Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: IDers resorting to violence

  1. #1 IDers resorting to violence 
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    I live in Kansas and it was just on the news that the Kansas professor that was going to teach a class about pseudosciences that included intelligent design as a pseudoscience was followed and beaten by 2 IDers in a pickup truck. I guess it landed him in the hospital but he's okay. I heard that he's going to cancel the class due to threats.

    This just happened, but I'm sure a story is coming on the web. Here is a news link about the class:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153657/

    I'm a tough man to appaul, but that did it.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Here's a link to the story from today.

    http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/de...ting/?breaking


     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    It is Kansas University that has cancelled the class, not Mirecki.

    Is there any correlation between driving a pick up and atavistic behaviour?

    Kind of makes you want to fly out KC and deliver a talk on the pseudoscience of ID in every shopping mall and church parking lot you can find.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman KazaKhan™®©'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Is there any correlation between driving a pick up and atavistic behaviour?
    What's the question mark for, surely that's a rhetorical question...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Kind of makes you want to fly out KC and deliver a talk on the pseudoscience of ID in every shopping mall and church parking lot you can find.
    In the sterotypical tone of those pick-up driving IDers, hell yeah!
    I started with nothing and I still have most of it left...
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Is there any correlation between driving a pick up and atavistic behaviour?
    Well yes.

    What vehicles are popular with the Dukes of Hazzard type? Camaros and pickups!

    What vehicles are used to play "mailbox baseball"? pickups!

    What vehicles are the choice for shooting road signs? pickups!

    What vehicles are the choice for "cruising the Sonic"? Mustangs and pickups!

    And of course, Bill Clinton, speaking about the El Camino pickup he once owned: "It was a real sort of southern deal. I had AstroTurf in the back. You don't want to know why, but I did."
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    It was just on the news here that Professor Mirecki has handed in his resignation.

    I second silylene's very well thought out answer.

    Kind of makes you want to fly out KC and deliver a talk on the pseudoscience of ID in every shopping mall and church parking lot you can find.
    And just think, KC and Lawrence are the two most open minded places in the state. I'm thinking these guys may have commuted.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    One cannot help but notice how this thread died as it became more more apparent that it was a hoax.

    Face it, the IDers are going to get a chance to expose the flaws in some of the evolutionary teaching.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Of course there's going to be buzz that it's a hoax. Everything that doesn't fit your agenda is called a hoax isn't it?

    It's always sad when lies are told to promote a religion, because you know where liars go.

    Do you think Jesus would go that route?
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    What I think is that one of your guys got caught with his pants down and you have a hard time accepting that.

    Not since the days when McCarthy was finding commies under every rock have I seen this kind of agenda where you guys can find religious intent behind everything that does not support your anti-religion agenda.

    You are in a very small minority and it is about time for you guys to just sit down and shut up.

    This guy made up a story to drum up some sympathy and could not back it up with any kind of evidence. That what happens when liars and frauds are caught so who is the liar here?
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Well, he had bruises. He had notoriety and was receiving death threats before the incident. What would you need, DNA? Do you guys believe in DNA? What does the bible say about it? It looks pretty good from where we sit.

    Not since the days when McCarthy was finding commies under every rock have I seen this kind of agenda where you guys can find religious intent behind everything that does not support your anti-religion agenda.
    What about trying to force religion into areas that it doesn't belong? You people are forcing theology where it doesn't belong and causing problems. You may be christian but far from Christ. Your population has missed the point of his life and have degraded into the people who killed him, traditionalists who care more about their own comfort than the truth, even when it's at the expense of others. Did Christ go around and kill people who didn't agree with him?

    You know how frustrating it is to be treated like some sort of heathen for studying nature from a population that doesn't have the understanding to comment on what happens in the process of mixing a pitcher of orange juice?

    I hear the same arguments saturated misunderstood and misrepresented concepts about what the truth is because some over edited and often manipulated book that's supposed to be the word of God says otherwise? If you have a problem with science then why don't you disconnect your phone, stop using electricity, driving your car, and everything else and live like it was in biblical times. If you have a problem with evolution, why don't you refuse to take antibiotics?

