Of Hamlet, Monkeys and Infinity

[PoliticalChic]

It is unfortunate that you are calling him names because he is correct. I have already made two posts on this topic in your thread about 'mathematics not proving evolution'. Let me repeat it again. In a given population, if there is no mutation, no gene flow, mating is random, population is large enough to negate the allele/genotype frequency shift then there will be no evolution. So he is correct in saying that evolution is not random. It is the factors that induce it are random. There is a difference.

Another poster trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC

Get it through your head....she has no interest in serious discusion, facts or logic

Being born into a family of hard core Christian fundementalists, I understand PC's point of view and method of arguement very well. And that 'education' has also left me with a profound contempt for those that choose willfull ignorance over knowledge. It damages them, their children, and those around them. A meme that works against their own survival.

"...hard core Christian fundementalists,..."

Speak for yourself, dunce.


My arguments are always based on science.....and that area is your weakest......

 

[PoliticalChic]

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

It is unfortunate that you are calling him names because he is correct. I have already made two posts on this topic in your thread about 'mathematics not proving evolution'. Let me repeat it again. In a given population, if there is no mutation, no gene flow, mating is random, population is large enough to negate the allele/genotype frequency shift then there will be no evolution. So he is correct in saying that evolution is not random. It is the factors that induce it are random. There is a difference.

Another poster trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC

Get it through your head....she has no interest in serious discusion, facts or logic

Correction: "facts or logic" are all I use.

 

[alang1216]

Correction: "facts or logic" are all I use.

If you don't agree with Darwin you must have a logical alternative based on facts. Care to share?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Correction: "facts or logic" are all I use.

If you don't agree with Darwin you must have a logical alternative based on facts. Care to share?

1. I disagree with Darwin, and have provided several OPs revealing the weaknesses in same.
I have provided facts, links to others in the science community who have agreed with my premise, and dolts simply answer 'is not, is not.'


2. "...you must have a logical alternative..."
That is my objective: Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?


3. But...if you have the desire, you might want to provide an answer as to why is so essential to the 'political correct league' to march lock-step with a patently false view?



4. Here's another hint: those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion.
Did you know that?

 

[Asclepias]

Correction: "facts or logic" are all I use.

If you don't agree with Darwin you must have a logical alternative based on facts. Care to share?

1. I disagree with Darwin, and have provided several OPs revealing the weaknesses in same.
I have provided facts, links to others in the science community who have agreed with my premise, and dolts simply answer 'is not, is not.'


2. "...you must have a logical alternative..."
That is my objective: Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?


3. But...if you have the desire, you might want to provide an answer as to why is so essential to the 'political correct league' to march lock-step with a patently false view?



4. Here's another hint: those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion.
Did you know that?

I fall under #2. If evolution is not correct what is?

Your argument sounds like this....

PC: We do not breathe air like everyone thinks.
Me: What do we breathe?
PC: It does not matter.

At this point I'd have to say whats your point if you cant offer an alternative?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you don't agree with Darwin you must have a logical alternative based on facts. Care to share?

1. I disagree with Darwin, and have provided several OPs revealing the weaknesses in same.
I have provided facts, links to others in the science community who have agreed with my premise, and dolts simply answer 'is not, is not.'


2. "...you must have a logical alternative..."
That is my objective: Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?


3. But...if you have the desire, you might want to provide an answer as to why is so essential to the 'political correct league' to march lock-step with a patently false view?



4. Here's another hint: those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion.
Did you know that?

I fall under #2. If evolution is not correct what is?

Your argument sounds like this....

PC: We do not breathe air like everyone thinks.
Me: What do we breathe?
PC: It does not matter.

At this point I'd have to say whats your point if you cant offer an alternative?

What you fall under is the left side of the IQ curve.

 

[Asclepias]

1. I disagree with Darwin, and have provided several OPs revealing the weaknesses in same.
I have provided facts, links to others in the science community who have agreed with my premise, and dolts simply answer 'is not, is not.'


2. "...you must have a logical alternative..."
That is my objective: Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?


3. But...if you have the desire, you might want to provide an answer as to why is so essential to the 'political correct league' to march lock-step with a patently false view?



