Darwin vs DNA

[sakinago]

So?

Not really. Besides, you didn't submit a peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates that the universe has been in any way "tuned."

No I'm not--you're just not answering it. YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

No I am not ignoring the answer because there is no answer, that was my last point. If you asked a physicist the question why is the universe the way it is, they could not give you a specific answer. They might say "well I happen to like this theory, and this is why," but still could not give you a specific answer. If you asked more the one physicist the same question, you would probably get more than one of those answers.

If I were to turn in a research paper for a class using references from a .info site (whether or not it is biased) I would automatically get an F. Even if the paper was the best written paper that professor had ever read. The only legitiment online sources are those form .org or .edu. At least that is what I was taught for science classes not too long ago. The reason I choose NPR as a source is because they are a biased source, yet they still recognize the problem of fine tuning, just like any legitiment physicist out there.

So, let me ask a similar question to you. Please send me proof of multiverse, string, or both theories from a peer-reviewed source. Your not going to find one because it is not out there.

YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

I will ask you again, did you read the article? It dismisses your article, so Its not just me. Like I said before, you are asking the wrong questions and then using those wrong questions to make vaccuous statements. What you seem to fail to understand is if you applied the same logic your using to any of the other theories in the article I posted, you would be dismissing all of theoretical physics.

 

[LOki]

No I am not ignoring the answer because there is no answer, that was my last point. If you asked a physicist the question why is the universe the way it is, they could not give you a specific answer. They might say "well I happen to like this theory, and this is why," but still could not give you a specific answer. If you asked more the one physicist the same question, you would probably get more than one of those answers.

If I were to turn in a research paper for a class using references from a .info site (whether or not it is biased) I would automatically get an F. Even if the paper was the best written paper that professor had ever read. The only legitiment online sources are those form .org or .edu. At least that is what I was taught for science classes not too long ago. The reason I choose NPR as a source is because they are a biased source, yet they still recognize the problem of fine tuning, just like any legitiment physicist out there.

So, let me ask a similar question to you. Please send me proof of multiverse, string, or both theories from a peer-reviewed source. Your not going to find one because it is not out there.

YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

I will ask you again, did you read the article?

Yes.

It dismisses your article, ...

No, it doesn't. Not in the least bit.

... so Its not just me.

It apparently is just you.

Like I said before, you are asking the wrong questions and then using those wrong questions to make vaccuous statements.

I am asking the right questions, which are not being used to make any vacuous statements.

You just make up these things ... just like you made-up this "Deity" you posit.

What you seem to fail to understand...

I'm not failing to understand anything you present you retard. You just make-up this failure of understanding you apply to me.

... is if you applied the same logic your using to any of the other theories in the article I posted, you would be dismissing all of theoretical physics.

So what? I'm not interested. What I AM interested in seeing is that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend--which I assume MUST exist considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

I will ask you again, did you read the article?

Yes.

No, it doesn't. Not in the least bit.

It apparently is just you.


I am asking the right questions, which are not being used to make any vacuous statements.

You just make up these things ... just like you made-up this "Deity" you posit.

What you seem to fail to understand...

I'm not failing to understand anything you present you retard. You just make-up this failure of understanding you apply to me.

... is if you applied the same logic your using to any of the other theories in the article I posted, you would be dismissing all of theoretical physics.

So what? I'm not interested. What I AM interested in seeing is that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend--which I assume MUST exist considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

The article does dismiss your article. Your articles argument is based on the point of limits of the observer, and your point was that fine tuning is not a real problem. My article shows that the limits of the observer are not an issue, and fine tuning is a tough nut to crack. And now we get back to the point of if fine tuning is not a real problem then why are physicist putting theories out there to try to explain it?

My initial point about me believing in a diety was fine tuning (which I put out there being polite to those arguing against evolution, while I tried to tear their argument down), and fine tuning lies on the cuspid of experimental and theoretical physics. The rest of my points on the existence of a diety lie in theoretical physics, which the name alone should tell you that there is no experimental evidence of any of these theories. So how are you not asking the wrong question?

 

[LOki]

I will ask you again, did you read the article?

Yes.

No, it doesn't. Not in the least bit.

It apparently is just you.


I am asking the right questions, which are not being used to make any vacuous statements.

You just make up these things ... just like you made-up this "Deity" you posit.

I'm not failing to understand anything you present you retard. You just make-up this failure of understanding you apply to me.

... is if you applied the same logic your using to any of the other theories in the article I posted, you would be dismissing all of theoretical physics.

