Quote:
A person strongly espousing creationism of any sort, one who claims to be informed, is either not informed, or is simply attempting to pass off religion as science.

That is exactly what people are doing with Darwin on this thread. Arguing for his theory in the same manner they argue against creationism. They bring themselves, such as yourself, to the level of fiction. To you the Bible is fiction. That's fine and not a problem. But to argue for Darwin using the methodology to argue against fiction is not empirically testing Darwin. It's not thinking. It's complying.

Darwin is science (found taught in the science dept.)
Religion is a set of beliefs (found taught in the humanities dept.)
Girls have vaginas (The beginning of an empirical test at an early age and the biggest humanities troublemaker)
Boys have penises (Doesn't think and is in total compliance with vaginas)

Can I make it any easier?

If science wasn't a search for the truth as well as proof than what is the point of forensic science? Forensic science, which wasn't around during Darwin, but indirectly used, nevertheless to argue against Darwin, is the Darwinite's worse nightmare. There has been a lot of skirting around the geological record that plagued Darwin even when he was alive. Still nothing. 11 fucking pages of philosophical bullshit from the Darwinites. Is that what Darwin has become? Philosophy? If so, than perhaps the class should be transferred from science to humanities and lets put this dead elephant in the room, that can only be linked to the dead elephant before it, finally to rest. *spit*

"Meanwhile, Jesus and Darwin were fighting again"

Quote:
But to argue for Darwin using the methodology to argue against fiction is not empirically testing Darwin. It's not thinking.

Ok, let's talk about Darwin, oh, say, and the origin of the primate ear.

Wanna talk testable, verifiable stuff, now?

Quote:

Quote:
But to argue for Darwin using the methodology to argue against fiction is not empirically testing Darwin. It's not thinking.

Ok, let's talk about Darwin, oh, say, and the origin of the primate ear.

Wanna talk testable, verifiable stuff, now?

You believe this is evidence for evolution because you want to believe in evolution.

I believe this is evidence for creation because (I have found enough internal and external evidence in the Bible to believe it is more than just a book written by men) I believe in the Bible's creation account.

I give Scott G a pass on the "retard" thing because he is young and hopefully will someday grow in understanding.

JJ on his first post in this thread uses the unwise trump card, if you are educated (smart) you believe in evolution and you are therefore uneducated (dumb) if you believe in creation.
JJ is so intelligent in his own eyes that the way he perceives things is the right and only way. (see above quote)

Lin

PS I could care less what is taught in schools on this topic. A well rounded education involves more than just going to school.

Good points, All.

All directed and hypothesized conditionals are not immediately dismissible, neither creation, some variation on that theme, nor is evolutionary theory perfect.

Suffice it to say that both religion and science can and have, at times, become dogma. The masses, one and all, prefer mommy's comfort over that of human thought. This, at the deepest level where thoughts take shape. The hindbrain rules all. Unless you take note of that and attempt to keep watch on it, that is. The mind is always pushing you twice as hard as gravity and three times as constant to accept emotional comforts over that of logic, as that is the prime directive - reproduction and safety. Pleasure, etc. Thoughts are literally formed in this well of autonomic control and are permanently colored, no matter how logical we may think we are.

On to the story.

More interesting, are the Gnostic texts. For the larger part they produce the 'middle ground' between Western Christian Religion and science. These are the critical bits that were forcibly removed from Christianity over the past 2000 years (as the modern version of Christianity developed) and most notably wiped during the two councils of Nicaea.

Science can suffer from the same dogmatic and 'elitist' semi-hidden hand of 'wiping', wiping that is purposely designed to fit the denigration of logic that the hindbrain attempts to fit onto all logical rumination. In the case of science, it can be technology that leads to greater illumination that is wiped clean (erased) as opposed to the Gnostic texts which lead to greater illumination (And is therefore erased).

