"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FEC763D.2F8C2F7@no-spam
>
>
> Don Homuth wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Don Homuth wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> > >> >the change in status?
> > >>
> > >> Yes -- a fraud.
> > >
> > >But it wasn't a "fraud" for 40 some odd years.
> >
> > Sure it was. We just didn't know how to see it.
>
> Right... facts change.
No, only our expanations concerning natural law. As more facts are added the
subject becomes more defined. With creationism you start with a conclusion
(goddidit) and mine for a few uncertainties that appear to support it. With
science the picture becomes more clear that we are right about evolution's
mechanisms. What clearly is not happening is a move away from evolution and
toward creationism as more research and study is done. This is something
creationists cannot rationalize.
>
> >
> >
> > >Now that it is acknowledged a fraud, a change in accepted
> > >"scientific fact" has occurred.
> >
> > See, that's the nice thing about Progress. We learn how to see things
> > more clearly over time.
> >
> > It's called Bounded Rationality, it's part of the Human Condition, and
> > it justifies a certain amount of skepticism and Taking Another Look.
> > A wise thing for would-be Philosopher-Kings to remember.
> >
> > But there's no change in Scientific Fact at all. The artifact remains
> > now as it was then. It's the interpretation that changed.
>
> Provide an example of an "artifact" that doesn't change?... I'll wait.
You are trying to equate "change" with "defined". Science and evolution are
becoming more defined, our conclusions are not that drastically changing. We
are not, as an example, finding moving towards saying space aliens brought
us here, or that men descended from fish, or that civiliztion is only 5000
years old. We are defining and revising macroevolution and abiogenesis. The
same cannot be said for creationism.
>
> >
> >
> > And ya know -- that's quite OK.
>
> If you say so... LOL
>
> >
> >
> > > Don't you agree?... or
> > >are you more fond of pitching red herrings?
> >
> > I just see it as it is, and try not to overinterpret for effect.
> >
> > You should try that.
>
> To see the world as you do?... God forbid.
So what is the scientific theory of creationism? What empirical and
observable evidence do we have that god created us as is? Why should we take
your word about god over mine, my neighbor's, or the pizza guy's?
Have a go.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FEC763D.2F8C2F7@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Don Homuth wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Don Homuth wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> > > >> >the change in status?
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes -- a fraud.
> > > >
> > > >But it wasn't a "fraud" for 40 some odd years.
> > >
> > > Sure it was. We just didn't know how to see it.
> >
> > Right... facts change.
>
> No, only our expanations concerning natural law. As more facts are added the
> subject becomes more defined. With creationism you start with a conclusion
> (goddidit) and mine for a few uncertainties that appear to support it. With
> science the picture becomes more clear that we are right about evolution's
> mechanisms.
Facts are the explanations we accept. When the explanation changes
the fact changes along with it. There is no such thing in the universe
as an unchangeable object/fact. Unless of course you have knowledge
of the existence of an unchangeable object you wish to share.
> What clearly is not happening is a move away from evolution and
> toward creationism as more research and study is done. This is something
> creationists cannot rationalize.
Better catch up on your reading.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Now that it is acknowledged a fraud, a change in accepted
> > > >"scientific fact" has occurred.
> > >
> > > See, that's the nice thing about Progress. We learn how to see things
> > > more clearly over time.
> > >
> > > It's called Bounded Rationality, it's part of the Human Condition, and
> > > it justifies a certain amount of skepticism and Taking Another Look.
> > > A wise thing for would-be Philosopher-Kings to remember.
> > >
> > > But there's no change in Scientific Fact at all. The artifact remains
> > > now as it was then. It's the interpretation that changed.
> >
> > Provide an example of an "artifact" that doesn't change?... I'll wait.
>
> You are trying to equate "change" with "defined". Science and evolution are
> becoming more defined, our conclusions are not that drastically changing. We
> are not, as an example, finding moving towards saying space aliens brought
> us here, or that men descended from fish, or that civiliztion is only 5000
> years old. We are defining and revising macroevolution and abiogenesis. The
> same cannot be said for creationism.