So what? I'm not interested. What I AM interested in seeing is that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend--which I assume MUST exist considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

The article does dismiss your article.

Nope. Not in the least bit.

Your articles argument is based on the point of limits of the observer, ...

Nope.

... and your point was that fine tuning is not a real problem.

... and it's not.

My article shows that the limits of the observer are not an issue, and fine tuning is a tough nut to crack.

Not surprising since the ONLY problem of a fine-tuned universe is trying to demonstrate the tuner.

And now we get back to the point of if fine tuning is not a real problem then why are physicist putting theories out there to try to explain it?

Because some creationists who like to declare themselves physicists (and other kinds of scientists) are trying to validate the reality of their imaginary "Deity."

Why don't you ask this question one more time?

My initial point about me believing in a diety was fine tuning (which I put out there being polite to those arguing against evolution, while I tried to tear their argument down), and fine tuning lies on the cuspid of experimental and theoretical physics.

Fine Tuning lies at the center of creationist superstition.

The rest of my points on the existence of a diety lie in theoretical physics, which the name alone should tell you that there is no experimental evidence of any of these theories.

You seem to be confused about the difference between what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes a hypothesis.

Your "Deity" hypothesis that uses "Fine tuning" as it's central premise turns out to be nothing but another fatuously cryptic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal to ignorance propounded by an ID advocate as science, to advance a creationist agenda.

So how are you not asking the wrong question?

Within the context of your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, the question I am asking CANNOT be wrong.

So, considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

For explanations, CLICK ON THE LINKS I provide in the responses, you fucking retard.

Don't forget that that your "Deity" is entirely a construct of your dereistic imagination.

I will allow that I may miss the points you think you're making, but I have proven throughout our interactions that I don't miss any of the points you actually make.

The following is a case in point:
Asking the questions is not nearly enough. Every culture asked the questions reference; the difference between the ones who throw stones at each other and who use stones to build schools; the difference between those who launch rockets at each other and who launch rockets to explore Mars, is the difference between applying a "Deity" as an explanation as opposed to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence for an explanation.

See here is the problem with what you are trying to claim that I am saying. You have the whole time been trying to say that I am using diety to explain everything, which I have not. The only use of a diety I have used is outside of the universe, thats where it stops for me.

You are a liar.

Why don't you decide? This "Deity" you postulate is your own invention. It's entirely imaginary.

But the only thing ive used a "god" to explain things is the way its looking more and more like a finite universe and the problem of fine tuning. Theres been other weak explanations for fine tuning... theyre definitly interesting to hear but are weak, and raise way more questions then they answer.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

And labeling is not disproving. If you try to argue against 2+2=4, calling it addition is not valid argument.

Faulty metaphor. I'm not arguing against addition. I am pointing out that your addition is not grammar. I'm pointing out that your logic is invalid. I'm pointing out the exact logical fallacies you are employing. So what's your point? Something else that you're just imagining?

Really cause right here you said there is no real problem of fine tuning. And you are incorrect about these undercover creationist posing as physicist, because they are trying to do the exact opposite of what you are saying with multi-verse theory. Here is case and point- http://www.allaboutscience.org/multiverse.htm. The full multi-verse theory (or at least the most popular one) is more detailed than this and is, like I said before, a very interesting theory. Its pretty complicated and involves things like black holes as a reproductive mechanism for the universe, but this article is easy to understand so I snagged it. Read the entire article please

 

[LOki]

Really cause right here you said there is no real problem of fine tuning.

Presented as if I denied saying this. What is you fucking problem with being intellectually honest?

And you are incorrect about these undercover creationist posing as physicist, because they are trying to do the exact opposite of what you are saying with multi-verse theory.

Ah. It's your retarded logic at work again.

Some creationists (like you) who like to declare themselves physicists (and other kinds of scientists) are trying to validate the reality of their imaginary "Deity" by promoting this notion of a "fine tuned" universe.

Theoretical physicists who offer the multi-verse hypothesis are not explaining "fine tuning."

Here is case and point- Multiverse. The full multi-verse theory (or at least the most popular one) is more detailed than this and is, like I said before, a very interesting theory. Its pretty complicated and involves things like black holes as a reproductive mechanism for the universe, but this article is easy to understand so I snagged it. Read the entire article please

Despite the fact that your creationist source can in no way be considered credible, pretending that I am unaware of the multi-verse hypothesis is an intellectually dishonest means to advance your creationist points.

So, considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

[Just as an aside. I am not asking this in a derisive manner: Is American English you primary language? If it's not, that may validate your claims that you don't say what you mean; and it might explain why you insist that I have no idea of what you're talking about.]