A recently found example for the science crew to chew on, one that is finally coming back, but more interesting..is it's origins:

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/2,330369_Benzyna_z_dwutlenku_wegla_to_nie_science_fiction.html

Google translation:http://translate.google.ca/translate?u=h...en&ie=UTF-8

This is a polish derived technology that is now suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, appearing on the scene. In case the story disappears, it is one of using a very high level Deep Ultraviolet, and most specifically -water- and a catalyst... to form a very inexpensive methanol fuel, directly from....wait for it... ..Carbon Dioxide.

Basically, it is electrostatic resonant vortex mechanics, which is the literal heart and soul of Maxwell's full equations (the 20 equations in 20 unknowns).

Well, oddly enough....the story goes that this area of Poland is the very area that the Germans had a giant plant for producing fissionable materials for a given purpose, if you know what I mean. In the same geographical area and production plants(the plant used enough electrical power to fire up two Berlins, or more), they found a photosynthetic method of creating the materials to the enriched state they required. Centrifuges no longer required. Dead simple, done.

Well, according to the stories and actual records (they are and were there, if you go looking for them-instead of looking at the purposely designed to self satisfy 'pap' you've been fed for over 60 years), when the wall fell, much of that material that was under control for all those years..suddenly - was not. Dumped into the streets, as it were. For the intrepid to read and discover and innovate from.

Basically, all the papers and technology that was hidden within-was now unknowingly cast loose. This, as no-one knew the contents of the papers, merely that it was not for public consumption.

This aspect of alteration of materials, ie transmutation, as it were, is pure alchemy. It is that Maxwellian thing I speak of, the kind that ignores Einstein, and the Lorentz and Heaviside fabrications.

I do believe that this story is 100% true, but that it's origins lie in 'found' ideas from older science, science that went underground about 65 years back.

The thing for YOU to do, is to read it, understand it and then sit back and wait to see how long it takes for all involved to disappear, die, the persons involved be threatened and/or killed, to have the story be ignored, reviled, falsified, denigrated or all of the above. This is your chance to watch purposeful maligning and destruction of such things -first hand. I've watched it happen at least 50 times, as I search out such seeming anomalies all the time. Keep track of it, and watch it die a controlled and purposeful death. Death from a hidden hand.

Religion and science have both suffered from this over the years. What we are left with is utter pap, in both cases.

Quote:
You believe this is evidence for evolution because you want to believe in evolution.

I believe this is evidence for creation because (I have found enough internal and external evidence in the Bible to believe it is more than just a book written by men) I believe in the Bible's creation account.

This belief has no practicality when it comes to disease and infection. Where will you go when an accident happens? Will you take your loved ones to church or the hospital?

Believe whatever you want but at some point you will trust Darwin, or at least the doctors that studied Darwin's theories.

For me it's not a question of belief its a question of practicality.

The ear? tee hee! Okay, lets start with ears. The evolution of the ear.

Allison Reynolds: I'll do anything sexual. I don't need a million dollars to do it either.

Claire Standish: You're lying.

Allison Reynolds: I already have. I've done just about everything there is except a few things that are illegal. I'm a nymphomaniac.

Claire Standish: Lie.

Brian Johnson: Are your parents aware of this?

Allison Reynolds: The only person I told was my shrink.

Andrew Clark: And what did he do when you told him?

Allison Reynolds: He nailed me.

Claire Standish: Very nice.

Allison Reynolds: I don't think that from a legal standpoint what he did can be construed as rape, since I paid him.

Claire Standish: He's an adult.

Allison Reynolds: Yeah, he's married too.

Claire Standish: Do you have any idea how completely gross that is?

Allison Reynolds: Well, the first few times...

Claire Standish: The first few times? You mean you did it more than once?

Allison Reynolds: Sure.

Claire Standish: Are you crazy?

Brian Johnson: Obviously she's crazy if she's screwing a shrink.

Allison Reynolds: Have you ever done it?

Claire Standish: I don't even have a psychiatrist.

Allison Reynolds: Have you ever done it with a normal person?

