we have according to the facts.
Are you going to tell me the Theory of Relativity is just a belief. If so, the dead people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not dead. You, I and the rest of the world just believe it. What about the Pythagorean Theory? Is that just a belief too? The closest thing in science to a theory as religion uses the word is hypothesis. That's where science starts. To go beyond a hypothesis proof must be provided. Peer review where others do their best to refute both proof and hypothesis is required. If a hypothesis passes these tests only then can it be called a scientific theory.
Study isn't valid when you have your mind made up before you study.

Generally speaking...

There are two types of theories prevalent in this thread. Scientific empirical theories and theories of humanities. In science, a theory is based on empirical testing among other related things like observation. The objective being to discover the underlying reality. Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory in physics and is approached quite differently than Darwin's theory of evolution. Theories in the study of humanities, such as religion, are not based on empirical testing but instead based on philosophical ideas.

In humanities, which include academia study of religion, philosophical theories are based on ideas for which scientific empirical testing cannot find the truth. It is the wrong tool to use.

Scientific theory and humanities theories are completed different and tested differently. They are two different animals. Seems some of you people want to pick and choose when Darwin is philosophical or scientific. The same phenomenon is occurring with Creationism as well. The fact remains that Darwin is subject to the scientific rules of a theory and Creationism is not.

The problem with scientific theories is the demarcation of ideas properly tested and those that are not properly tested. Darwin's Theory of Evolution reached the demarcation period by the time Darwin was forced to publish his 6th edition before he died.

"Study isn't valid when you have your mind made up before you study" is no different than contempt prior to investigation based solely on selective studying and bigotry.

Once again we have another member of the religious intolerance crowd interjecting or foaming at the mouth because somebody believes in God. Because we believe there is a God and you cannot find proof in the fossil record for poor dead Darwin is somehow our fault? Excuse me but our personal beliefs have nothing to do with Darwin's empty paper sack. That is the underlying reality of this thread.

Hey Scott, I'm surprised you missed this evidence to support natural selection...

Quote:
But scientists hope to change that this summer with researchers scouring the Palouse region in hopes of finding more of the giant earthworms. Conservationists also want the Obama administration to protect the worm as an endangered species, even though little research has been done on it.

One Giant Earthworm Links Man to Apes

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090712/D99CK13O0.html

One more try to get you to understand what I'm saying.
You say the greater scientific community agrees on evolution and natural selection right? Which means some scientist don't agree right?
Now lets use the rotation of the planets as an example, does one need to say "the greater scientific community agrees on this"?
No, because it went from a theory (or whatever word you want to use) to indisputable fact.
The greater scientific community does NOT believe in God or creation so evolution is the best theory they have. Using an illustration, when the theory was first developed it was like there were two parallel sets of train tracks and some in the scientific community felt that as time went on and more evidence was found in the fossil record and in the study of living things their track would veer over and join the other tracks. This has not happened, in some areas it may seem to be closer, but in other areas it seems to be further away. There are many aspects of living matter that present a problem for the evolutionary theory, some things needed to happen slowly and others needed to happen quickly, irreducible complexity is a sticking point.
Saying the greater scientific community agrees on something they want to believe in is no proof.
From this side of the debate it is like Yankee fans saying the Yankees are better than the Red Sox and Red Sox fans saying the Red Sox are better than the Yankees.
Earlier in this thread JJ brought up the origin of the primate ear, this is a perfect example, people that believe in natural selection think this proves something, but people that believe in creation can also use this, one ear was created for the wild and the other for more civilized life to be able to enjoy music and many other things.
Scott tried to use bacteria in connection with natural selection, I asked a simple question which he apparently couldn't find a Wiki answer for, he should not feel bad scientists that study bacteria for a living don't have the answer, but what happens when bacteria changes because of the use of antibiotics goes against what natural selection teaches. All fields of human knowledge have changed over the years as wrong ideas and thinking were replaced with proven information. Evolution and natural selection are still in the believed category, they have not been tested and proved like many other things in science. There are still many roadblocks that argue against the theory.

Lin

I'll try one more time.

The problem here is the misundstanding of science and the scientific method.

An idea starts as a hypothesis it is considered a valid hypothesis if it can be tested.

Once it has been tested and passes a number of tests it becomes a theory.

Truth is not part of this process.

Lets take Lin's example of the motion of the planets. This theory is covered by Newtonian Mechanics. This theory has in fact been proven incorrect. But it is still a valuable theory because it still works, up to a point.

If science were concerned about truth scientists would have abandoned Newtonian Mechanics because in the strictest sense it is false.