 

[sakinago]

Really cause right here you said there is no real problem of fine tuning.

Presented as if I denied saying this. What is you fucking problem with being intellectually honest?

And you are incorrect about these undercover creationist posing as physicist, because they are trying to do the exact opposite of what you are saying with multi-verse theory.

Ah. It's your retarded logic at work again.

Some creationists (like you) who like to declare themselves physicists (and other kinds of scientists) are trying to validate the reality of their imaginary "Deity" by promoting this notion of a "fine tuned" universe.

Theoretical physicists who offer the multi-verse hypothesis are not explaining "fine tuning."

Here is case and point- Multiverse. The full multi-verse theory (or at least the most popular one) is more detailed than this and is, like I said before, a very interesting theory. Its pretty complicated and involves things like black holes as a reproductive mechanism for the universe, but this article is easy to understand so I snagged it. Read the entire article please

Despite the fact that your creationist source can in no way be considered credible, pretending that I am unaware of the multi-verse hypothesis is an intellectually dishonest means to advance your creationist points.

So, considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

[Just as an aside. I am not asking this in a derisive manner: Is American English you primary language? If it's not, that may validate your claims that you don't say what you mean; and it might explain why you insist that I have no idea of what you're talking about.]

Hahaha, fine here's an actual peer reviewed source for one of the popular multi-verse theories, says the same thing as the previous article, you made me use ebsco host. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 091101 (2008): Kaon Condensation, Black Holes, and Cosmological Natural Selection And yes we were warned in school to be wary of .org, and make sure you check who the orginization is...which I did not do in that case. But in this case it is from the American physical society, its a peer-reviewed journal, and I doubt that you will find a problem with it.

 

[LOki]

Really cause right here you said there is no real problem of fine tuning.

Presented as if I denied saying this. What is you fucking problem with being intellectually honest?

Ah. It's your retarded logic at work again.

Some creationists (like you) who like to declare themselves physicists (and other kinds of scientists) are trying to validate the reality of their imaginary "Deity" by promoting this notion of a "fine tuned" universe.

Theoretical physicists who offer the multi-verse hypothesis are not explaining "fine tuning."

Here is case and point- Multiverse. The full multi-verse theory (or at least the most popular one) is more detailed than this and is, like I said before, a very interesting theory. Its pretty complicated and involves things like black holes as a reproductive mechanism for the universe, but this article is easy to understand so I snagged it. Read the entire article please

Despite the fact that your creationist source can in no way be considered credible, pretending that I am unaware of the multi-verse hypothesis is an intellectually dishonest means to advance your creationist points.

So, considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

[Just as an aside. I am not asking this in a derisive manner: Is American English you primary language? If it's not, that may validate your claims that you don't say what you mean; and it might explain why you insist that I have no idea of what you're talking about.]

Hahaha, fine here's an actual peer reviewed source for one of the popular multi-verse theories, says the same thing as the previous article, you made me use ebsco host. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 091101 (2008): Kaon Condensation, Black Holes, and Cosmological Natural Selection And yes we were warned in school to be wary of .org, and make sure you check who the orginization is...which I did not do in that case. But in this case it is from the American physical society, its a peer-reviewed journal, and I doubt that you will find a problem with it.

Grand. However I didn't ask for that.

Considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

Presented as if I denied saying this. What is you fucking problem with being intellectually honest?

Ah. It's your retarded logic at work again.

Some creationists (like you) who like to declare themselves physicists (and other kinds of scientists) are trying to validate the reality of their imaginary "Deity" by promoting this notion of a "fine tuned" universe.

Theoretical physicists who offer the multi-verse hypothesis are not explaining "fine tuning."

Despite the fact that your creationist source can in no way be considered credible, pretending that I am unaware of the multi-verse hypothesis is an intellectually dishonest means to advance your creationist points.

So, considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

[Just as an aside. I am not asking this in a derisive manner: Is American English you primary language? If it's not, that may validate your claims that you don't say what you mean; and it might explain why you insist that I have no idea of what you're talking about.]

Hahaha, fine here's an actual peer reviewed source for one of the popular multi-verse theories, says the same thing as the previous article, you made me use ebsco host. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 091101 (2008): Kaon Condensation, Black Holes, and Cosmological Natural Selection And yes we were warned in school to be wary of .org, and make sure you check who the orginization is...which I did not do in that case. But in this case it is from the American physical society, its a peer-reviewed journal, and I doubt that you will find a problem with it.