Claire Standish: Didn't we already cover this?

John Bender: You never answered the question.

Claire Standish: Look, I'm not going to discuss my private life with total strangers.

Allison Reynolds: It's kind of a double edged sword isn't it?

Claire Standish: A what?

Allison Reynolds: Well, if you say you haven't, you're a prude. If you say you have you're a slut. It's a trap. You want to but you can't, and when you do you wish you didn't, right?

Claire Standish: Wrong.

Allison Reynolds: Or are you a tease?

Andrew Clark: She's a tease.

Claire Standish: I'm sure. Why don't you just forget it.

Andrew Clark: Oh, you're a tease and you know it. All girls are teases.

John Bender: She's only a tease if what she does gets you hot.

Claire Standish: I don't do anything.

Allison Reynolds: That's why you're a tease.

Claire Standish: OK, let me ask you a few questions.

Allison Reynolds: I already told you everything.

Claire Standish: No. Doesn't it bother you to sleep around without being in love. I mean, don't you want any respect?

Allison Reynolds: I don't screw to get respect. That's the difference between you and me.

Claire Standish: It's not the only difference I hope.

John Bender: Face it, you're a tease.

Claire Standish: I'm NOT a tease.

John Bender: Sure you are. Sex is your weapon. You said it yourself. You use it to get respect.

Claire Standish: No, I never said that she twisted my words around.

John Bender: What do you use it for then?

Claire Standish: I don't use it period.

John Bender: Oh, are you medically frigid or is it psychological?

Claire Standish: I didn't mean it that way. You guys are putting words into my mouth.

John Bender: Well, if you'd just answer the question.

Brian Johnson: Why don't you just answer the question?

Andrew Clark: Be honest.

John Bender: No big deal.

Brian Johnson: Yeah answer it.

Andrew Clark: Answer the question, Claire.

John Bender: Talk to us. Every one: C'mon, answer the question. Come on. Answer it.

John Bender: C'mon, it's easy. It's only one question.

Claire Standish: NO I NEVER DID IT.

Allison Reynolds: I never did it either. I'm not a nymphomaniac. I'm a compulsive liar.

Quote:
If science wasn't a search for the truth as well as proof than what is the point of forensic science?

Evidence. What you do with it is up to you.

You continue to be so caught-up with your own quest for truth that it has clouded your perspective to the point of virtual blindness.

Just because you want to find truth in these things does not mean you will.

You've gone from trying to disprove "C"reationism, to unsuccessfully defending Darwin, to analyzing ego defense mechanisms (incorrectly). And all I asked for was evidence in the fossil record.

Question: Dear Mentor, my daughter started going to college this year, and she

Interestingly enough, the origins of the American Archeological Society (full of Freemasons) was to go around in America, when alerted to great finds in very old sites, incredibly ancient sites...was to eradicate them in totality, in order to preserve the myth. To kill both science and religious questioning, as it were-in one fell swoop.

Look for the evidence of such on the net. You will find it. There are records from the 1800's that speak of this in a very clear manner.

Power and control has always been maintained via the stability and effectiveness of ignorance in the masses. The psychology of man allows for it, quite effectively. This is quite humorous to some, as you might imagine. Thus the effective line, 'hoisted by his own petard'. (origin -French, 1600's)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard

Quote:
There has been a lot of skirting around the geological record that plagued Darwin even when he was alive. Still nothing. 11 fucking pages of philosophical bullshit from the Darwinites. Is that what Darwin has become? Philosophy?

List of transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

How many more do you need?

Quote:
I give Scott G a pass on the "retard" thing because he is young and hopefully will someday grow in understanding.

Retard...

Quote:
You've gone from trying to disprove "C"reationism, to unsuccessfully defending Darwin, to analyzing ego defense mechanisms (incorrectly). And all I asked for was evidence in the fossil record.

List of transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

How many more do you need?

Did you not read the disclaimer. Can you find something a little better than Wikipedia.