4. Here's another hint: those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion.
Did you know that?

I fall under #2. If evolution is not correct what is?

Your argument sounds like this....

PC: We do not breathe air like everyone thinks.
Me: What do we breathe?
PC: It does not matter.

At this point I'd have to say whats your point if you cant offer an alternative?

What you fall under is the left side of the IQ curve.

Thanks for admitting you have no point. I see you fear true debate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I fall under #2. If evolution is not correct what is?

Your argument sounds like this....

PC: We do not breathe air like everyone thinks.
Me: What do we breathe?
PC: It does not matter.

At this point I'd have to say whats your point if you cant offer an alternative?

What you fall under is the left side of the IQ curve.

Thanks for admitting you have no point. I see you fear true debate.

Fool.

 

[alang1216]

Correction: "facts or logic" are all I use.

If you don't agree with Darwin you must have a logical alternative based on facts. Care to share?

1. I disagree with Darwin, and have provided several OPs revealing the weaknesses in same.
I have provided facts, links to others in the science community who have agreed with my premise, and dolts simply answer 'is not, is not.'

2. "...you must have a logical alternative..."
That is my objective: Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?

3. But...if you have the desire, you might want to provide an answer as to why is so essential to the 'political correct league' to march lock-step with a patently false view?

4. Here's another hint: those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion.
Did you know that?

It is fine to say you disagree with Darwin but you don't appear to have an alternative explaination. The question is not

Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?

the question is why don't you provide ANYTHING? Or do you have nothing to provide?

Sorry to disappoint you again but while I champion the evolution theory but I'm not of the Marxist persuasion. Do you have something to back up that accusation, maybe some facts or logic, or are you just making stuff up?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you don't agree with Darwin you must have a logical alternative based on facts. Care to share?

1. I disagree with Darwin, and have provided several OPs revealing the weaknesses in same.
I have provided facts, links to others in the science community who have agreed with my premise, and dolts simply answer 'is not, is not.'

2. "...you must have a logical alternative..."
That is my objective: Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?

3. But...if you have the desire, you might want to provide an answer as to why is so essential to the 'political correct league' to march lock-step with a patently false view?

4. Here's another hint: those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion.
Did you know that?

It is fine to say you disagree with Darwin but you don't appear to have an alternative explaination. The question is not

Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?

the question is why don't you provide ANYTHING? Or do you have nothing to provide?

Sorry to disappoint you again but while I champion the evolution theory but I'm not of the Marxist persuasion. Do you have something to back up that accusation, maybe some facts or logic, or are you just making stuff up?

I never 'just make stuff up.'




Here is a start for your research:

1. "Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science.....Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gould was the foremost modern proponent of Darwin's theory....with the modification mentioned above....a neo-Darwinist.


2. . "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html



3. Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' was directly based on Marx's theory of history.
"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists."
Ibid.




Begin by admitting that you were unaware of the forces behind the demands that Darwin be not just accepted.....but worshiped.



I said early on that your limited education, and a reliance on the study of evolution alone, cannot equip you to understand the context in which it should be placed.

 

[alang1216]

1. I disagree with Darwin, and have provided several OPs revealing the weaknesses in same.
I have provided facts, links to others in the science community who have agreed with my premise, and dolts simply answer 'is not, is not.'

2. "...you must have a logical alternative..."
That is my objective: Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?

3. But...if you have the desire, you might want to provide an answer as to why is so essential to the 'political correct league' to march lock-step with a patently false view?

4. Here's another hint: those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion.
Did you know that?

It is fine to say you disagree with Darwin but you don't appear to have an alternative explaination. The question is not

Why would it be necessary to provide anything else?

the question is why don't you provide ANYTHING? Or do you have nothing to provide?

Sorry to disappoint you again but while I champion the evolution theory but I'm not of the Marxist persuasion. Do you have something to back up that accusation, maybe some facts or logic, or are you just making stuff up?

I never 'just make stuff up.'

Here is a start for your research:

1. "Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science.....Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gould was the foremost proponent of Darwin's theory....with the modification mentioned above....a neo-Darwinist.

2. . "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html

3. Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' was directly based on Marx's theory of history.
"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists."
Ibid.

