God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[LibertyKid]

Concept of Intelligent Designer(Creator) does not require a theology/religion be attached.

Agreed! For some, the concept of 'God' hinges on the Christian, Jewish, Muslim concept of God which carries with it the "Westernized" (current american) moralistic version of a God of good and bad, we are all sinners, and the aspect of Heaven and Hell.

If by 'god' we mean an intelligence that is outside of our scientific knowledge is plausible, I think science could get on board, and I do think there are many scientists that would agree that intelligent design is plausible. Unfortunately, here in the US, God is the god of the Bible, which then is the roadmap for most of the discussions.

Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.

 

[abu afak]

Agreed! For some, the concept of 'God' hinges on the Christian, Jewish, Muslim concept of God which carries with it the "Westernized" (current american) moralistic version of a God of good and bad, we are all sinners, and the aspect of Heaven and Hell.

If by 'god' we mean an intelligence that is outside of our scientific knowledge is plausible, I think science could get on board, and I do think there are many scientists that would agree that intelligent design is plausible. Unfortunately, here in the US, God is the god of the Bible, which then is the roadmap for most of the discussions.

Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.

ID is just stealth creationism.
Wiki:
Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9]
The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.

ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[2][16] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[17] As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.[1][n 2] ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.[18][n 3] Critics of ID find a false dichotomy in the premise that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design.[19][20]"..."

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[abu afak]

...Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.

No it isn't.
It's just another 'Goddidit' Fallacy.
It has no basis in fact.
Nothing was intelligently 'designed.'
What's left of living things is what adapted best.
Many more Unintelligently 'created' living things have vanished than now exist as conditions on earth changed, leaving us with the mutations that adapted best... and they/we are all still evolving.
The assumption that we/they are all perfect the final result is myopic, arrogant, and ignorant.

`

 

[ChemEngineer]

According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.


Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.

(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, Social Forces. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)

Agreed! For some, the concept of 'God' hinges on the Christian, Jewish, Muslim concept of God which carries with it the "Westernized" (current american) moralistic version of a God of good and bad, we are all sinners, and the aspect of Heaven and Hell.

If by 'god' we mean an intelligence that is outside of our scientific knowledge is plausible, I think science could get on board, and I do think there are many scientists that would agree that intelligent design is plausible. Unfortunately, here in the US, God is the god of the Bible, which then is the roadmap for most of the discussions.

Intelligent design if very plausible, it just doesn't have to be God, Alah, or Yahwey.

RIIIIIIGHT, the intelligence could be Harvey the Spaceman.

In case you didn't know, "science" is ALREADY "on board."
The Anthropic Principle is well established and to many, provides statistical proof of
Nature's God, not Harvey the Spaceman or any other fantasy you entertain.

 

[LibertyKid]

No it isn't.
It's just another 'Goddidit' Fallacy.
It has no basis in fact.
Nothing was intelligently 'designed.'
What's left of living things is what adapted best.
Many more Unintelligently 'created' living things have vanished than now exist as conditions on earth changed, leaving us with the mutations that adapted best... and they/we are all still evolving.
The assumption that we/they are all perfect the final result is myopic, arrogant, and ignorant.

`

I think you're still viewing 'god' in a theocratic essence. I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong at all as what you're portraying is very plausible for a theoretical and scientific approach.

But to imagine, an essence is potentially responsible, is plausible. Even so plausible that this intelligence could have flipped the switch walked out of the room, and shut the door to never return again to its own creation leaving no evidence for us. All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe may have an intelligent designer is very plausible.

 

[LibertyKid]

According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.


Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.

(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, Social Forces. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)


RIIIIIIGHT, the intelligence could be Harvey the Spaceman.

In case you didn't know, "science" is ALREADY "on board."
The Anthropic Principle is well established and to many, provides statistical proof of
Nature's God, not Harvey the Spaceman or any other fantasy you entertain.

Why are you assuming what you think I know or believe?

 

[abu afak]

According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.


Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.

(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, Social Forces. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)


RIIIIIIGHT, the intelligence could be Harvey the Spaceman.

In case you didn't know, "science" is ALREADY "on board."
The Anthropic Principle is well established and to many, provides statistical proof of
Nature's God, not Harvey the Spaceman or any other fantasy you entertain.

"300 scientists of the last 300 years" is deceptive, dated, irrelevant And...
PLAGIARIZED from crackpot blog. (or 3) (The many Christians crucial to science - The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network)

DISHONESTY POSTED with NO SOURCE. (like ALL your 'quotes,' and stats)
Embarrassingly religious POS's one and all.

In fact: Current numbers of elite scientists.