Quote:
his is a very tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived life-forms to which it is related). An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms. See the article on transitional fossils for an explanation of the difference with intermediate forms. Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

Quote:
I would like to see transitional fossils that make up a complete species. Seems a far reach taking fossils and building a case as a transitional fossil when in fact it is not the complete species.

Quote:
Complete Revamping

This page is in great need of additions and reformatting to make it a lot nicer looking. I have come with a proposal for a complete revamping of this page.

1. Cut out the limit to vertebrate evolutionary chains.
2. Open the content range to include all evolutionary series at any taxonomic level.
3. Use of tables to display the series.

Quote:
"Since all species are supposed to be in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception." Yup. Basically there's no such thing as a "transitional fossil" Also, all fossils are of complete organic systems perfect (in a manner of speaking) in thier individual moment. Also aside from simmiltude of appearance what proof is there that links one to the other in all the species listed? Are they each well documented and cited?

Quote:
The images for this page should really be of the fossils themselves, rather than the reconstructions

Quote:
Its skull is, uh, kinda frog-like?

Quote:
Other stuff I can't think of.

Is that the best you can do? If you are trying to refute this evidence, you have failed miserably. I suggest you reread the entire text.

The bible was written for people like you:

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

Jeremiah 5:21
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

Quote:
Look for the evidence of such on the net.

Some of you need to get out of the house.

There you go again with compare and contrast with the Bible and I"m stating there is not evidence in the fossil record to support Darwin. Nice drawings. In fact, it is a nice science fair project. For a kid.

Quote:
Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.

This whole page is based solely on the opinion that natural selection is a fact. This has not been proven. Natural selection likes to compare modern humans with apes. We look a little like apes. But there is nothing in the fossil records that connect Homo Sapians with apes. In fact there is nothing in the fossil record that connects apes with modern humans. In fact, the fossil record for any species ends with their extinction. There are no transformation evidence and there are no intermediate evidence in the fossil record. a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. Thus, some of your people drifting away from science [Darwin] into a set of beliefs [religion]. This is why I keep pushing that you can't have it both ways.

Quote:
I'm stating there is not evidence in the fossil record to support Darwin.

Are you blind or do you just refuse to see?

Your science fair project on Wiki? Yeah, I see it. You get a "C". Check the discussion tab.

Quote:
This whole page is based solely on the opinion that natural selection is a fact. This has not been proven. Natural selection likes to compare modern humans with apes. We look a little like apes. But there is nothing in the fossil records that connect Homo Sapians with apes. In fact there is nothing in the fossil record that connects apes with modern humans. In fact, the fossil record for any species ends with their extinction. There are no transformation evidence and there are no intermediate evidence in the fossil record. a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. Thus, some of your people drifting away from science [Darwin] into a set of beliefs [religion]. This is why I keep pushing that you can't have it both ways.

Quote:

Believe whatever you want but at some point you will trust Darwin, or at least the doctors that studied Darwin's theories.

To imply that there would be no medical advances without Darwin's theories is ludicrous.
Science is many things it is not just Darwin, it existed before Darwin's theory and will exist long after.

In case you misunderstood, I did not mean "understanding" in the sense you would come to agree with anything people "on the other side of the fence" believe, but that you would come to understand that you don't know all there is to know and that you should show some respect for others that you really don't know at all.

Lin

Quote:
There you go again with compare and contrast with the Bible and I"m stating there is not evidence in the fossil record to support Darwin. Nice drawings. In fact, it is a nice science fair project. For a kid.

Quote:
Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.

This whole page is based solely on the opinion that natural selection is a fact. This has not been proven. Natural selection likes to compare modern humans with apes. We look a little like apes. But there is nothing in the fossil records that connect Homo Sapians with apes. In fact there is nothing in the fossil record that connects apes with modern humans. In fact, the fossil record for any species ends with their extinction. There are no transformation evidence and there are no intermediate evidence in the fossil record. a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. Thus, some of your people drifting away from science [Darwin] into a set of beliefs [religion]. This is why I keep pushing that you can't have it both ways.