    I do admit that Mirecki said some stupid things, but I'd take his word over his critics because he places a high value on the truth. As for Mirecki, I wouldn't necessarily call him one of "my guys," except for the fact that he has been attacked by the same people who I am being attacked by.

    And I may be a minority in the respect that I am no longer a christian and am in American, but I am not in the minority when it comes to the acceptance of evolution. A lot of christians are rational and intelligent people, the catholic church even accepts evolution. But who cares either way, nature has the final word.

    By the way, if there is a problem with evolution why don't you prove it by proving it wrong. Best of luck, and have a merry christmas.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    I’ve said it before and I will probably have to say it again.

    The argument revolving around evolution has little, if anything, to do with religion. There is nothing in (my) religion which detracts from or supports the concept of evolution. (The Biblical account of creation is not detailed enough to provide any information concerning methodology unless one attempts to add details between the lines, which, of course, would not be Biblical.)

    The problems with evolution are found in evolution itself and the fact that the broad school of evolution is fragmented with so many denominations that neither the supporters nor detractors know what anyone else means when they use the term evolution. They often argue apples and oranges.

    Some problems arise from people who either think evolution disproves God or those who think God disproves evolution. Neither of these positions is remotely close to the truth.

    The next big problem is that some people seem to think that evolution has something to do with the origin of life when, in reality, all evolution does is provide a plausible explanation for some speciation among living things.

    Intelligent design is directed at the concepts of origins and conflicts with evolution mostly wherein evolution is improperly and erroneously used as some explanation of origins of life.

    One such conflict arises wherein evolutionists explain certain organic systems to be the products of evolutionary changes while ID suggests that those systems were present at origin. Here again, however, the debate is not really religion vs. science. Religion has no capacity to present evidence on this question and science has not provided conclusive evidence to prove or disprove either side of this question.

    Silkworm said:

    What about trying to force religion into areas that it doesn't belong? You people are forcing theology where it doesn't belong and causing problems. You may be christian but far from Christ. Your population has missed the point of his life and have degraded into the people who killed him, traditionalists who care more about their own comfort than the truth, even when it's at the expense of others. Did Christ go around and kill people who didn't agree with him?

    In what area does religion not belong and why does it not belong there? Perhaps it is you people who are trying to keep theology from being where it belongs and that is what is causing the problems. The Christian concept is that we all killed Christ because we are all sinners – believers and non believers alike. But in a sense, we did not kill Him because He gave His life freely. Jesus did not go around killing people who disagreed with him nor do I know any bonefide Christians who do so for theological reasons. There may be people who do such things in the guise of religious motivation, but I do not think they are actually Christians. Do we condemn the entirety of Islam because some radical sects evangelize by the convert-or-die method? Do we ignore medical attention because there are quacks in the profession? Why, then, would it be appropriate to blame all Christians for the actions of those you do not even believe are really Christians?

    Silkworm also said:

    [Do] You know how frustrating it is to be treated like some sort of heathen for studying nature from a population that doesn't have the understanding to comment on what happens in the process of mixing a pitcher of orange juice?

    I suppose it feels a lot like being treated as though you are some uneducated, hillbilly, mindless fool who believes in fairy tails, the Easter Bunny and mythology because you have had a spiritual experience. And then others who have not had that experience claim it was unreal or meaningless.

    Your question reminded me of the story of the old hellfire and brimstone evangelist who was emotionally expositing on the Psalms, verse by verse and phrase by phrase. He came to the first phrase in Psalm 2 which says, “Why do the heathen rage . . .” Taken aback, the evangelist hemmed and hawed a little and finally said, “Because they are heathen!! That’s why.” Perhaps, therein lies your answer.

    However, that is not a slur upon your name. Every Christian I have known, every Christian who has ever been, and, alas, I myself, were all heathens.

    Speaking of your screen name, however, it was difficult not to think of how the silkworm, at some appointed time unbeknownst to itself, spins a covering, undergoes a metamorphosis and emerges as a new and different creature – a rather attractive moth.

    It is similar for some of us heathen people that the Lord, at some appointed time unbeknownst to the unbelieving person, sort of spins His covering around that person and the person undergoes a change and emerges a new and different creature – a believer. It can happen to anyone at any given moment.