But again science is more concerned about how things work and whether that knowledge is useful than true.

So I'll say it again:

Science is the search for knowledge.
Philosophy is the search for truth.

The ideas in Creationism cannot be tested so they will never rise beyond ideas from a scientific perspective. Creationism fits better in the Philosophy camp because truth is closer to what Creationists want.

The ideas in Darwinism can and have been tested so Darwinism has risen from hypothesis to theory. Can it be proven false? Yes. Has it been proven false? It has some serious problems, but it has not been proven incorrect(yet). Go ahead give it your best shot. Science won't mind. But even if you do Science may still use aspects of it that are useful.

Turning your back on useful information just because it conflicts with your philosophy is illogical and potentially dangerous.

If you get caught-up in truth you miss the point, at least scientifically.

Very nice. You get a cookie. See what a good night sleep will get you?

Quote:
One more try to get you to understand what I'm saying.
You say the greater scientific community agrees on evolution and natural selection right? Which means some scientist don't agree right? MOST SCIENTISTS THINK VACCINATIONS PREVENT DISEASES. WOULD YOU PRESUME TO AUTOMATICALLY AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING MINORITY?
Now lets use the rotation of the planets as an example, does one need to say "the greater scientific community agrees on this"?
No, because it went from a theory (or whatever word you want to use) to indisputable fact.
LIN, THIS IS SUCH AN EGREGIOUS ERROR THAT NOW WE KNOW YOU ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEORY MEANS IN SCIENCE, DO YOU? A THEORY IS COMPREHENSIVE AS IT GETS! THERE ARE THEORIES OF GRAVITY, OF ELECTRICITY, ETC - THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE ILLUSIONS. EVOLUTION IS AS RICHLY SUPPORTED AS ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN THE WORLD.
YES, LIKE EVERY THEORY, THERE ARE SOME THAT TAKE ISSUE WITH ASPECTS. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE ADVANCES. IF SOMEONE SHOWS EVIDENCE THAT ANOTHER APPROACH OR MECHANISM IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR SOME ASPECT OF EVOLUTION, AND OTHERS CAN VERIFY THAT, THEN GREAT, THE THEORY "EVOLVES". LIKE EVERY OTHER THEORY. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT DARWIN, OR ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, ANY MORE THAN ELECTRICITY IS SIMPLY A "BELIEF" IN BEN FRANKLIN OR THOMAS EDISON.

The greater scientific community does NOT believe in God or creation so evolution is the best theory they have. SCIENTISTS LOOK FOR EXPLANATIONS. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY "BELIEVE" OR NOT IN GOD OR CREATION.
(I HOPE YOU KNOW THAT JUST SAYING "GOD DID IT BY MAGIC GOD POWER" IS NOT AN EXPLANATION.)
There are many aspects of living matter that present a problem for the evolutionary theory, some things needed to happen slowly and others needed to happen quickly, irreducible complexity is a sticking point. TO THE EXTENT THAT EVERY THEORY IN THE WORLD CONTINUALLY SEEKS MORE EVIDENCE AND DEVELOPMENT, YES, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SEEKS CONTINUED BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF LIVING THINGS. JUST LIKE OCEANOGRAPHERS STILL GO OUT IN BOATS, AND ASTRONOMERS ARE STILL STUDYING THE GALAXIES.
"IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" WAS A DECENT TRY, BUT IS NOT A STICKING POINT. THE OFT-USED EXAMPLE OF THE EYE IS ACTUALLY A GREAT EXAMPLE IN SUPPORT OF NATURAL SELECTION (LIGHT-SENSITIVE SPOTS PROVING TO HAVE SURVIVAL ADVANTAGES AND THUS WERE SELECTED FOR, EVOLVING OVER GREAT PERIODS OF TIME).
Saying the greater scientific community agrees on something they want to believe in is no proof. THEY AGREE BASED ON EVIDENCE, NOT BECAUSE THEY "WANT" TO BELIEVE. JEEZ. PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE WANTED TO BELIEVE IN A FLAT EARTH; WHEN IT WAS DEMONSTRATED OTHERWISE, PEOPLE EVENTUALLY ACCEPTED THAT WHETHER THEY "WANTED" TO OR NOT.
From this side of the debate it is like Yankee fans saying the Yankees are better than the Red Sox and Red Sox fans saying the Red Sox are better than the Yankees. NOPE. SCIENCE WOULD DEFINE THE QUESTION; PROPOSE A HYPOTHESIS (FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE BETTER TEAM WILL HAVE A HIGHER WINNING PERCENTAGE IN THE 2008 SEASON; AND WOULD THEN MEASURE AND PRESENT ITS CONCLUSIONS.
THE "DISSENTERS" MIGHT SAY THAT YOU CAN'T MEASURE JUST 1 SEASON, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE AVERAGE OF 25 SEASONS. AND THEY PRESENT CONCLUSIONS - GRADUALLY THE FINDINGS OF MANY HYPOTHESES MIGHT COALESCE INTO A WELL SUPPORTED THEORY - BUT ONLY IF ALL THE FINDINGS CLEARLY CONVERGE IN COMMON SUPPORT.
...All fields of human knowledge have changed over the years as wrong ideas and thinking were replaced with proven information. YEP, THAT'S SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. OLD "WISDOM" FROM THE ELDERS MUST BE EXAMINED TO SEE IF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT OR NOT - YOU DON'T JUST ACCEPT WHAT SOMEONE WROTE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, BECAUSE WE HAVE LEARNED SOME THINGS SINCE THEN.
Evolution and natural selection are still in the believed category FACTUALLY WRONG! they have not been tested and proved like many other things in science. YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG, THEY ARE SOUNDLY, THOROUGHLY TESTED AND WELL SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
There are still many roadblocks that argue against the theory. SOMEONE TOLD YOU TO BELIEVE THIS, I GUESS, BUT YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