Typical Creationist crap. Take whatever you believe and try to fit the evidence to support it. You missed the sentence following the quote above:

"The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase."

You are nit picking because your "beliefs" are in jeopardy.

Quote:
In fact, it is a nice science fair project. For a kid.

Argumentum ad hominem is the last shelter of a cornered demagogue...

Quote:

Quote:

Believe whatever you want but at some point you will trust Darwin, or at least the doctors that studied Darwin's theories.

To imply that there would be no medical advances without Darwin's theories is ludicrous.
Science is many things it is not just Darwin, it existed before Darwin's theory and will exist long after.

In case you misunderstood, I did not mean "understanding" in the sense you would come to agree with anything people "on the other side of the fence" believe, but that you would come to understand that you don't know all there is to know and that you should show some respect for others that you really don't know at all.

Lin

Recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

So, is it natural selection or is it creationism? Does it matter weather one or the other is true? What matters is that we understand what is happening so that we can take steps to deal with the issue. In this case evolution theory can help us and creationism cannot.

Which would you rather have your doctor rely on when he is making a treatment choice for you?

Come-on, answer the question.

Quote:
Recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

Interesting. Explain.

Quote:

Quote:
Recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

Interesting. Explain.

Do your own homework:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance

Now answer the question...

Quote:
This whole page is based solely on the opinion that natural selection is a fact. This has not been proven.

Incorrect. It is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Specifically natural selection. And, unless you can come-up with TESTABLE evidence that refutes this, then all you are left with is rhetorical tautology.

"Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief: your noble son is mad: Mad call I it; for, to define true madness, What is't but to be nothing else but mad?"

-- William Shakespeare

Quote:
Your science fair project on Wiki? Yeah, I see it. You get a "C". Check the discussion tab.

Add something useful to that tab if you have it.

You have been given some evidence. It does support the theory of evolution.

Is it proof no. Does it make it truth no. Who ever said it would. Do I need to teach you about science again? As a puppet do you have the ability to understand the scientific method?

You've got me quoting again. Now you're in real trouble.

Quote:

Quote:
Recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

Interesting. Explain.

I'm afraid he can't because he doesn't know anything about bacteria and how it differs from other living things with more complex cell structures.
He doesn't know that it has been discovered that some types bacteria can be exposed to only one antibiotic and then develop resistance to multiple forms of antibiotics, both natural and synthetic.
Does natural selection explain this?

Lin

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

Interesting. Explain.

I'm afraid he can't because he doesn't know anything about bacteria and how it differs from other living things with more complex cell structures.
He doesn't know that it has been discovered that some types bacteria can be exposed to only one antibiotic and then develop resistance to multiple forms of antibiotics, both natural and synthetic.

Does natural selection explain this?

Lin

Which would you rather have your doctor rely on when he is making a treatment choice for you?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

Quote:

Quote:
Which would you rather have your doctor rely on when he is making a treatment choice for you?

Answer the question.

Your question is really very stupid because you are making the assumption that medical research would not have advanced without Darwin.
WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
Anybody should be able to understand that if an antibiotic used to kill a type of bacteria no longer works something has changed. A skilled scientist will then try and figure out WHY it has changed. No need for previous knowledge of the THEORY of natural selection.

Now to answer your question and make you happy.
I would rather have lived 200 years ago with knowledge of and faith in God and with the medical knowledge of the time, than to live with today's medical knowledge (with or without the help of Darwin's theories- see above) and not know or have faith in God.

Lin

Quote:

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

No need to answer my question it was rhetorical.
I'm just scratching the surface of what seems to be evidence (not theories) that supports creation more than evolution.

Lin

Quote:

Quote:
recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

So, is it natural selection or is it creationism? Does it matter weather one or the other is true? What matters is that we understand what is happening so that we can take steps to deal with the issue. In this case evolution theory can help us and creationism cannot.