    I hope I have not inadvertantly indelibly implanted the image of this analogy in the minds of the non religious readers of this thread when they see silkworm’s name on a post. If fact, I insist that you not be reminded of it when you see silkworm’s name on a post.

    And, dang it, silkworm, much to my chagrin, you beat me to wishing you a Merry Christmas.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    It's like Kirk vs. Kirk

    In what area does religion not belong and why does it not belong there?
    The argument revolving around evolution has little, if anything, to do with religion.There is nothing in (my) religion which detracts from or supports the concept of evolution.
    Neither does anything to do with science. Thanks for the help.

    Some problems arise from people who either think evolution disproves God or those who think God disproves evolution. Neither of these positions is remotely close to the truth.
    I know, they have nothing to do with each other. But "It's a miracle!" is also not a scientific explaination for anything.

    Religion has no capacity to present evidence on this question and science has not provided conclusive evidence to prove or disprove either side of this question.
    The first part shows that you are a reasonable person at some level, but in the second part you contradict yourself again and show your ignorance. You have to earn the right to an opinion before you have one that is worth listening too. I can speak about christian culture because I was indoctrinated as a christian when I was young and was one until I was 20. I can talk about evolution because I've studied it. Does that make any sense?

    Jesus did not go around killing people who disagreed with him nor do I know any bonefide Christians who do so for theological reasons.
    I'll keep it light and friendly, see the crusades and the inquisition and, like I said before, the death of Christ himself. There are many many many many many many more examples. I'm not blaming any on Jesus, I'm blaming it on the ID crowd, a recycled culture of ignorant and abusive people for thousands of years.

    I suppose it feels a lot like being treated as though you are some uneducated, hillbilly, mindless fool who believes in fairy tails, the Easter Bunny and mythology because you have had a spiritual experience. And then others who have not had that experience claim it was unreal or meaningless.
    I'm a Kansas boy, so I get that a lot too. So generallly I'm damned by both sides when really I'm just trying to help both. But, the scientific community generally accepts me once I explain myself because divine right is generally not accepted by them.

    As for all that noise about silkworms, I do suppose he is a cute little fella. The metamorphosis is not why I have a kinship with him, but because he's very much like Christ.
    You see, the silkworm has been cultivated for over 5000 years, and has been to such an extent that they no longer are known to exist in the wild. Because there are no wild silkworms it has been up to us for quite some time to manage the species, and most silkworms we do feed heavily with mulberry leaves are boiled alive in their cocoons to keep from tearing or cutting the silk.
    We must of course allow a few of these silkworm moths to emerge from their cocoon so they can make more silkworms, and we didn't put too much thought into which ones reproduced and which ones didn't, and in the process something went horribly wrong.
    You see, that moth in my picture doesn't have a whole lot of time to live.
    He'll starve to death because his mouth parts don't work, which was our mistake. If his species had been left in the wild it would have been fine because natural selection would have kept them strong as a species.
    He also has a body that is too fat and his wings too small to fly.
    Basically all he can do is reproduce, but he doesn't have much time to do so.
    He is pretty friendly though. Even as worms silkworms are known to be friendly and responsive when you're fatttening them up with mulberry leaves, and the moths look like Gizmo from the Gremlins and waddle around. You can pet them while they starve.
    This species has given itself to provide a material to mankind, much as I have decided to give myself for the advancement of our species of glorified apes. For this effort I do not have greed for eternal reward, but expect to be ruined like our friend the silkworm.

    I do agree with you about the origin of life not being decided yet. And while all of the different ideas about the origin of life that science has provided have scientific merit at least, I don't believe any of them should be taught in a high school (because of credibility issues) any more than the ID. Simply none of the scientific ideas are solid or important enough to be taught and ID is way less than half assed. Evolution, itself, however is essential, not only as a super applicable and enlightening scientific concept but as a tool in critical thinking.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    It would appear, silkworm, that we have some agreement on some things. (Apologies for the length of this post.)

    I’m sure you have some idea in your mind as to what evolution is and the extent to which it may have taken place in the history of life on this planet. Even not knowing what your ideas on this topic are, I can assure you there more people who disagree with you than agree, and many of those who disagree will be among those who promote evolution as a viable concept.