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.[/B]
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor, 11 Jun 2008
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - Telegraph
...
A Decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a Rise in average Intelligence, he claimed. But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3% believed in God - at a time when 68.5% of the general UK population described themselves as believers. A separate poll in the 90s found only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts. He told Times Higher Education magazine:.. I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population.
Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with Higher IQs tend NOT to believe in God."...

````

ChemEngineer can't debate anything.
Just copy/PLAGIARIZE deceptive out of context Crap from Kweationist websites he Never Links.
Using the exact quotes in an exact order without sourcing them is PLAGIARISM as well.
He's a 100% FRAUD.

`

 

[ChemEngineer]

Why are you assuming what you think I know or believe?

You agree with design, but deny THE Designer and make up some meaningless nonsense, viz.,
"All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe may have an intelligent designer is very plausible."
(Emphasis added)


“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” - Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997

Allan Sandage, widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy, discoverer of quasars: “I find it quite improbable that order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing.”

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson


I have many more quotes like these from eminent scientists who do not mealymouth science and its Creator. Would you like some more?

 

[abu afak]

I think you're still viewing 'god' in a theocratic essence. I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong at all as what you're portraying is very plausible for a theoretical and scientific approach.

But to imagine, an essence is potentially responsible, is plausible. Even so plausible that this intelligence could have flipped the switch walked out of the room, and shut the door to never return again to its own creation leaving no evidence for us. All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe may have an intelligent designer is very plausible.

You're contradicting yourself to try and stay in the game after I gutted any 'intelligence' in design.
So you moved the goal posts from Intelligent design which is comprehensive and of course needs a designER/God... to just "flipping a switch and leaving." Unintelligent/non-design.
Creationist crap and of course all still fantasy.

The most straightforward/logical explanation is the same one we should have used for 10,000 other busted 'gods,' (fire, lightning, fertility, etc)..
We don't know/We don't know Yet. (thus the OP)
Goodbye.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible explains exactly jack shit. That's why we had to wait thousands of years for the secular scientific enlightenment in order to understand anything about the world.

 

[Hollie]

You agree with design, but deny THE Designer and make up some meaningless nonsense, viz.,
"All I know is that our understanding of the universe is largely unknown and or theoretical and to think that our universe may have an intelligent designer is very plausible."
(Emphasis added)


“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” - Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997

Allan Sandage, widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy, discoverer of quasars: “I find it quite improbable that order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing.”

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson


I have many more quotes like these from eminent scientists who do not mealymouth science and its Creator. Would you like some more?

The phony "quotes" that creationers dump in threads is simply their last, desperate effort to hurl their into people's faces..

 

[LibertyKid]

You're contradicting yourself to try and stay in the game after I gutted any 'intelligence' in design.
So you moved the goal posts from Intelligent design which is comprehensive and of course needs a designER/God... to just "flipping a switch and leaving." Unintelligent/non-design.
Creationist crap and of course all still fantasy.

The most straightforward/logical explanation is the same one we should have used for 10,000 other busted 'gods,' (fire, lightning, fertility, etc)..
We don't know/We don't know Yet. (thus the OP)
Goodbye.
`

I didn't move a goal post. All I said is that a designer is plausible and they/it could have created and left creation to itself to do the rest leaving room for evolution and all other elements of the universe to do its thing while leaving no identifiable print left behind for science to find. How is that not plausible?

If I write an astounding book, fiction, non-fiction, (topic not necessary), leave that book for someone to find with no notation of its origin, someone is going to pick up that book, read it, and realize that someone knew what they were writing about. But they may never find out who actually wrote the book. They can study writing style, language used, rhythm, tempo, literary devises etc., People may determine some interesting theories on the books author, but in the end, all they know is that there is author who's name is unknown. (This maybe a terrible analogy as I'm deriving it as I typed it).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel you're coming from a 'hate god' perspective and that 'god' has to be this moral religious device. I'm saying that a god/creator is plausible and could just be watching this shit show they created eating a box of popcorn and plays no part now. How is that no plausible?

 

[abu afak]

I didn't move a goal post. All I said is that a designer is plausible and they/it could have created and left creation to itself to do the rest leaving room for evolution and all other elements of the universe to do its thing while leaving no identifiable print left behind for science to find. How is that not plausible?

