Creationists

[eots]

Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.

Thanks.

real science is open to constant revision...

 

[Hollie]

Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.

Thanks.

real science is open to constant revision...

Is the same true for real religion?

 

[eots]

Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.

Thanks.

real science is open to constant revision...

Is the same true for real religion?

I don't know ask someone who is religious

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.

Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.

Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box Bookmark and Share
Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity neutrinos travel faster than light
PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.

In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.

"This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."

Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.

Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online

Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt - What's On Tianjin

Yeah, except Einstein never said that nothing can go faster than light. If you read his paper on special relativity, he clearly states that he has nothing to say about anything above the speed of light. He makes it clear that his theory only applies to getting mass from sublight speed up to the speed of light.

It is a good read and easily found in a google search.

There are a number of excellent books available as well. Even my local library, which caters to farmers, has three.

EDIT/UPDATE:

Here is the quote from Einstein's, "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"

For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity.

He specifically points out the theory has no meaning beyond light speed. The concept of faster than light speed particles rests on the idea that they are created at higher than light speed, thus relieving them of falling into Einstein's special relativity context. It is the stuff that science fiction is made of. We were kinda hopeful of that neutrino experiment, but it seems to have fallen short of expectation.

 

[UltimateReality]

Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]

Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

…

Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.

You are always one step behind...

 

[UltimateReality]

"It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.

Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.

For the record, I'm a physics student. I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.

Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.

However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.

Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.

 

[itfitzme]

Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.

Thanks.

real science is open to constant revision...

Not all of it. Just a few things. And not by anyone on this forum.

Most folk haven't caught up to the 1900's yet. Some seemed to have skipped it all together, thinking it wasn't all that important or somethin'. The math is a *****.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.

Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.

This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.

Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.

Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box Bookmark and Share
Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity neutrinos travel faster than light
PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.

In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.

"This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."

Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.

Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online

Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt - What's On Tianjin

Einstein also believed in the eternal universe for most of his career while the Bible taught that the universe had a beginning. But as we all know from Hawly, "scientist" are always right and the Bible is always wrong so we should discard the Big Bang Theory immediately and go back to what Einstein thought.

 

[itfitzme]

Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.

For the record, I'm a physics student. I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.

Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.

However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.

Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.

First one that can

1) Describe the difference between dx and δx.

2) Detail three canonical conjugate pairs.

3) What is the cental limit theorem?

Point for succinct breavity that demonstrate it isn't cut and paste. Loss of points for being too vague and general. Extra points if you can present it with both mathematical form and clear text that descibes what the math represents.

 

[UltimateReality]

For the record, I'm a physics student. I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.

Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.

However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.

Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.

First one that can

1) Describe the difference between dx and δx.

2) Detail three canonical conjugate pairs.

3) What is the cental limit theorem?

Point for succinct breavity that demonstrate it isn't cut and paste. Loss of points for being too vague and general. Extra points if you can present it with both mathematical form and clear text that descibes what the math represents.

Are we allowed to use Hamiltonian/Lagrangian mechanics when detailing the three canonical conjugate pairs?

This guy just proved my point. I have no clue what the heck he is talking about but I googled it and my simple question back looks like I actually know what it is. Funny thing is I got an 'B' in Differential Equations at the University of Arizona in 1988 but having never solved a differential equation since then, I couldn't solve one now to save my life.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Writing here at Evolution News & Views, Dr. Poenie has now contributed a rebuttal to Axe's remarks. Poenie's critiques are a welcome oasis from the uncivil and ad hominem attacks that have come to characterize the debate surrounding Darwin's Doubt. Unlike many of our critics, Poenie seems to have read the book. -

Hmm. Seems this is a common tactic as evidenced by our very own Ad Hawlyman and Daws Herring.

A Response to Martin Poenie on Protein Evolution - Evolution News & Views

 

[UltimateReality]

Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]

Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

…

Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.

"Since Nick Matzke at Panda's Thumb published a review of Darwin's Doubt that badly failed to preemptively knock down Stephen Meyer's thesis (see here, here, here, and here), the Internet's Darwin brigade has been hoping for something better. So the folks at Panda's Thumb along with Larry Moran and Jerry Coyne are all excited that geologist Donald Prothero has now posted an Amazon review of Darwin's Doubt. Their readers have eagerly voted up Prothero's post, artfully titled "Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies," as the "most helpful critical review."