    For example, how far back on the taxonomy chart has evolution taken place? Has all of life descended from one original living cell? Was there more than one original cell with the different original living cells taking different paths of evolution?

    In the history of our observation of living things since the concept of evolution was introduced, has anyone actually observed the formation of a new specie? Is there even agreement on the difference between a specie and a variation? How many (and what are they) processes can actually produce a new and different specie?

    Even the study of evolution is a complex thing to explain. To study evolution, one must either make observations or collect the observations of others and then attempt to decipher what possibilities and implications can be drawn from the set of observations. Since evolution (apparently and depending on what theory of evolution is being advanced and the given definition of a specie) takes a long time, it is very difficult to sit back and watch evolution happen in the same way we might watch a building being constructed.

    The differences and disagreements are not found in the raw data which has been collected, but rather in what data is given importance by an individual reviewer and which data is deemed insignificant or irrelevant by the reviewer.

    Few people who post on these forums are actually in the business of “studying” evolution. Rather, we look at the conclusions others have drawn based on their observations. I have said in other discussions that few people posting on these threads on this topic have even read Darwin’s original writing which, while not providing a great deal of substance, brought the topic into the mainstream of scientific discussion. In fact, few people actually know the full and complete title of the particular writing in question.

    I would not consider myself ignorant on this topic, nor would I consider myself an expert. But I have read enough to be conversant and to understand some of the things that evolutionists profess and some of the different explanations set forth by various theoreticians in the field. I have also read a reasonable amount of information which undermines those professions and explanations of various evolutionary theories. I have difficulty with some highly technical writings I have looked at, but I think I do well understand writings in which findings and conclusions are explained in plain language rather than technical jargon.

    The problem with theories in general is that they cannot be thoroughly proved nor disproved. They can only be shown to be valid on some points and suspect on others. They are basically designed to produce a set of expectations and projections for what has happened or what will happen. It is then left to assign credibility to the theory based on whether the expectations and projections can be shown to be accurate. The more expectations and projections that pan out, the greater the credibility of the theory becomes and the easier it is to assign higher probability to those expectations which have not been testd or perhaps are beyond our ability to test.

    The expressed theories on evolution are quite different in their nature from say the theories on relativity. Many of the expectations and predictions drawn from the theories on relativity have been tested and found to be accurate. Some aspects have been shown to have minor complications while other aspects are beyond our physical ability to test. Many aspects of the theories on evolution are readily capable of being tested which also adds to credibility. Thus relativity is a theory with high credibility and dependability.

    Not so with evolution. We are not able to practically test in a relatively few generations things which we have predicticted to have taken place over thousand of generations and millions of years.

    As I have discussed on another thread, the closest we have come to being able to observe both selective breeding and (induced) mutational changes over many generations has been in studies of the fruit fly, an animal which is amazingly suitable for such testing. This because of its short life cycle (about 14 days), its prolific reproduction capacity, and the simplicity of its genetic make up which makes it easy to observe and identify genetic changes.

    Scientists have been observing and experimenting with fruit flies for more than 100 years now. They have conducted thousands and thousands of studies and experiments and have observed millions and millions of generations of fruit flies in that time. These numbers exceed the numbers of generations which science speculates some animals have had time to experience since they appeared on earth.

    There are a number of broad scope findings that have come to the fore in fruit fly studies.

    1..Not once in all of the generations that have been observed has the reproductive process of the fruit fly produced anything other than more fruit flies. No new specie, not even an unviable new specie, has ever been observed through millions of generations of fruit flies. While this does not prove it could NEVER take place, it certainly suggests how unlikely and rare such changes (new species) are even when man attempts to manipulate, thus additionally suggesting that it would be even more unlikely and rare in the course of nature.

    2. Fruit flies have been subjected to every conceivable or suspected cause of mutation we can come up with. Results of observable mutations have never, not once, produced a better fruit fly. Such mutated offspring suffered the deficiencies of inablity to reproduce, inability to compete for survival with normal fruit flies, and inability to survive on their own in an ideal environment, along with other survival deficiencies.

    3. Manipulated breeding to emphasize certain characteristics or minimize other characteristics have produced what might be considered new varieties. However, left to breed naturally, the new variety has rapidly reverted to the old variety, even when only the new variety was habited in a controlled and exclusive environment.