BillB, you have shown just how stupid a person can get on the Internet. Not only did you post within a quote, which isn't your quote, and intermingled your own bullshit, you have to lose your temper by using caps. I thought we moved beyond the religious discrimination. This thread was resolved in case you haven't noticed. But of course you didn't notice. You're too busy foaming at the mouth for shit everybody else moved on from.

I recommend you "read" this thread from your last post before tonight and start over, edit your thread above to set the record straight, and then shut the fuck up and go out and give some blow job at the nearest public restroom, which is probably down the hall at the public library you're currently reading this.

As originally posted by the ignoramus known as Billy Blowjob aka BillB:

Quote:
One more try to get you to understand what I'm saying.
You say the greater scientific community agrees on evolution and natural selection right? Which means some scientist don't agree right? MOST SCIENTISTS THINK VACCINATIONS PREVENT DISEASES. WOULD YOU PRESUME TO AUTOMATICALLY AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING MINORITY?
Now lets use the rotation of the planets as an example, does one need to say "the greater scientific community agrees on this"?
No, because it went from a theory (or whatever word you want to use) to indisputable fact.
LIN, THIS IS SUCH AN EGREGIOUS ERROR THAT NOW WE KNOW YOU ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEORY MEANS IN SCIENCE, DO YOU? A THEORY IS COMPREHENSIVE AS IT GETS! THERE ARE THEORIES OF GRAVITY, OF ELECTRICITY, ETC - THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE ILLUSIONS. EVOLUTION IS AS RICHLY SUPPORTED AS ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN THE WORLD.
YES, LIKE EVERY THEORY, THERE ARE SOME THAT TAKE ISSUE WITH ASPECTS. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE ADVANCES. IF SOMEONE SHOWS EVIDENCE THAT ANOTHER APPROACH OR MECHANISM IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR SOME ASPECT OF EVOLUTION, AND OTHERS CAN VERIFY THAT, THEN GREAT, THE THEORY "EVOLVES". LIKE EVERY OTHER THEORY. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT DARWIN, OR ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, ANY MORE THAN ELECTRICITY IS SIMPLY A "BELIEF" IN BEN FRANKLIN OR THOMAS EDISON.