Grand. However I didn't ask for that.

Considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

Well as I have explained before before 1 part of my argument is fine tuning, the other part theoretical physics. Your asking the wrong question (and I believe doing so on purpose).

 

[LOki]

Hahaha, fine here's an actual peer reviewed source for one of the popular multi-verse theories, says the same thing as the previous article, you made me use ebsco host. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 091101 (2008): Kaon Condensation, Black Holes, and Cosmological Natural Selection And yes we were warned in school to be wary of .org, and make sure you check who the orginization is...which I did not do in that case. But in this case it is from the American physical society, its a peer-reviewed journal, and I doubt that you will find a problem with it.

Grand. However I didn't ask for that.

Considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

Well as I have explained before before 1 part of my argument is fine tuning, the other part theoretical physics. Your asking the wrong question (and I believe doing so on purpose).

It is obviously the right question, or you wouldn't be such a pussy about not answering it. So, considering YOUR apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

Grand. However I didn't ask for that.

Considering your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

Well as I have explained before before 1 part of my argument is fine tuning, the other part theoretical physics. Your asking the wrong question (and I believe doing so on purpose).

It is obviously the right question, or you wouldn't be such a pussy about not answering it. So, considering YOUR apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

I havn't been a pussy, I've laid out my argument plenty of times. You are asking for the answer of why the universe is the way it is...which there is no answer. So yes, you are asking the wrong question, and I am guessing doing so on purpose.

 

[LOki]

Well as I have explained before before 1 part of my argument is fine tuning, the other part theoretical physics. Your asking the wrong question (and I believe doing so on purpose).

It is obviously the right question, or you wouldn't be such a pussy about not answering it. So, considering YOUR apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates one's assertions, I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

I havn't been a pussy, ...

You sure have. Redeem yourself and please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

I've laid out my argument plenty of times.

You've laid out crap.

You are asking for the answer of why the universe is the way it is...

No I'm not.

... which there is no answer.

Except that you claim to have one.

So yes, you are asking the wrong question, and I am guessing doing so on purpose.

No, I am obviously asking the right question on purpose. You are not answering it ... on purpose--Because you're a pussy.

 

[Hardcandy]

The author is trying to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear.
Look, If you place a stick of dynamite under a corvette and detonate it, when the dust clears, will a brand new Harley be sitting there? Randomness is responsible for precision?
Please tell me you don't believe that primordial slime created a precise, digital code. It took us 20 centuries to accomplish a simple computer code, but pond scum evolved into a 3 billion letter code that reduces those 3 billion letters into four characters? See why I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist?

I believe the theory suggests that if you dynamite the Vette gazillions of times, the atoms and molecules could indeed eventually reunite in the form of a Harley...

 

[ima]

The author is trying to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear.
Look, If you place a stick of dynamite under a corvette and detonate it, when the dust clears, will a brand new Harley be sitting there? Randomness is responsible for precision?
Please tell me you don't believe that primordial slime created a precise, digital code. It took us 20 centuries to accomplish a simple computer code, but pond scum evolved into a 3 billion letter code that reduces those 3 billion letters into four characters? See why I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist?

I believe the theory suggests that if you dynamite the Vette gazillions of times, the atoms and molecules could indeed eventually reunite in the form of a Harley...

If you place a stick of dynamite under a corvette and detonate it, just because the pieces fall randomly to the ground doesn't mean that said corvette was made by an invisible superbeing who lives in another dimension that no one has ever been to.

 

[Hardcandy]

The author is trying to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear.
Look, If you place a stick of dynamite under a corvette and detonate it, when the dust clears, will a brand new Harley be sitting there? Randomness is responsible for precision?
Please tell me you don't believe that primordial slime created a precise, digital code. It took us 20 centuries to accomplish a simple computer code, but pond scum evolved into a 3 billion letter code that reduces those 3 billion letters into four characters? See why I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist?

I believe the theory suggests that if you dynamite the Vette gazillions of times, the atoms and molecules could indeed eventually reunite in the form of a Harley...

If you place a stick of dynamite under a corvette and detonate it, just because the pieces fall randomly to the ground doesn't mean that said corvette was made by an invisible superbeing who lives in another dimension that no one has ever been to.

Just curious, were you aware that the anti-religious sentiments of the unwitting liberal pawns are the result of years of Marxist indoctrination?

The father of this oppressive ideology, Karl Marx, viewed religion as an enemy to his creation and promoted intolerance for it in his writings.