    Even your own lament about the plight of your namesake, the silkworm, shows this same result. The silkworm is much worse off as a specie than it was before man caused changes took place. I am left to wonder what would happen if some silkworm breeding stock was left to breed and multiply on its own for several generations.

    It has been easy to show that some animals have developed better mechanisms for survival in specific environments such as bill variations among birds of the same specie which dwell in different environments. The idea of natural selection through the survival of the fittest is compelling evidence to explain the variations within species.

    It is not adequate, however, to explain the avian path from the hapless flightless kiwi to the mangnificent flight capacities of, say, the tern family.

    My sense here is that if the “scientific” education community were faithfully presenting all the implications found in the data relating to evolution, there would be no serious ID movement. ID is more of a tangential approach to evolution and more directly addresses origins of the universe and life. It does address and conflict with evolution from the standpoint that it suggests certain systems were present at origin which evolution suggest are the product of gradual changes through time.

    ID may or may not have some people involved who have some religious motivation. Many of us of religious bent would be adequately satisfied if academia faithfully presented the raw data of evolutionary studies and then all the different interpretations of that raw data. I am certain such programs exist, but far too rarely.

    I disdain those who suggest that evolution is 100 percent bunk as much as I disdain those who grasp every lame brain (often diametrically conflicting) evolutionary concept and then say (as a generality) that evolution is an indisputable fact.

    My position is that anyone who says evolution is a “fact” is ignorant of the many conflicts found even within the various factional advocates of evolution. Or theyr just chooses to ignore anything beyond their own theories.

    The theories of evolution are highly complex and far from being unified and settled. I think that anyone viewing the data and interpretations of that data, unencumbered by any pro or anti religious bias, would conclude that the information leads only to inconclusive possibilities which are far easier to offer than to validate.

    I hope I have presented enough here to convince you I am not ignorant on this topic and that I have earned the right to have an opinion, different from yours tho it may be.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Even not knowing what your ideas on this topic are, I can assure you there more people who disagree with you than agree, and many of those who disagree will be among those who promote evolution as a viable concept.
    My ideas on evolution are one and the same with the theory of evolution and the consensus of the scientists who have studied it, and not students who have seen a dramatization of it, as to its mechanisms and its importance, stopping short of the actual origin of life. (Continues with your quotes)

    For example, how far back on the taxonomy chart has evolution taken place?
    All the way, and the taxonomy once used is obsolete. We have to reclassify based on evolution. Either way though, all the way back.

    Has all of life descended from one original living cell?
    Not necessarily a cell, and not necessarily one. It could be any type of self sustaining chemical machine(s), which are still of unknown origins. The actual origin of life on this planet still has no widely accepted theory, although there are many works in progress.

    Was there more than one original cell with the different original living cells taking different paths of evolution?
    It certainly is possible, though unlikely. It’s likely one path that split and split and split and split and split and split.

    In the history of our observation of living things since the concept of evolution was introduced, has anyone actually observed the formation of a new specie?
    This question is too complicated to answer fully here, but yes there has been speciation since the Origin of Species, however not by anything more than a very simple organism (bacteria) in a laboratory setting.

    Is there even agreement on the difference between a specie and a variation?
    The definition of a species is a reproductive isolate. Meaning that you could try your best to impregnate a housecat and the fact that you couldn’t proves that you and the cat are different species. Furthermore, you have a horse and a donkey and they give birth to a mule. You say, aha!, the horse and the donkey are the same species! Nope. They are closely related but the fact that they aren’t the same species is present in the fact that the mule is sterile. The mule is just a mule.

    How many (and what are they) processes can actually produce a new and different specie?
    There are many different ways speciation can occur. The general schematic is you have an individual of a population that mutates an advantage at getting a food source that is unavailable to the rest of his group. He lives off of this food source, grows big and strong and reproduces. His reproduction and the reproduction of his offspring increase the incidence of his mutation in the parent group (evolution), and at some point his population moves away from the parent group to pursue more food and the speciation occurs in their interbreeding and isolation, as gene flow from the parent group is then cut off and the genes of these specific individuals become the entire pool.