Begin by admitting that you were unaware of the forces behind the demands that Darwin be not just accepted.....but worshiped.

I said early on that your limited education, and a reliance on the study of evolution alone, cannot equip you to understand the context in which it should be placed.

So Gould was a Marxist who "finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine." OK, you claimed that

those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion

and named one example. "Largely" implies a majority, are you intending to list all evolutionary biologists who are also Marxists? Or was the "largely" incorrect?

I'm happy to admit I'm unaware of a conspiracy by scientists to worship Darwin. Science respects theories that explain the evidence and attacks theories that do not. That may be worship to you, it isn't to me.

You still offer no alternative theory to evolution. Are you a ID/Creationist or do you have a different theory that better fits the facts?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is fine to say you disagree with Darwin but you don't appear to have an alternative explaination. The question is not the question is why don't you provide ANYTHING? Or do you have nothing to provide?

Sorry to disappoint you again but while I champion the evolution theory but I'm not of the Marxist persuasion. Do you have something to back up that accusation, maybe some facts or logic, or are you just making stuff up?

I never 'just make stuff up.'

Here is a start for your research:

1. "Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science.....Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gould was the foremost proponent of Darwin's theory....with the modification mentioned above....a neo-Darwinist.

2. . "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html

3. Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' was directly based on Marx's theory of history.
"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists."
Ibid.

Begin by admitting that you were unaware of the forces behind the demands that Darwin be not just accepted.....but worshiped.

I said early on that your limited education, and a reliance on the study of evolution alone, cannot equip you to understand the context in which it should be placed.

So Gould was a Marxist who "finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine." OK, you claimed that

those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion

and named one example. "Largely" implies a majority, are you intending to list all evolutionary biologists who are also Marxists? Or was the "largely" incorrect?

I'm happy to admit I'm unaware of a conspiracy by scientists to worship Darwin. Science respects theories that explain the evidence and attacks theories that do not. That may be worship to you, it isn't to me.

You still offer no alternative theory to evolution. Are you a ID/Creationist or do you have a different theory that better fits the facts?

I named more than one Marxist prominent in advancing Darwinism.


Did you see this in #2: " [Did Gould] Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence?]

Did you?





"Are you a ID/Creationist or do you have a different theory that better fits the facts?"

I am an individual far more educated in every area that we have discussed, than you.
That is the pertinent information.

 

[jwoodie]

Darwinism is a useful, but flawed, theory. Unfortunately, its acolytes feel the need to defend even its most incongruous aspects like Peter saving the dyke in order to hold back an ocean of religious repression waiting to drown them. As a result, they have abandoned legitimate scientific inquiry and replaced it with the preposterous proposition that the burden of proof lies with its sceptics.

 

[alang1216]

I never 'just make stuff up.'

Here is a start for your research:

1. "Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science.....Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gould was the foremost proponent of Darwin's theory....with the modification mentioned above....a neo-Darwinist.

2. . "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html

3. Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' was directly based on Marx's theory of history.
"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists."
Ibid.

Begin by admitting that you were unaware of the forces behind the demands that Darwin be not just accepted.....but worshiped.

I said early on that your limited education, and a reliance on the study of evolution alone, cannot equip you to understand the context in which it should be placed.

So Gould was a Marxist who "finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine." OK, you claimed that

those who champion the evolution theory that you blindly follow are largely of the Marxist persuasion

and named one example. "Largely" implies a majority, are you intending to list all evolutionary biologists who are also Marxists? Or was the "largely" incorrect?

I'm happy to admit I'm unaware of a conspiracy by scientists to worship Darwin. Science respects theories that explain the evidence and attacks theories that do not. That may be worship to you, it isn't to me.

You still offer no alternative theory to evolution. Are you a ID/Creationist or do you have a different theory that better fits the facts?

I named more than one Marxist prominent in advancing Darwinism.


Did you see this in #2: " [Did Gould] Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence?]

Did you?





"Are you a ID/Creationist or do you have a different theory that better fits the facts?"

I am an individual far more educated in every area that we have discussed, than you.
That is the pertinent information.

Gould never questioned decent from a common ancestor. Only the timing.

Tell me about your education.