He knew that freedom, morality, a strong family unit and religion were as much a threat to his beloved ideology as water is to fire.

The United States with its successful capitalist economy, laws and unique system of government, all rooted in Christianity, was an aberration to the followers of Marx.

Beginning in the early 20th Century, American universities became a breeding ground for Marxism which began teaching its young to hate capitalism and everything American.

These Marxist infiltrators operated under the guise of "Progressive" and created a following of unwitting pawns which called themselves "liberals" and used America's Constitutional freedoms to advance their anti-america agenda.

It culminated in the anti-war movement and sexual revolution during the 1960s...The hard left had finally came out of the closet and Che Guevara was on more t-shirts than the American Flag...The many years of indoctrination and brainwashing had been a huge success!

The Beginning:
The Frankfurt School
History of the Frankfurt School
Frankfurt School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LOki]

Just curious, were you aware that the anti-religious sentiments of the unwitting liberal pawns are the result of years of Marxist indoctrination?

Just curious, were you aware that the anti-reason sentiments of the unwitting religious pawns are the result of years of Statist indoctrination?

The father of this oppressive ideology, Karl Marx, viewed religion as an enemy to his creation and promoted intolerance for it in his writings.

Karl Marx viewed lucid rationality as an enemy to his creation and promoted intolerance for it, just as theocratic religious fundamentalists do, for the exact same reasons.

He knew that freedom, morality, a strong family unit and religion were as much a threat to his beloved ideology as water is to fire.

We know that freedom, morality, a strong family unit and reason are as much a threat to religion, as water is to fire.

The United States with its successful capitalist economy, laws and unique system of government, all rooted in Christianity, was an aberration to the followers of Marx.

The United States with its successful capitalist economy, laws and unique system of government, all rooted in REASON, was an aberration to the followers of all manner of Statism.

Beginning in the early 20th Century, American universities became a breeding ground for Marxism which began teaching its young to hate capitalism and everything American.

Beginning in the early 20th Century, Evangelical Ministries became a breeding ground for all manner of Theocratic Statism which began teaching its young to hate the 1st Amendment, secular government, reason, science, fast cars, motorcycles, Rock-n-Roll, Bourbon Whiskey, Coca-Cola and everything American.

These Marxist infiltrators operated under the guise of "Progressive" and created a following of unwitting pawns which called themselves "liberals" and used America's Constitutional freedoms to advance their anti-america agenda.

While an entirely different flavor of Statistist infiltrator operated under the guise of a "Moral Majority" and created a following of unwitting pawns which called themselves "Conservatives" and used America's Constitutional freedoms to advance their anti-america agenda.

It culminated in the anti-war movement and sexual revolution during the 1960s...The hard left had finally came out of the closet and Che Guevara was on more t-shirts than the American Flag...The many years of indoctrination and brainwashing had been a huge success!

The Beginning:
The Frankfurt School
History of the Frankfurt School
Frankfurt School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

40 years later we have Christian retards attempting to inveigle their superstition into science classrooms, molesting little boys, and living the high-life on the tax-exempt proceeds from fleecing the gullible.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."--James Madison​

 

[ima]

I believe the theory suggests that if you dynamite the Vette gazillions of times, the atoms and molecules could indeed eventually reunite in the form of a Harley...

If you place a stick of dynamite under a corvette and detonate it, just because the pieces fall randomly to the ground doesn't mean that said corvette was made by an invisible superbeing who lives in another dimension that no one has ever been to.

Just curious, were you aware that the anti-religious sentiments of the unwitting liberal pawns are the result of years of Marxist indoctrination?

The father of this oppressive ideology, Karl Marx, viewed religion as an enemy to his creation and promoted intolerance for it in his writings.

He knew that freedom, morality, a strong family unit and religion were as much a threat to his beloved ideology as water is to fire.

The United States with its successful capitalist economy, laws and unique system of government, all rooted in Christianity, was an aberration to the followers of Marx.

Beginning in the early 20th Century, American universities became a breeding ground for Marxism which began teaching its young to hate capitalism and everything American.

These Marxist infiltrators operated under the guise of "Progressive" and created a following of unwitting pawns which called themselves "liberals" and used America's Constitutional freedoms to advance their anti-america agenda.

It culminated in the anti-war movement and sexual revolution during the 1960s...The hard left had finally came out of the closet and Che Guevara was on more t-shirts than the American Flag...The many years of indoctrination and brainwashing had been a huge success!

Did you know that I don't care? Marxism was proven to be bullshit. Calling out religion as a fraud was probably its only redeeming quality.