The greater scientific community does NOT believe in God or creation so evolution is the best theory they have. SCIENTISTS LOOK FOR EXPLANATIONS. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY "BELIEVE" OR NOT IN GOD OR CREATION.
(I HOPE YOU KNOW THAT JUST SAYING "GOD DID IT BY MAGIC GOD POWER" IS NOT AN EXPLANATION.)
There are many aspects of living matter that present a problem for the evolutionary theory, some things needed to happen slowly and others needed to happen quickly, irreducible complexity is a sticking point. TO THE EXTENT THAT EVERY THEORY IN THE WORLD CONTINUALLY SEEKS MORE EVIDENCE AND DEVELOPMENT, YES, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SEEKS CONTINUED BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF LIVING THINGS. JUST LIKE OCEANOGRAPHERS STILL GO OUT IN BOATS, AND ASTRONOMERS ARE STILL STUDYING THE GALAXIES.
"IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" WAS A DECENT TRY, BUT IS NOT A STICKING POINT. THE OFT-USED EXAMPLE OF THE EYE IS ACTUALLY A GREAT EXAMPLE IN SUPPORT OF NATURAL SELECTION (LIGHT-SENSITIVE SPOTS PROVING TO HAVE SURVIVAL ADVANTAGES AND THUS WERE SELECTED FOR, EVOLVING OVER GREAT PERIODS OF TIME).
Saying the greater scientific community agrees on something they want to believe in is no proof. THEY AGREE BASED ON EVIDENCE, NOT BECAUSE THEY "WANT" TO BELIEVE. JEEZ. PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE WANTED TO BELIEVE IN A FLAT EARTH; WHEN IT WAS DEMONSTRATED OTHERWISE, PEOPLE EVENTUALLY ACCEPTED THAT WHETHER THEY "WANTED" TO OR NOT.
From this side of the debate it is like Yankee fans saying the Yankees are better than the Red Sox and Red Sox fans saying the Red Sox are better than the Yankees. NOPE. SCIENCE WOULD DEFINE THE QUESTION; PROPOSE A HYPOTHESIS (FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE BETTER TEAM WILL HAVE A HIGHER WINNING PERCENTAGE IN THE 2008 SEASON; AND WOULD THEN MEASURE AND PRESENT ITS CONCLUSIONS.
THE "DISSENTERS" MIGHT SAY THAT YOU CAN'T MEASURE JUST 1 SEASON, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE AVERAGE OF 25 SEASONS. AND THEY PRESENT CONCLUSIONS - GRADUALLY THE FINDINGS OF MANY HYPOTHESES MIGHT COALESCE INTO A WELL SUPPORTED THEORY - BUT ONLY IF ALL THE FINDINGS CLEARLY CONVERGE IN COMMON SUPPORT.
...All fields of human knowledge have changed over the years as wrong ideas and thinking were replaced with proven information. YEP, THAT'S SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. OLD "WISDOM" FROM THE ELDERS MUST BE EXAMINED TO SEE IF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT OR NOT - YOU DON'T JUST ACCEPT WHAT SOMEONE WROTE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, BECAUSE WE HAVE LEARNED SOME THINGS SINCE THEN.
Evolution and natural selection are still in the believed category FACTUALLY WRONG! they have not been tested and proved like many other things in science. YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG, THEY ARE SOUNDLY, THOROUGHLY TESTED AND WELL SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
There are still many roadblocks that argue against the theory. SOMEONE TOLD YOU TO BELIEVE THIS, I GUESS, BUT YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

Just for the record...

Quote:
BillB
One more try to get you to understand what I'm saying.
You say the greater scientific community agrees on evolution and natural selection right? Which means some scientist don't agree right? MOST SCIENTISTS THINK VACCINATIONS PREVENT DISEASES. WOULD YOU PRESUME TO AUTOMATICALLY AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING MINORITY?
Now lets use the rotation of the planets as an example, does one need to say "the greater scientific community agrees on this"?
No, because it went from a theory (or whatever word you want to use) to indisputable fact.
LIN, THIS IS SUCH AN EGREGIOUS ERROR THAT NOW WE KNOW YOU ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEORY MEANS IN SCIENCE, DO YOU? A THEORY IS COMPREHENSIVE AS IT GETS! THERE ARE THEORIES OF GRAVITY, OF ELECTRICITY, ETC - THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE ILLUSIONS. EVOLUTION IS AS RICHLY SUPPORTED AS ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN THE WORLD.
YES, LIKE EVERY THEORY, THERE ARE SOME THAT TAKE ISSUE WITH ASPECTS. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE ADVANCES. IF SOMEONE SHOWS EVIDENCE THAT ANOTHER APPROACH OR MECHANISM IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR SOME ASPECT OF EVOLUTION, AND OTHERS CAN VERIFY THAT, THEN GREAT, THE THEORY "EVOLVES". LIKE EVERY OTHER THEORY. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT DARWIN, OR ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, ANY MORE THAN ELECTRICITY IS SIMPLY A "BELIEF" IN BEN FRANKLIN OR THOMAS EDISON.

LS:
Would you please indicate just where in the quote above is any religious discrimination?

Well, that went flew right onto the pure 'j' axis, didn't it?

I don't understand how reasonable people can disagree on the subject of evolution, unless they've been relentlessly lied to by someone about the facts.

At this point, denying evolution is a lot like denying the existance of a universe external to your own conciousness.

Those who rely on belief based systems routinely reject any fact that refutes any part of their beliefs.

Quote:
... Study isn't valid when you have your mind made up before you study.

Amen!

Quote:
At this point, denying evolution is a lot like denying the existance of a universe external to your own conciousness.