Which would you rather have your doctor rely on when he is making a treatment choice for you?

I would rather have lived 200 years ago with knowledge of and faith in God and with the medical knowledge of the time, than to live with today's medical knowledge (with or without the help of and not know or have faith in God.

However you may still end-up in the hospital today (god forbid). And when you are you WILL put your life in the hands of doctors that have studied Darwin and THEY WILL make treatment choices for you.

All your answer shows is that you would rather be ignorant and dead than alive or that you are incapable of honesty and integrity.

You have avoided the substance of the question. Is this what they teach in seminary class: avoid questions that test your faith?

How can this attitude further science and any technologies that may benefit man?

Quote:
You are just like the Jews in the 1st century, they expected Jesus to fulfill their desires instead of taking the time to find out why things took place as they did.

Remember this statement aimed at me? It seems to me this is really you. Aren't you being a bit hypiocritical now?

"This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

-- William Shakespeare

Wikipedia again? Your answer to natural selection is based on a Wiki article on bacteria resistant antibiotics?

Don't move! Answer my question or your question gets it!

Now you're into whether or not your pilot just smoked a joint or had a drink?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

So, is it natural selection or is it creationism? Does it matter weather one or the other is true? What matters is that we understand what is happening so that we can take steps to deal with the issue. In this case evolution theory can help us and creationism cannot.

Which would you rather have your doctor rely on when he is making a treatment choice for you?

I would rather have lived 200 years ago with knowledge of and faith in God and with the medical knowledge of the time, than to live with today's medical knowledge (with or without the help of and not know or have faith in God.

However you may still end-up in the hospital today (god forbid). And when you are you WILL put your live in the hands of doctors that have studied Darwin and WILL make treatment choices for you.

All your answer shows is that you would rather be ignorant and dead than alive or that you are incapable of honesty and integrity.

Quote:
You are just like the Jews in the 1st century, they expected Jesus to fulfill their desires instead of taking the time to find out why things took place as they did.

Remember this statement aimed at me? It seems to me this is really you. Aren't you being a bit hypiocritical now?

"This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

-- William Shakespeare

Notice how scottgardner has edited the first quote from me above and used one of my quotes from several pages back out of context to try and accuse me of being dishonest, of not having integrity and being hypocritical, to fit his agenda rather than proving how the THEORY of natural selection has changed medical science.

Lin

Scott has been plagiarizing and quoting out of context since the beginning. Things a public school student needs to graduate.

Scott, get your step-father on here.

Quote:

Mark Twain said it best about believing everything you read with asking yourself who benifits...

Quote:
It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people--who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations--do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies.

Just change newspaper to internet.

Lin

Quote:
Scott has been plagiarizing and quoting out of context since the beginning. Things a public school student needs to graduate.

Good point Mr. Sanford.

Quote:

Quote:

Mark Twain said it best about believing everything you read with asking yourself who benifits...

Quote:
It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people--who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations-- do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies.

Just change newspaper to internet.

Lin

Read your own quote again and pay particular attention to whats bold.

It is you two idiots that that are caught-up in belief, who are unwilling (or unable) to think for yourselves. Instead of looking at the evidence and posing testable alternates you ramble on in your twisted excuses for logic.

It's no wonder your poor excuse for a reasonable explanation of things is adopted only by retards.

Quote:
Wikipedia again? Your answer to natural selection is based on a Wiki article on bacteria resistant antibiotics?

Don't move! Answer my question or your question gets it!

Now your into whether or not your pilot just smoked a joint or had a drink?

You avoid the question again. Coward. Its a simple question. One that tests you on many levels. Since you will likely fail on all of them you do what you always do; fall back to idiotic remarks. You may run from me but one day you WILL answer this question. When you do you will see yourself for what you really are.

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:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.

So, is it natural selection or is it creationism? Does it matter weather one or the other is true? What matters is that we understand what is happening so that we can take steps to deal with the issue. In this case evolution theory can help us and creationism cannot.