Still, Creationism asks some hard questions that you guys
have yet to answer, credibly. Until you do, there's no
reason to take your conclusions at face value.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > And ya know -- that's quite OK.
> >
> > If you say so... LOL
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Don't you agree?... or
> > > >are you more fond of pitching red herrings?
> > >
> > > I just see it as it is, and try not to overinterpret for effect.
> > >
> > > You should try that.
> >
> > To see the world as you do?... God forbid.
>
> So what is the scientific theory of creationism?
Again: I don't know.
> What empirical and
> observable evidence do we have that god created us as is? Why should we take
> your word about god over mine, my neighbor's, or the pizza guy's?
I never said you should take my word for anything. Whatever
nonsense you believe is your own problem.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FF04696.72FB81EB@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FEC763D.2F8C2F7@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Don Homuth wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > > <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Don Homuth wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > > >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> > > > >> >the change in status?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes -- a fraud.
> > > > >
> > > > >But it wasn't a "fraud" for 40 some odd years.
> > > >
> > > > Sure it was. We just didn't know how to see it.
> > >
> > > Right... facts change.
> >
> > No, only our expanations concerning natural law. As more facts are added
the
> > subject becomes more defined. With creationism you start with a
conclusion
> > (goddidit) and mine for a few uncertainties that appear to support it.
With
> > science the picture becomes more clear that we are right about
evolution's
> > mechanisms.
>
> Facts are the explanations we accept. When the explanation changes
> the fact changes along with it. There is no such thing in the universe
> as an unchangeable object/fact. Unless of course you have knowledge
> of the existence of an unchangeable object you wish to share.
>
>
> > What clearly is not happening is a move away from evolution and
> > toward creationism as more research and study is done. This is something
> > creationists cannot rationalize.
>
> Better catch up on your reading.
I am caught up and see no signs of scientist "switching over". The different
disciplines in evolution progress at different rates but to date geologists
aren't saying that the fossil layer was deposited in a flood,
astro-physicists don't claim that the universe is 5000 years old, and
paleontologists don't say that dinosaurs and man lived together. As a matter
of fact as evidence is found and theories are tested the gaps in the theory
are getting smaller and the religionists such as yourself are getting
marginalized. All you have left are political takeovers of school districts
so you can force your psuedo-science on our kids. The world is passing
luddites such as yourself by. You could educate yourself, but you won't,
because you want to desperately hold on to a world view that lets you reject
reality so you can feel you have the TRUTH.
>
>> > You are trying to equate "change" with "defined". Science and evolution
are
> > becoming more defined, our conclusions are not that drastically
changing. We
> > are not, as an example, finding moving towards saying space aliens
brought
> > us here, or that men descended from fish, or that civiliztion is only
5000
> > years old. We are defining and revising macroevolution and abiogenesis.
The
> > same cannot be said for creationism.
>
> Still, Creationism asks some hard questions that you guys
> have yet to answer, credibly. Until you do, there's no
> reason to take your conclusions at face value.
Please tell me what those questions are. I haven't seen any credible
question from a creationist that confounds evolution and supports creation.
Mostly it's creationist asking questions that evolution doesn't answer (like
abiogenesis) and claiming that because they can't that this somehow supports
creation.
No matter, though, as evidenced by your response to valid speciation and
transitional fossils creationists just put their fingers in theirs ears and
summarily refute the answers they don't like. There is no evidence you will
accept if it doesn't fit in to your religious beliefs.
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:oo%Hb.11041$E17.9411@no-spam
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
> news:vv103dehrdprde@no-spam
>
> >
> >
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FF04696.72FB81EB@no-spam
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> > news:3FEC763D.2F8C2F7@no-spam
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Don Homuth wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> >> > > > <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Don Homuth wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> >> > > > >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> >Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> >> > > > >> >the change in status?