If I write an astounding book, fiction, non-fiction, (topic not necessary), leave that book for someone to find with no notation of its origin, someone is going to pick up that book, read it, and realize that someone knew what they were writing about. But they may never find out who actually wrote the book. They can study writing style, language used, rhythm, tempo, literary devises etc., People may determine some interesting theories on the books author, but in the end, all they know is that there is author who's name is unknown. (This maybe a terrible analogy as I'm deriving it as I typed it).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel you're coming from a 'hate god' perspective and that 'god' has to be this moral religious device. I'm saying that a god/creator is plausible and could just be watching this shit show they created eating a box of popcorn and plays no part now. How is that no plausible?

1. Anything is possible, less is "plausible."
You have made no case for the more likely word. (unspun)

2. The analogy is poor because we don't know how we got here. It may or may not be "astounding," it may be routine. We do not know. Many "astounding" things, like earthquakes or supernovas, don't need "an author," and saying so is a illogical presumption of intelligence/ID.
Things ostensibly intelligently created get destroyed over time. All life forms change regularly, galaxies collide, stars explode.
The Milky Way will collide with Andromeda in a few billion years.
Some successor creature may look back at us as primitive as we do apes.
How pompous 'we' (esp religious books) are thinking we are the ultimate creation. We are just on the continuum of the evo/adaptation train. (if the whole planet doesn't perish first.)

3. As I've said here before, if any Evidence of a god turns up, I'm in!
If the stars all line up one night and form the word 'VISHNU,' I will be truly thrilled and become a believer.
Of course, this will mean suicide for Tens of millions of Christians, Muslims, etc, but not any atheists.

3a. 'God hate' is your spun term for atheism, god disbelief.
I don't believe there is a god because there is no evidence after all this time.
In fact, we know at least 75% of people are wrong as they have different ones with different creation myths... even if one stepped in it.
So one thing we Do know is man created gods! Lots of them.
Thousands now on the trash heap of natural explanations, and if read literally, current Holy Book's creation myths don't look good relative to what we do now know.
So I can wait for a truly "plausible" explanation without creating a... God of the Gaps.

Many spun terms and presumptions in your debate and/or belief system.

`

 

[LibertyKid]

1. Anything is possible, less is "plausible."
You have made no case for the more likely word. (unspun)

So what you're saying is.... there's still a chance. Plausible or possible? Semantics?

2. The analogy is poor because we don't know how we got here. It may or may not be "astounding," it may be routine. We do not know. Many "astounding" things, like earthquakes or supernovas, don't need "an author," and saying so is a fallacious presumption of intelligence/ID.
Things ostensibly intelligently created get destroyed over time. All life forms change regularly, galaxies collide, stars explode.
The Milky Way will collide with Andromeda in a few billion years.
Some successor creature may look back at us as primitive as we do apes.
How pompous 'we' (esp religious books) are thinking we are the ultimate creation. We are just on the continuum of the evo/adaptation train. (if the whole planet doesn't perish first.)

First, the analogy isn't perfect, I stated as such.
Hypothetically speaking. Creator creates universe, even the very beginning of the universe, with no existence of earth as we know today existing. But this newly created universe has all the inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc., to allow our universe to expand and grow as we see today. This creator has no vested interest in humans. Isn't interested in our worship, morality, values or anything that has to do with being a 'god'. This isn't plausible?

3. As I've said here before, if any Evidence of a god turns up, I'm in!
If the stars all line up one night and form the word 'VISHNU,' I will be truly thrilled and become a believer.
Of course, this will mean suicide for Tens of millions of Christians, Muslims, etc, but not any atheists.

Awesome, good for you

3b. 'God hate' is your spun term for atheism, god disbelief.
I don't believe there is a god because there is no evidence after all this time.
In fact, we know at least 75% of people are wrong as they have different ones with different creation myths... even if one stepped in it.
So one thing we Do know is man created gods! Lots of them.
Thousands now on the trash heap of natural explanations, and if read literally, current Holy Book's creation myths don't look good relative to what we do now know.
So I can wait for a truly "plausible" explanation without creating a... God of the Gaps.

Many spun terms and presumptions in your debate and/or belief system.

Why focus so much on terms. I'm reading your posts and making a mental evaluation of your position without going through every single post you have ever made.

Not sure how atheists can hate something they don't believe in.

I don't disagree that there is no evidence for God. I suppose that also depends on what can or can't be considered evidence. For some of faith, nature points to a god. For some, the universe points to a god. Good vs evil points to a god.
Man has created god(s). I tend to think that man's idea of a possible creator/god/designer concept throughout most of our history means something. I understand that many of these gods were created to explain the unexplainable. But who came up with the concept of god as a way to explain the unknowable without any evidence of god? Why would someone 4000+ years ago witness a naturally occurring event and decide that it must be some unseen, richly unfathomable, all powerful god that was the cause?

Just thinking out loud. Trying to have a reasonable discourse without the vitriol as I am truly not defending any one positiol

 

[ChemEngineer]

Why would someone 4000+ years ago witness a naturally occurring event and decide that it must be some unseen, richly unfathomable, all powerful god that was the cause?

1. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ was NOT a "naturally occurring event."