Which would you rather have your doctor rely on when he is making a treatment choice for you?

I would rather have lived 200 years ago with knowledge of and faith in God and with the medical knowledge of the time, than to live with today's medical knowledge (with or without the help of and not know or have faith in God.

However you may still end-up in the hospital today (god forbid). And when you are you WILL put your live in the hands of doctors that have studied Darwin and WILL make treatment choices for you.

All your answer shows is that you would rather be ignorant and dead than alive or that you are incapable of honesty and integrity.

Quote:
You are just like the Jews in the 1st century, they expected Jesus to fulfill their desires instead of taking the time to find out why things took place as they did.

Remember this statement aimed at me? It seems to me this is really you. Aren't you being a bit hypiocritical now?

"This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

-- William Shakespeare

Notice how scottgardner has edited the first quote from me above and used one of my quotes from several pages back out of context to try and accuse me of being dishonest, of not having integrity and being hypocritical, to fit his agenda rather than proving how the THEORY of natural selection has changed medical science.

Lin

Dude your words are your words. Their meaning remains intact. If you don't like what they are saying don't say them.

When did I ever say "the THEORY of natural selection has changed medical science"? You are the one stuck on this and you have injected it here as a diversionary tactic.

by the way you have chosen to omit this from my original post:

Quote:
You have avoided the substance of the question. Is this what they teach in seminary class: avoid questions that test your faith?

How can this attitude further science and any technologies that may benefit man?

How do you explain this hypocritical behavior?

Notice how Lin continues to ignore what has been said and continually pushes ignorance and subterfuge as a value. All the while stating that he didn't state what he stated. Are these the actions of an honest man? A man of integrity? A non hypocrite?

Quote:

Quote:
Scott has been plagiarizing and quoting out of context since the beginning. Things a public school student needs to graduate.

Good point Mr. Sanford.

Prove it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Scott has been plagiarizing and quoting out of context since the beginning. Things a public school student needs to graduate.

Good point Mr. Sanford.

Prove it.

You guys having a nice circlej**k?

Tweedledee? Tweedledum?

Just as I thought, nothing. This is not something that belief will help you with.

I expect this will take you quite some time so go ahead take your time. But if you don't come back with some hard evidence then you lay bare your fraudulent behavior and expose yourself to further ridicule.

Quote:

Dude your words are your words. Their meaning remains intact. If you don't like what they are saying don't say them.

When did I ever say "the THEORY of natural selection has changed medical science"? You are the one stuck on this and you have injected it here as a diversionary tactic.

by the way you have chosen to omit this from my original post:

Quote:
You have avoided the substance of the question. Is this what they teach in seminary class: avoid questions that test your faith?

How can this attitude further science and any technologies that may benefit man?

How do you explain this hypocritical behavior?

Notice how Lin continues to ignore what has been said and continually pushes ignorance and subterfuge as a value. All the while stating that he didn't state what he stated. Are these the actions of an honest man? A man of integrity? A non hypocrite?

Look up "context", one sentence taken out of a post can be used to seemingly give the sentence a different meaning.
I have never changed my stance in this thread.
By the wording of your "question" you implied that one has to choose between the best medical treatment and belief in creation. Which is not true.
Questions designed to make any "answer" appear wrong/stupid have been around for centuries. I wasn't born yesterday.
I did not omit anything from your original post, you edited it after I hit the "quote button".
I have never set foot in a seminary school.
Your assertion that there is a connection between understanding bacteria and the theory of natural selection does not "test my faith".
Man has continually been studying and learning things about life and the universe since long before Darwin and will continue to do so regardless of whether his theories are studied or believed.

Lin

Quote:

You guys having a nice circlej**k?

Tweedledee? Tweedledum?

Just as I thought, nothing. This is not something that belief will help you with.

LS and I have been using very different tactics.
I'm sure our beliefs don't have much in common.