Friendly word of advice, if you have to tell people how smart you are, you come off sounding dumb.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PoliticalChic]

So Gould was a Marxist who "finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine." OK, you claimed that and named one example. "Largely" implies a majority, are you intending to list all evolutionary biologists who are also Marxists? Or was the "largely" incorrect?

I'm happy to admit I'm unaware of a conspiracy by scientists to worship Darwin. Science respects theories that explain the evidence and attacks theories that do not. That may be worship to you, it isn't to me.

You still offer no alternative theory to evolution. Are you a ID/Creationist or do you have a different theory that better fits the facts?

I named more than one Marxist prominent in advancing Darwinism.


Did you see this in #2: " [Did Gould] Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence?]

Did you?





"Are you a ID/Creationist or do you have a different theory that better fits the facts?"

I am an individual far more educated in every area that we have discussed, than you.
That is the pertinent information.

Gould never questioned decent from a common ancestor. Only the timing.

Tell me about your education.

Friendly word of advice, if you have to tell people how smart you are, you come off sounding dumb.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Sound dumb....but you have proven dumb.

 

[alang1216]

Darwinism is a useful, but flawed, theory. Unfortunately, its acolytes feel the need to defend even its most incongruous aspects like Peter saving the dyke in order to hold back an ocean of religious repression waiting to drown them. As a result, they have abandoned legitimate scientific inquiry and replaced it with the preposterous proposition that the burden of proof lies with its sceptics.

Some of us endeavor to separate science from religion and politics. Science can offer nothing to religion and little to politics. Religion and politics can offer nothing to science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinism is a useful, but flawed, theory. Unfortunately, its acolytes feel the need to defend even its most incongruous aspects like Peter saving the dyke in order to hold back an ocean of religious repression waiting to drown them. As a result, they have abandoned legitimate scientific inquiry and replaced it with the preposterous proposition that the burden of proof lies with its sceptics.

Some of us endeavor to separate science from religion and politics. Science can offer nothing to religion and little to politics. Religion and politics can offer nothing to science.

"Some of us endeavor to separate science from religion and politics."


And that is exactly why you will never realize how you are being manipulated.

 

[Hollie]

Another poster trying to conduct a serious discussion with PC

Get it through your head....she has no interest in serious discusion, facts or logic

Being born into a family of hard core Christian fundementalists, I understand PC's point of view and method of arguement very well. And that 'education' has also left me with a profound contempt for those that choose willfull ignorance over knowledge. It damages them, their children, and those around them. A meme that works against their own survival.

"...hard core Christian fundementalists,..."

Speak for yourself, dunce.


My arguments are always based on science.....and that area is your weakest......

Actually, no. You further no arguments at all. You simply cherry-pick out of context, edited and parsed "quotes" you mine from Christian fundamentalist websites.

 

[alang1216]

Darwinism is a useful, but flawed, theory. Unfortunately, its acolytes feel the need to defend even its most incongruous aspects like Peter saving the dyke in order to hold back an ocean of religious repression waiting to drown them. As a result, they have abandoned legitimate scientific inquiry and replaced it with the preposterous proposition that the burden of proof lies with its sceptics.

Some of us endeavor to separate science from religion and politics. Science can offer nothing to religion and little to politics. Religion and politics can offer nothing to science.

"Some of us endeavor to separate science from religion and politics."

And that is exactly why you will never realize how you are being manipulated.

I feel it is you attempting to manipulate and bully me.

You criticize a theory that went through a century of examination by science but offer no alternative. You rail about science conspiracies but don't understand the basics of evolution. You offer no credentials beyond vague claims of intelligence and knowledge, claims not supported by your writings.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Being born into a family of hard core Christian fundementalists, I understand PC's point of view and method of arguement very well. And that 'education' has also left me with a profound contempt for those that choose willfull ignorance over knowledge. It damages them, their children, and those around them. A meme that works against their own survival.

"...hard core Christian fundementalists,..."

Speak for yourself, dunce.


My arguments are always based on science.....and that area is your weakest......

Actually, no. You further no arguments at all. You simply cherry-pick out of context, edited and parsed "quotes" you mine from Christian fundamentalist websites.

Liar.