@farmerman,
We present evidence.. You ig more it and rant. You just plain rant when anyone points that out. You plain ranted on YOUr last post. It makes you look foolish
@OldGrumpy,
Quote: AND, you still don't adress the tautology
Because it isnt a tautology.(Do you even understand the definition of the word??).
@farmerman,
Sorry fm, my last post referred to the grumpster not you. I clicked on the wrong post.
@MontereyJack,
Quote:We present evidence.. You ig more it and rant. You just plain rant when anyone points that out. You plain ranted on YOUr last post. It makes you look foolish
Always the same isn't it? I really don't care if I look foolish! Andf you even forgot half of it!!! (get it?)
And this (lol):
Quote:We present evidence
Ohhhh ok where is it?????? Only words words words and words. Now I come to think of it, you sound like a politician! Only words and no deeds.
Figures, eh?!
Oh and btw so much in "evolution' is build on quicksand, because it is build on circular 'thinking'.
If not, show me that
@MontereyJack,
no problem. I did what I shoulda done when he was in his Quahog day, I put Im on igniore. Hes a total moron, no skills, no knowledge, head up his ass moron.,
@farmerman,
Quote:no problem. I did what I shoulda done when he was in his Quahog day, I put Im on igniore. Hes a total moron, no skills, no knowledge, head up his ass moron.,
In other words, you have great difficulty with what I wrote.
Which is a very good thing!
(oh and of course you alway NOT adressing the issues I raise, hmmm)
@JimmyJ,
So basically you are pre-rejecting all possible replies. Why do you waste electrons posting on that basis?
@Jewels Vern,
That post was five years old. He hasnt been seen
since. Try to keep up
@coldjoint,
The post he was replying to.
'science' hence evolution is just a [b
]CONTROL TOOL[/b] for the masses.
Lot's of people fell for the deception, eh farmerman?!
Quote:"The ruling class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological weapon' against the masses."
As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a 'scientific dictatorship.'
Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological weapon' against the masses. This article will show that the history and background of this 'scientific dictatorship' is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry.
ah well, people just don't want to see it! Blinded as they are. Like lambs to the slaughter.
evil lotion is directly from la la land:
Quote:Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons (Tennenbaum).
@OldGrumpy,
I dont recalll that this guy (a past Larouchie) has done ANYTHING in biosciences. SO, his Bible centered bullshit is worth about as much as that spoutd by my dentist.
yada yada yada,Quahog will be giving new lessons on Creation SCience every day on his blog
@farmerman,
Quote: his Bible centered bullshit
ha ha ha ha ha, you really don't want to get it eh?! You still insist in your perverse black and white thinking that it must be all Bible centered. You clearly haven't read my statements that I don't believe in the nonsense in the idiotic book called the Bible, eh!? It has nothing to do with god or the bible or whatever. It has to do with the FACT that the evil lotion theory is idiotic and retarded. No one needs a religion to see that evil-lotion itself is religion, filled with stupid dogma's that haven't been proven at all. It is a belief system, nothing else and as such it is garbage. Regardless in how much you believe in this nonsense.
But, let's face it, you depend on this non-sense, hence your non-sense reactions here.
It is what it is.
@OldGrumpy,
TActless rant AsUsual. Why should we pay any attention to you?
Last
@MontereyJack,
he is quite the moron. Hes gone through several names on the A2K board, why is that? is he afraid of carrying on an argument and getting outed as the fraudulent d bag he is?
He makes **** up about stuff about which he is totally ignorant.
Then he quotes Biblical Bullshit like the middle section of this Larouchie mathematician who , because he does math modelling of "cosmological"-expansions and standard candles, it automatically gives him credibility in bio, geo, paleo, chemo sciences.
That is an example of what we call the" Creationist Assigned Authority" blather.
He IS fun to slap around though. Im wondering when he hall disappear and arise within yet another personum.
I find this debate, which has continued here for a very long time, to be a bit perplexing.
In the first place Darwin's theory indicating that species survived over time by the, usually slow, physical adaptation to their environment and the various survival threats they faced - a process he called "natural selection" is confirmed by a host of experimental, and even ordinary, observations. In this sense evolution is an observable fact, and not a theory at all. Indeed, even at the microbial level, such natural selection can be observed among bacteria and viruses, which, over time, adapt to evade the effect of medicines we apply to destroy them.
Questions regarding whether or not the observable universe has a creator are not influenced at all by the Theory (observable fact ) of Evolution. Indeed since science is, by definition, the body of thought and theory based on repeated, observable experiments, the question of a creator is beyond the domain of science, which cannot either confirm or refute the idea of a creator.
The tests and scriptures of nearly all religions are involve largely metaphorical references to creation and the spiritual live & consciousness associated with it. To use these details to imply a conflict with this, or other works of science, or, alternatively, to suppose that science refutes all ideas associated with a creator is to seek a conflict where none exists. My impression is that there is a lot of pretense and folly on both sides of these questions.
@georgeob1,
Ill go with the folly. (but only in that many of talkers here are , in omeway searching for information of a topic that had sides already drawn up before we got here)
Nevertheless, science often returns us favors through play or through accident. Darwin had two major flaws that weve discussed several times and these are being better understood as stuff like genetic and epigenetics and spot methylation are understood.
Darwin's argument about "only slow changes" may be needing a major cleanup. As is the addition of heritability of acquired characteristics as preached by Lamarck.
Since the fossil record shows us the facts that the evolution process among species was highly variable and rather chaotic (in view) its hard to entertain "design".
@MontereyJack,
Quote:TActless rant AsUsual. Why should we pay any attention to you?
Last
You don't have to pay any attention at all. so why do you such stupid things then, eh!?