It was witnessed by hundreds of people.
“I say unequivocally that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” - Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the most successful attorney in the world according to Guiness Book of Records

2. Turning water into wine.

3. Raising the dead.

 

[abu afak]

So what you're saying is.... there's still a chance. Plausible or possible? Semantics?

Plausible is something reasonably likely.
I would not consider supernatural beings plausible, even if possible.

First, the analogy isn't perfect, I stated as such.
Hypothetically speaking. Creator creates universe, even the very beginning of the universe, with no existence of earth as we know today existing. But this newly created universe has all the inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc., to allow our universe to expand and grow as we see today. This creator has no vested interest in humans. Isn't interested in our worship, morality, values or anything that has to do with being a 'god'. This isn't plausible?

The analogy, like part one of my response is SPUN by you to make room for a (more plausible).. god.
In this case you post AS IF as if there's this amazing book (a coherent intelligent work) instead of a chaotic universe.
We don't know any such thing.

Awesome, good for you

Yes, I unspun another of your terms 'god hate' for atheists.

Why focus so much on terms. I'm reading your posts and making a mental evaluation of your position without going through every single post you have ever made.

Because your imprecise and spun language changes the debate if I allow it.
You ain't smart enough to pull that shlt on me.
Then again, maybe you believe and are pushing something is a likely explanation Because you think it is.

I don't disagree that there is no evidence for God. I suppose that also depends on what can or can't be considered evidence. For some of faith, nature points to a god. For some, the universe points to a god. Good vs evil points to a god.
Man has created god(s). I tend to think that man's idea of a possible creator/god/designer concept throughout most of our history means something. I understand that many of these gods were created to explain the unexplainable. But who came up with the concept of god as a way to explain the unknowable without any evidence of god? Why would someone 4000+ years ago witness a naturally occurring event and decide that it must be some unseen, richly unfathomable, all powerful god that was the cause?

Faith is belief without evidence.
Everyone wants answers: some need it now and make up stuff.
God of the Gaps.
That impatient/illogical tendency was the justification for all the past false gods. Fire, Lightning, etc.
Man/we also always did drugs to get out of his head. Still does.

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

So what you're saying is.... there's still a chance. Plausible or possible? Semantics?

True believers say "plausible." Agnostics say "possible." Atheists say highly implausible (but still possible).

Hypothetically speaking. Creator creates universe, even the very beginning of the universe, with no existence of earth as we know today existing. But this newly created universe has all the inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc., to allow our universe to expand and grow as we see today. This creator has no vested interest in humans. Isn't interested in our worship, morality, values or anything that has to do with being a 'god'. This isn't plausible?

Any hypothetical creation will likely have "inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc." so you're not saying anything. Also, worrying about a creator who apparently has "no vested interest in humans" would logically be a waste of any human's time. It is. Fear of death begets irrational belief in human immortality, most often in exchange for good behavior. That's why people have wished for and insisted upon gods and creators. It's just a coping mechanism. Wishful thinking.

For some of faith, nature points to a god. For some, the universe points to a god. Good vs evil points to a god.

That last one requires no faith? That a fact, Jack? Evidence?

Just thinking out loud. Trying to have a reasonable discourse without the vitriol as I am truly not defending any one positiol

Perhaps try a little harder.

 

[Hollie]

1. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ was NOT a "naturally occurring event."
It was witnessed by hundreds of people.
“I say unequivocally that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” - Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the most successful attorney in the world according to Guiness Book of Records

2. Turning water into wine.

3. Raising the dead.

Nonsense. There were no witnesses to the Jeebus allegedly rising from the dead.

The hyper-religious tend to be the most dishonest.

 

[james bond]

The Bible explains exactly jack shit. That's why we had to wait thousands of years for the secular scientific enlightenment in order to understand anything about the world.

The Bible and creation science ruled the world until the lies of atheist science (evolution and evolutionary thinking) took over. It's unfortunate that creation isn't taught in our schools, but once that happens again, then science will be balanced and we will be back on the right track again. The students will figure out that evolution can't happen and that it's been a lie. There is no evidence that it happens. This is going on all over the world today as students question the science that is being taught to them. It's silly like the erroneous statements you make all over the place here.

 

[Hollie]

The Bible and creation science ruled the world until the lies of atheist science (evolution and evolutionary thinking) took over. It's unfortunate that creation isn't taught in our schools, but once that happens again, then science will be balanced and we will be back on the right track again. The students will figure out that evolution can't happen and that it's been a lie. There is no evidence that it happens. This is going on all over the world today as students question the science that is being taught to them. It's silly like the erroneous statements you make all over the place here.

That was pretty darn funny, except the part about your sociopathy.