According to Dr. Prothero, Darwin's Doubt is a mess of "fumbling," "bumbling," "distortions," and "blunders." The book is an "amateur" exercise, evidence of Meyer's "folly." It "butchers" the subject matter; was written by a "fool" who is "incompetent," guilty of "ignorance," is in "way over his head" and has a "completely false understanding of the subject." In case that's all a little too subtle for you, Prothero says Meyer argues "dishonestly" and promotes a "flat out lie," a "fundamental lie," and other "lies" to promote a "fairy tale."

Well, what justifies all the ad hominem invectives? Prothero's first complaint is that Meyer's Ph.D. is in the history and philosophy of science which, according to Prothero "give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution." Yes that's a lame objection (it's called the genetic fallacy). Indeed, Meyer's undergraduate degree is in geology and physics, and he worked as a geophysicist for four years, giving him formal training on geology-related issues -- the primary issues Prothero raises in his review. Prothero, however, has already undercut his own complaint, as he admitted:

[Y]ou don't need a Ph.D. to do good science, and not all people who have Ph.D.s are good scientists either. As those of us who have gone through the ordeal know, a Ph.D. only proves that you can survive a grueling test of endurance in doing research and writing a dissertation on a very narrow topic. It doesn't prove that you are smarter than anyone else or more qualified to render an opinion than anyone else. (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, p. 16)

Prothero's review later complains that creationists "love to flaunt their Ph.D.'s on their book covers." I guess that means Meyer isn't a "creationist," since Prothero failed to notice that Meyer doesn't mention his Ph.D. on the cover of Darwin's Doubt. (And isn't it a bit ironic that Prothero touts his own Ph.D. in his bio over at Skepticblog?)

In any case, Prothero's second complaint is that "Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards." Of course Prothero doesn't list examples from "almost every page," but at least this time he tries to give one. He claims "we now know that the 'explosion' now takes place over an 80 m.y. time framework." Perhaps Prothero didn't notice that Meyer specifically discusses Prothero's own view on this in Darwin's Doubt, and refutes it (see Chapter 3). I refuted the same argument in my recent response to Nick Matzke, which cited numerous articles from the mainstream technical literature stating that the Cambrian explosion took no more than 10 million years."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/darwin_defender_1074791.html

 

[newpolitics]

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?

Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??

Wow... that was ignorant. The irony! Insults aside, you didn't answer my question. If ignorant people are unaware of their ignorance, how do you know you are not yourself ignorant and simply unaware of it? You don't. That's the point, so writing these cute aphorisms as if they bolster your position is delusional, since it can applied to yourself as well, and you have no defense against it, as you clearly just demonstrated with this nonsensical response.

 

[Hollie]

Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]

Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

…

Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.

Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in.

Just par for the course for creationist hacks

 

[PMZ]

The interesting thing about creationists is that they have no faith in science nor Faith. They need to declare that the universe must be as they wish that it was, to be ''comfortable ''.

 

[UltimateReality]

Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]

Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

…

Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.

Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in.

Just par for the course for creationist hacks

...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!

 

[Hollie]

Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]

Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

…

Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.

Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in.

Just par for the course for creationist hacks

...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!

Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, I’m hardly the leader of any brigade.

I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the science–minded. The atheistic evilutionists can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, “quote-mining” and edited / parsed “quotes”. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent “quotes” and the laughable “green screening” by the Disco’tute.

Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of “creationists” that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!

 

[eots]

HOW ABOUT LESSER GODS...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdvYFMBAU]BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhxxHxIEmO4]Edgar Mitchell UFO and Aliens are Real and Watching Us - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in.

Just par for the course for creationist hacks

...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!

Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, I’m hardly the leader of any brigade.

I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the science–minded. The atheistic evilutionists can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, “quote-mining” and edited / parsed “quotes”. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent “quotes” and the laughable “green screening” by the Disco’tute.

Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of “creationists” that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!

You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.