    Even the study of evolution is a complex thing to explain. To study evolution, one must either make observations or collect the observations of others and then attempt to decipher what possibilities and implications can be drawn from the set of observations. Since evolution (apparently and depending on what theory of evolution is being advanced and the given definition of a specie) takes a long time, it is very difficult to sit back and watch evolution happen in the same way we might watch a building being constructed.
    There is only one theory of evolution and many misperceptions about it. which is unfortunate considering that it is the fundamental theory of biology, the study of living things.

    The differences and disagreements are not found in the raw data which has been collected, but rather in what data is given importance by an individual reviewer and which data is deemed insignificant or irrelevant by the reviewer.
    We try to solve this problem in science by having scientific papers being peer reviewed, meaning that qualified people (who are not Pat Roberts or any other televangelist (because none of them are anywhere near qualified)) look at other scientists work and criticize it.

    Few people who post on these forums are actually in the business of “studying” evolution. Rather, we look at the conclusions others have drawn based on their observations. I have said in other discussions that few people posting on these threads on this topic have even read Darwin’s original writing which, while not providing a great deal of substance, brought the topic into the mainstream of scientific discussion. In fact, few people actually know the full and complete title of the particular writing in question.

    I would not consider myself ignorant on this topic, nor would I consider myself an expert. But I have read enough to be conversant and to understand some of the things that evolutionists profess and some of the different explanations set forth by various theoreticians in the field. I have also read a reasonable amount of information which undermines those professions and explanations of various evolutionary theories. I have difficulty with some highly technical writings I have looked at, but I think I do well understand writings in which findings and conclusions are explained in plain language rather than technical jargon.
    Some of us are still natural scientists, even if we aren’t biologists, and that’s enough. So why don’t you leave what is and is not science and what is and what is not true about science to scientists? I’ve read Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life,” (which the title is little more than trivia) and I felt it provided a great deal of substance, especially when you look at what Darwin had available to him and what he did with it. He never would have seen it, had he never gone on the trip. He was laying it down for the first time. If you’ve ever read Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton the first paragraph explains density*volume = mass, which is second nature to today’s scientists to not need to be stated but a new concept back then.

    I’d hate to get troublesome here, but you’re contradicting yourself again. You can’t criticize people for not reading Darwin, and then not have enough understanding of the science involved to need to have the “technical jargon” translated, you'd already know what it meant if you understood the content. Who’s translating it for you?

    I get a religious science magazine just to see what it says and it misrepresents science at every possible opportunity, even totally rewriting what happened with Galileo. To its readers who have never heard of Galileo before, that's what happened to him (I won't say what they said but it was much nicer than what actually happened). I won't post the name of the magazine because I'd hate to advertise for it, but if that's where you're getting your information then you will never have the right to an opinion as long as you use sources ruled by ideology to earn it. Any serious acceptance of any religious publications for scientific information is a recipe for misinformation because the iformation printed must fit the agenda. That's why religion does not belong in science.

    I don't know how much of your post is you and how much of your post is regurgitated, please don't answer because whatever your answer is I don't expect it do be honest (which I don't mean as an insult). If a lot of that post is you, you seem to be intelligent, just ignorant. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as you don't embrace it. Please actually go and really learn this material before you continue to criticize it. As for the rest of your post, the fruit fly situation requires a lot of conversation to arrive at, and you were close to understanding the silkworm situation, however I blame that on myself, I should have illustrated it better.

    By the way, evolution doesn't go from lower to higher, because that's arbitrary, it just goes different.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    OK, silkworm, I will no longer attempt to confuse you with facts or logic. I can see you are content within the vacuum of your own delusion.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Well, then please make it a point to leave us all to our own delusions and we'll leave you to yours. We'll even throw in that you can benefit from the work of natural scientists. Deal?

    Stay out of the science classroom and we'll stay out of Sunday school.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    silkworm, your crassness is exceeded only by your arrogant pomposity. You are to science what Holocaust deniers are to history.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Oh my God.

    Well, on the bright side the Nazis did invent the rocket didn't they? And they never ate babies like we said they did.

    Judge not or you will be judged. I wonder if we were having this conversation in person if you would have hit me by now.

    I'm done with this thread. Good night now.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •