Can It Be Science If It's Based On Lies???

[ogibillm]

Have someone without A.D.D. read the thread and explain it to you.

it's a simple question. please answer it. you have a posting style that borders on insane rambling so divining the meaning, or your intended meaning, out of them can be difficult.

i believe you are making the claim that the theory of evolution is a lie. is that or is that not what you are claiming?

Just stop making excuses for your stupidity.

fine. i'm the stupid one. now please clear up for me the purpose of the thread. i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue and that the science behind it is built on lies - is that not your position?

please, help this lowly idiot understand your greatness by stating your position clearly and concisely.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The religious always stand on a ladder and spit on everyone that doesn't believe as they do. Evolution is at least based on observation....

Only the pages of a book that can't be backed up backs them. Laughable! Not to say evolution couldn't be falsified one day but it has far more standing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The religious always stand on a ladder and spit on everyone that doesn't believe as they do. Evolution is at least based on observation....

Only the pages of a book that can't be backed up backs them. Laughable! Not to say evolution couldn't be falsified one day but it has far more standing.

Could you point out a couple of the references to religion in the thread?

No?

Well, then....why did you bring it up?
Is this a Horshak moment? An inarticulate outburst?



You seem to be bereft of either a cogent argument or a cerebrum. Perhaps both.

 

[PoliticalChic]

it's a simple question. please answer it. you have a posting style that borders on insane rambling so divining the meaning, or your intended meaning, out of them can be difficult.

i believe you are making the claim that the theory of evolution is a lie. is that or is that not what you are claiming?

Just stop making excuses for your stupidity.

fine. i'm the stupid one. now please clear up for me the purpose of the thread. i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue and that the science behind it is built on lies - is that not your position?

please, help this lowly idiot understand your greatness by stating your position clearly and concisely.

" i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue..."

Could you quote same in the thread?

Or are you simply a liar?

Which one?

 

[orogenicman]

you're trying to claim that evolution is a lie, correct?

I believe a losertive believes all science is a lie. Honestly, these people don't get the reality that a lot of science is trail and error built on the backs of many generations of science. So far evolution looks to be a solid theory that stands up to all falsifications. Not to say that one day it can't be disproven but these people seem to want to throw it out based on the fact that it threatens their faith in god o'might!!!

And I believe you to be a moron.

Matthew the Moron.


Thanks so very much for proving same.

Proving yet again how easy you are to believe in silly shit.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I believe a losertive believes all science is a lie. Honestly, these people don't get the reality that a lot of science is trail and error built on the backs of many generations of science. So far evolution looks to be a solid theory that stands up to all falsifications. Not to say that one day it can't be disproven but these people seem to want to throw it out based on the fact that it threatens their faith in god o'might!!!

And I believe you to be a moron.

Matthew the Moron.


Thanks so very much for proving same.

Proving yet again how easy you are to believe in silly shit.

I guess I am a moron for standing up for real science over bull shit. You're a moron PC as clear as the sky is blue!

 

[rdean]

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

Pat Robertson thinks you're a joke.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think the idiot saying that observed science is all lies is the real moron! No basis in reality!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the idiot saying that observed science is all lies is the real moron! No basis in reality!

Since the thread proved that there is no "observed science" supporting Darwin's theory....well, what is one to make of your post?




What an interesting outcome!

Had my plan been to force you to reveal yourself as both a liar and a moron.....

....I couldn't have been more successful!

 

[orogenicman]

I think the idiot saying that observed science is all lies is the real moron! No basis in reality!

Since the thread proved that there is no "observed science" supporting Darwin's theory....

Proving yet again that being saved requires one to lose all sense of the ironic. Congratulations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the idiot saying that observed science is all lies is the real moron! No basis in reality!

Since the thread proved that there is no "observed science" supporting Darwin's theory....

Proving yet again that being saved requires one to lose all sense of the ironic. Congratulations.

As you've dropped by, let me take the opportunity to ask you: have you resolved to give up lying?