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Yes -- a fraud.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >But it wasn't a "fraud" for 40 some odd years.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Sure it was. We just didn't know how to see it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Right... facts change.
> >> >
> >> > No, only our expanations concerning natural law. As more facts are
> >> > added
> > the
> >> > subject becomes more defined. With creationism you start with a
> > conclusion
> >> > (goddidit) and mine for a few uncertainties that appear to support
> >> > it.
> > With
> >> > science the picture becomes more clear that we are right about
> > evolution's
> >> > mechanisms.
> >>
> >> Facts are the explanations we accept. When the explanation changes
> >> the fact changes along with it. There is no such thing in the
> >> universe as an unchangeable object/fact. Unless of course you have
> >> knowledge of the existence of an unchangeable object you wish to
> >> share.
> >>
> >>
> >> > What clearly is not happening is a move away from evolution and
> >> > toward creationism as more research and study is done. This is
> >> > something creationists cannot rationalize.
> >>
> >> Better catch up on your reading.
> >
> > I am caught up and see no signs of scientist "switching over". The
> > different disciplines in evolution progress at different rates but to
> > date geologists aren't saying that the fossil layer was deposited in a
> > flood, astro-physicists don't claim that the universe is 5000 years
> > old, and paleontologists don't say that dinosaurs and man lived
> > together. As a matter of fact as evidence is found and theories are
> > tested the gaps in the theory are getting smaller and the religionists
> > such as yourself are getting marginalized. All you have left are
> > political takeovers of school districts so you can force your
> > psuedo-science on our kids. The world is passing luddites such as
> > yourself by.
>
> Luddites are considerably different from Fundies. Luddites are , in
> general, opposed to Technological Change. The Fundies are opposed to
> Science. And pretty much anything that looks like it might disturb their
> very limited world view. The Fundies oppose on the basis of 'Received
> Wisdom'. The Luddites (modern) oppose on the basis of the effect of
> technology on man and society.
Yes, you are correct. I just use the word Luddite to mean someone who is
opposed to science or technology because it conflicts with their beliefs. I
also use it because Fundies are opposed to lot's of things besides science,
and there are non-christian and non-religious Luddites out there that make
using Fundy seem inappropriate. My definition may be skewed but I'm trying
to use it in a way that gets my point across quicker. There is no word that
actually means what I describe so I use Luddite.
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:LV0Ib.5065$R_4.3132@no-spam
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
> news:vv116u89lvilfb@no-spam
>
> >
> >
> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:oo%Hb.11041$E17.9411@no-spam
> >> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in
> >> news:vv103dehrdprde@no-spam
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> > news:3FF04696.72FB81EB@no-spam
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Dave Thompson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:3FEC763D.2F8C2F7@no-spam
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Don Homuth wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> >> >> > > > <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >Don Homuth wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> >> >> > > > >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> >Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> >> >> > > > >> >the change in status?
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> Yes -- a fraud.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >But it wasn't a "fraud" for 40 some odd years.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Sure it was. We just didn't know how to see it.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Right... facts change.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, only our expanations concerning natural law. As more facts
> >> >> > are added
> >> > the
> >> >> > subject becomes more defined. With creationism you start with a
> >> > conclusion
> >> >> > (goddidit) and mine for a few uncertainties that appear to
> >> >> > support it.
> >> > With
> >> >> > science the picture becomes more clear that we are right about
> >> > evolution's
> >> >> > mechanisms.
> >> >>
> >> >> Facts are the explanations we accept. When the explanation
> >> >> changes the fact changes along with it. There is no such thing in
> >> >> the universe as an unchangeable object/fact. Unless of course you
> >> >> have knowledge of the existence of an unchangeable object you wish
> >> >> to share.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > What clearly is not happening is a move away from evolution and
> >> >> > toward creationism as more research and study is done. This is
> >> >> > something creationists cannot rationalize.
> >> >>
> >> >> Better catch up on your reading.