Thanks for your concern,
Lin

Quote:

Quote:

Dude your words are your words. Their meaning remains intact. If you don't like what they are saying don't say them.

When did I ever say "the THEORY of natural selection has changed medical science"? You are the one stuck on this and you have injected it here as a diversionary tactic.

by the way you have chosen to omit this from my original post:

Quote:
You have avoided the substance of the question. Is this what they teach in seminary class: avoid questions that test your faith?

How can this attitude further science and any technologies that may benefit man?

How do you explain this hypocritical behavior?

Notice how Lin continues to ignore what has been said and continually pushes ignorance and subterfuge as a value. All the while stating that he didn't state what he stated. Are these the actions of an honest man? A man of integrity? A non hypocrite?

Look up "context", one sentence taken out of a post can be used to seemingly give the sentence a different meaning.

Where was this done?

Quote:

I have never changed my stance in this thread.

I never said you did

Quote:

By the wording of your "question" you implied that one has to choose between the best medical treatment and belief in creation. Which is not true.

That was not the implication this is your paranoia. What is implied is that you will put you trust in Darwin, even if indirectly. That you are going to have to come to grips with this whether you are honest about it or not. It was a test to see if you have the humility to admit to something that is contrary to what you are arguing has merit. It was a test to see just how you honest you are. It was a test to see if a rational discussion is possible with you.

Quote:
Questions designed to make any "answer" appear wrong/stupid have been around for centuries.

This was not one of those.

Quote:
I wasn't born yesterday.

How can you be sure? You are the one who believes in creationism. From that standpoint you may very well have been born yesterday. All you have to do is believe it. Remember?

Quote:
Man has continually been studying and learning things about life and the universe since long before Darwin and will continue to do so regardless of whether his theories are studied or believed.
Lin

Again how do you know this? All of this could just be made-up by god and presented to you as it is. Maybe he is testing your faith?

I believe in creation.
Creationists believe in creationism.
Yes, there is a difference, creationism involves the belief that the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hr days or in some cases is about 10,000 years old.
The Bible account of creation in Genesis allows for the earth to be millions of years old.

Lin

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I wasn't born yesterday.

How can you be sure? You are the one who believes in creationism. From that standpoint you may very well have been born yesterday. All you have to do is believe it. Remember?

I believe in creation.
Creationists believe in creationism.
Yes, there is a difference, creationists and creationism involves the belief that the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hr days or in some cases is about 10,000 years old.
The Bible account of creation in Genesis allows for the earth to be millions of years old.

Lin

Wow that's a long time. Almost enough time explain a few things... (not)

So what exactly are you saying? Or am I to guess at your implication?

Scott:

Are you going to start crying? Haven't you even noticed you're fighting on two completely different fronts? You're getting your platforms confused. I'll help you out and get you back on track. With me, it's scientific evidence to prove Darwin was correct. With Preistube, I think you are arguing that, "the problem with Creationism is the bible". With me, you should stick with copying and pasting shit off the Internet; i.e. plagiarizing and quoting out of context. With Preistube, you can continue with the religious intolerance you learned from your step-father. Got it? Okay, let's continue.

Red hair. Red hair is a sign of inbreeding. It is prevalent in Ireland and with people whose ancestry hails from Ireland. It is not a sign of natural selection. Everybody knows the Irish are not part of natural selection. Red hair (inbreeding) does not lend itself to survival of the fittest. In fact, it leads to all sorts of genetic complications like mental retardation, high blood pressure, birth defects, heart disease, diabetes, and of course, there is the high rate of alcoholism with all these red haired inbred people sitting around the pubs day and night talking treason. Everybody knows the Irish are born alcoholics. It's in their genes.

Quote:
Scott:

Are you going to start crying? Haven't you even noticed your fighting on two completely different fronts? You're getting your platforms confused.

The puppet gets a hand you know where and speaks.

You have brought no evidence to support your allegations. I guess this means only one thing...

Your an idiot.