...or will that continue to be the mainstay of your repertoire?

 

[ogibillm]

Just stop making excuses for your stupidity.

fine. i'm the stupid one. now please clear up for me the purpose of the thread. i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue and that the science behind it is built on lies - is that not your position?

please, help this lowly idiot understand your greatness by stating your position clearly and concisely.

" i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue..."

Could you quote same in the thread?

Or are you simply a liar?

Which one?

when i read your op, in which you said

So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

i took it to mean that you believed the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution, that those that claimed it did were lying, and that you believed evolution to be untrue.

am i incorrect in that interpretation?

 

[orogenicman]

Since the thread proved that there is no "observed science" supporting Darwin's theory....

Proving yet again that being saved requires one to lose all sense of the ironic. Congratulations.

As you've dropped by, let me take the opportunity to ask you: have you resolved to give up lying?


...or will that continue to be the mainstay of your repertoire?

Tell us about your efforts to discover the Cambrian bunny rabbit. How's that working out for you? By the way, your sig doesn't apply to you, since you appear to be most conservative on issues about which you know very little: Evolution, for example.

 

[PoliticalChic]

fine. i'm the stupid one. now please clear up for me the purpose of the thread. i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue and that the science behind it is built on lies - is that not your position?

please, help this lowly idiot understand your greatness by stating your position clearly and concisely.

" i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue..."

Could you quote same in the thread?

Or are you simply a liar?

Which one?

when i read your op, in which you said

So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

i took it to mean that you believed the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution, that those that claimed it did were lying, and that you believed evolution to be untrue.

am i incorrect in that interpretation?

Obviously I write with more precision than you read.

 

[orogenicman]

" i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue..."

Could you quote same in the thread?

Or are you simply a liar?

Which one?

when i read your op, in which you said

So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

i took it to mean that you believed the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution, that those that claimed it did were lying, and that you believed evolution to be untrue.

am i incorrect in that interpretation?

Obviously I write with more precision than you read.

And yet your posts are rarely coherent.

 

[ogibillm]

" i believe that you are claiming evolution is untrue..."

Could you quote same in the thread?

Or are you simply a liar?

Which one?

when i read your op, in which you said

So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

i took it to mean that you believed the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution, that those that claimed it did were lying, and that you believed evolution to be untrue.

am i incorrect in that interpretation?

Obviously I write with more precision than you read.

you write in a rambling, incoherent fashion.

so please, if you are not claiming that evolution is false what is your argument?

 

[PoliticalChic]

when i read your op, in which you said

i took it to mean that you believed the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution, that those that claimed it did were lying, and that you believed evolution to be untrue.

am i incorrect in that interpretation?

Obviously I write with more precision than you read.

you write in a rambling, incoherent fashion.

so please, if you are not claiming that evolution is false what is your argument?

No it isn't.


Clean off your specs and read carefully.

 

[PoliticalChic]

when i read your op, in which you said
i took it to mean that you believed the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution, that those that claimed it did were lying, and that you believed evolution to be untrue.

am i incorrect in that interpretation?

Obviously I write with more precision than you read.

And yet your posts are rarely coherent.

I asked: have you resolved to give up lying?


...or will that continue to be the mainstay of your repertoire?




I believe you've just answered it.

 

[ogibillm]

Obviously I write with more precision than you read.

you write in a rambling, incoherent fashion.

so please, if you are not claiming that evolution is false what is your argument?

No it isn't.


Clean off your specs and read carefully.

i've done my best. if that is not your claim please stop being obtuse and sum up your position clearly and concisely. if you truly want a discussion you will make yourself clear

 

[orogenicman]

Obviously I write with more precision than you read.

And yet your posts are rarely coherent.

I asked: have you resolved to give up lying?


...or will that continue to be the mainstay of your repertoire?




I believe you've just answered it.

"Insanity - repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

- Albert Einstein