> >> >
> >> > I am caught up and see no signs of scientist "switching over". The
> >> > different disciplines in evolution progress at different rates but
> >> > to date geologists aren't saying that the fossil layer was
> >> > deposited in a flood, astro-physicists don't claim that the
> >> > universe is 5000 years old, and paleontologists don't say that
> >> > dinosaurs and man lived together. As a matter of fact as evidence
> >> > is found and theories are tested the gaps in the theory are getting
> >> > smaller and the religionists such as yourself are getting
> >> > marginalized. All you have left are political takeovers of school
> >> > districts so you can force your psuedo-science on our kids. The
> >> > world is passing luddites such as yourself by.
> >>
> >> Luddites are considerably different from Fundies. Luddites are , in
> >> general, opposed to Technological Change. The Fundies are opposed to
> >> Science. And pretty much anything that looks like it might disturb
> >> their very limited world view. The Fundies oppose on the basis of
> >> 'Received Wisdom'. The Luddites (modern) oppose on the basis of the
> >> effect of technology on man and society.
> >
> > Yes, you are correct. I just use the word Luddite to mean someone who
> > is opposed to science or technology because it conflicts with their
> > beliefs. I also use it because Fundies are opposed to lot's of things
> > besides science, and there are non-christian and non-religious
> > Luddites out there that make using Fundy seem inappropriate. My
> > definition may be skewed but I'm trying to use it in a way that gets
> > my point across quicker. There is no word that actually means what I
> > describe so I use Luddite.
>
> What a wonderful opportunity for us to invent a new word. How about
> Knowlophobe? Ignoramaphile?
How about dullardtician or obtusoteer?
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FF04696.72FB81EB@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Dave Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FEC763D.2F8C2F7@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don Homuth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > > > <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Don Homuth wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > > > >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> > > > > >> >the change in status?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yes -- a fraud.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But it wasn't a "fraud" for 40 some odd years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure it was. We just didn't know how to see it.
> > > >
> > > > Right... facts change.
> > >
> > > No, only our expanations concerning natural law. As more facts are added
> the
> > > subject becomes more defined. With creationism you start with a
> conclusion
> > > (goddidit) and mine for a few uncertainties that appear to support it.
> With
> > > science the picture becomes more clear that we are right about
> evolution's
> > > mechanisms.
> >
> > Facts are the explanations we accept. When the explanation changes
> > the fact changes along with it. There is no such thing in the universe
> > as an unchangeable object/fact. Unless of course you have knowledge
> > of the existence of an unchangeable object you wish to share.
> >
> >
> > > What clearly is not happening is a move away from evolution and
> > > toward creationism as more research and study is done. This is something
> > > creationists cannot rationalize.
> >
> > Better catch up on your reading.
>
> I am caught up and see no signs of scientist "switching over".
More and more reputable scientists are coming to the conclusion
that science does not exist independent of God.
> The different
> disciplines in evolution progress at different rates but to date geologists
> aren't saying that the fossil layer was deposited in a flood,
> astro-physicists don't claim that the universe is 5000 years old, and
> paleontologists don't say that dinosaurs and man lived together.
Straw men.
> As a matter
> of fact as evidence is found and theories are tested the gaps in the theory
> are getting smaller
So much smaller that soon they'll be able to insert themselves
into their own rectums and disappear.
> and the religionists such as yourself are getting
> marginalized.
When are you going to get it through your thick
skull that I am not a religionist?
> All you have left are political takeovers of school districts
> so you can force your psuedo-science on our kids. The world is passing
> luddites such as yourself by. You could educate yourself, but you won't,
> because you want to desperately hold on to a world view that lets you reject
> reality so you can feel you have the TRUTH.
Projection is good.
>
>
> >
> >> > You are trying to equate "change" with "defined". Science and evolution
> are
> > > becoming more defined, our conclusions are not that drastically
> changing. We
> > > are not, as an example, finding moving towards saying space aliens
> brought
> > > us here, or that men descended from fish, or that civiliztion is only
> 5000
> > > years old. We are defining and revising macroevolution and abiogenesis.
> The
> > > same cannot be said for creationism.
> >
> > Still, Creationism asks some hard questions that you guys
> > have yet to answer, credibly. Until you do, there's no
> > reason to take your conclusions at face value.
>
> Please tell me what those questions are. I haven't seen any credible
> question from a creationist that confounds evolution and supports creation.
I didn't say that your inability to answer creationists questions signifies
support for creationism. What would you do without your straw men?
>
> Mostly it's creationist asking questions that evolution doesn't answer (like
> abiogenesis) and claiming that because they can't that this somehow supports
> creation.
Answer the questions credibly and you won't have the problem.
>
>
> No matter, though, as evidenced by your response to valid speciation and
> transitional fossils creationists just put their fingers in theirs ears and
> summarily refute the answers they don't like. There is no evidence you will
> accept if it doesn't fit in to your religious beliefs.
Projection is good.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FF3C9C1.469ABA86@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FF04696.72FB81EB@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3FEC763D.2F8C2F7@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don Homuth wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > > > > <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Don Homuth wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:06 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> > > > > > >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> > > > > > >> >the change in status?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yes -- a fraud.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But it wasn't a "fraud" for 40 some odd years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure it was. We just didn't know how to see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right... facts change.
> > > >
> > > > No, only our expanations concerning natural law. As more facts are
added
> > the
> > > > subject becomes more defined. With creationism you start with a
> > conclusion
> > > > (goddidit) and mine for a few uncertainties that appear to support
it.
> > With
> > > > science the picture becomes more clear that we are right about
> > evolution's
> > > > mechanisms.
> > >
> > > Facts are the explanations we accept. When the explanation changes
> > > the fact changes along with it. There is no such thing in the
universe
> > > as an unchangeable object/fact. Unless of course you have knowledge
> > > of the existence of an unchangeable object you wish to share.
> > >
> > >
> > > > What clearly is not happening is a move away from evolution and
> > > > toward creationism as more research and study is done. This is
something
> > > > creationists cannot rationalize.
> > >
> > > Better catch up on your reading.
> >
> > I am caught up and see no signs of scientist "switching over".
>
> More and more reputable scientists are coming to the conclusion
> that science does not exist independent of God.
A scientist believing in god has nothing to do with creationism, and there
is no evidence that scientists are moving over to creationism. Most
scientists don't see evolution as conflicting with their religious beliefs.
But please do try to back up your claim.
> > and the religionists such as yourself are getting
> > marginalized.
>
> When are you going to get it through your thick
> skull that I am not a religionist?
Call yourself whatever you want. you base your beliefs on religion and are
pig ignorant of science. To me you are a religionist, a theist, a Fundy. It
doesn't matter.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FF53664.5DB18077@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Dave Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FF3C9C1.469ABA86@no-spam
> > >
> > > > More and more reputable scientists are coming to the conclusion
> > > > that science does not exist independent of God.
> > >
> > > A scientist believing in god has nothing to do with creationism, and
> there
> > > is no evidence that scientists are moving over to creationism.
> >
> > When did I say 'scientists are moving over to
> > creationism'?... you're dreaming again.
> >
> > > Most
> > > scientists don't see evolution as conflicting with their religious
> beliefs.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > But please do try to back up your claim.
> >
> > Please try to stop babbling.
> >
> > > >
> > > > When are you going to get it through your thick
> > > > skull that I am not a religionist?
> > >
> > > Call yourself whatever you want. you base your beliefs on religion and
> are
> > > pig ignorant of science. To me you are a religionist, a theist, a Fundy.
> It
> > > doesn't matter.
> >
> > You have an obsessive desire to prove yourself an
> > ignorant moron... hilarious.
>
> Face it Roy, it's pretty obvious now you have nothing if invective is the
> best you can do. You've been reduced to parroting the same evasions in every
> post.
I post what fits. If it seems like "parroting" to you, that's your problem.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
