OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
Wow those are low standards.
daveman
Diamond Member
Their race is immaterial. They hold the same ideology, and they march in lockstep.
Take a look at your picture. Notice everyone is of the SAME RACE. Get it? Just like Republicans.
You gotta take a break on this one. Democrats are a coalition. Republicans are 90% white and don't know anything besides "follow the leader". Look at their failed policies. Hell, it' even took Democrats to get Bin Laden.
Just like Democrats.
R
rdean
Guest
- Thread starter
- #45
Their race is immaterial. They hold the same ideology, and they march in lockstep.Yes. You accept everyone, as long as they don't get out of step.
Take a look at your picture. Notice everyone is of the SAME RACE. Get it? Just like Republicans.
You gotta take a break on this one. Democrats are a coalition. Republicans are 90% white and don't know anything besides "follow the leader". Look at their failed policies. Hell, it' even took Democrats to get Bin Laden.
Just like Democrats.
You don't even believe your own bullshit. Many Hispanics and blacks are very conservative and don't like gays or believe in woman's rights. They don't march in lockstep, they "work together".
The problem is Republicans are so extreme and fringe, they just assume that every one that abhors their radical views must be marching in lockstep. Many blacks and Hispanics and even Muslims might join the Republican party if the Confederate Republican Conservative Party of Teabirthers weren't such racist fucks.
xsited1
Agent P
Yes, just to piss you off.
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
I agree.
In the Soviet Union, the party picked a candidate, and you could vote either for or against that one candidate.
In the U.S. - we effectively can pick from two candidates. IMO - that makes the system only twice as good as the Soviet Unions
frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
Oh please -talk about total ignorance. Sorry but she isn't lying and she didn't make it up either. The theory of intelligent design is NOT creationism and if you don't know the difference, perhaps you ought to educate yourself in as unbiased a manner as possible. Which means learning from the scientists themselves what they mean by it when it has been proposed. And learn what science they are relying upon to back that up when they have proposed it for the very few and very specific phenomena. Pretending and calling it the same as "creationism" is done only because people like you think it is the easiest way of discrediting it without having to deal with any of the SCIENCE behind it.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain and VERY SPECIFIC features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. That's it in a nutshell. And those specific features have been identified by scientists who actually work in those specific fields and can supply the scientific evidence to back up that conclusion.
The theory of intelligent design has been proposed in EVERY field of science as being THE most scientifically rational answer for very SPECIFIC phenomena only -and the people who have proposed it are all scientists working within those fields and yes, it does include Nobel prize winners such as physicist Charles Townes as well as many other scientists such as biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski, Dr. Kurt Wise, professor of paleontology at Harvard, Dr. Saami Shaibani, physics professor and researcher, Dr. Lane Lester, Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University, Dr. Eric Norman, Ph.D. biochemistry Texas A&M University, Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia and literally hundreds and hundreds more in this country and the number only growing as scientific knowledge increases! Come on -if there really were no scientific basis to it, that number would be decreasing as our scientific knowledge increases but in fact the opposite is true. When including those from other countries the numbers are thousands. Their work has been published in peer reviewed journals and their works are also starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics. ALL supporting evidence is scientifically based and zero is religion based -scientific support such as the Nobel prize winning work of three scientists in 2009 in mapping out the atom-by-atom synthesis of proteins in ribosomes which has been cited as some of the scientific basis for the proposal of this theory in yet another application.
There are more than 600 scientists from every field of science from physics to genetics to paleontology to cosmology to microbiology and even evolution, most of whom have university credentials, many of them well known with excellent reputations both in this country and internationally in their fields who have proposed or come to the same conclusion with regard to intelligent design being the most scientifically sound and most scientifically supported explanation for very specific phenomena in their field of study.
Ever heard of any of these books? Darwin Retried; The Neck of the Giraffe, Where Darwin Went Wrong; The Great Evolution Mystery; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution; Darwin was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities; Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth -read any? Not one was written from a Christian or religiouis point of view, they were all written seeking scientific truth using science to argue their conclusions and not a one relying on any religious reference whatsoever. According to Science Digest "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minoritiesÂ… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."
Not a single scientist has proposed it as being the most scientifically correct answer for everything and in fact would and do reject the theory as a broad-based unspecific theory. They proposed or subscribe to it only for these few phenomena for which they believe science itself says intelligent design is actually the most scientifically rational answer. The theory of intelligent design BEGS for more scientific research, not less -because the only way to prove a theory is correct is by trying to prove it is WRONG. That is how science works with regard to ALL proposed theories. A scientist proposes a theory which is an attempt to explain a very specific phenomena in the physical world and other scientists try to prove it is wrong or that there may be a better and more scientifically sound explanation for that phenomena. Only after many, many, many years of trying to come up with a more scientifically sound explanation for that specific phenomena is a theory ever accepted as a scientific fact. (This is actually one of the reasons Darwin's theory is a crappy theory -it attempts to explain EVERYTHING with an overly simplistic theory that in effect explains nothing and cannot be scientifically challenged. It will forever be nothing but a theory as a result -which is why some people treat it like a religion instead -something that requires faith instead of proof.) The theory of intelligent design has been proposed BASED on scientific principles, not in spite of them -so challenges to this particular theory would demand the discovery of even MORE likely and scientifically sound explanation. As I said, it is a theory that DEMANDS more scientific research, not less and would ENHANCE our scientific knowledge as a result, not limit it.
But creationism is based on the BIBLICAL story of creation that God created it all in 7 days, end of discussion. It is nothing but a demand that people accept the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Yet makes no attempt to explain how our world works on any level in spite of the fact much of that is discoverable and knowable. Creationism doesn't come from scientists at all but from religious quarters -and in SPITE of science, not because of it. But the Biblical account of creation explains nothing about how our physical world works because the Bible was never intended to be a science book and cannot be one! Therefore the Bible is also pretty useless as a means of trying to explain how our physical world works -so the demands we treat the Bible and Book of Genesis as a science book MUST be rejected. Creationism is not a scientific theory at all because the support for it comes from a religious doctrine and NOT from any science of any kind! But that is not true at all of the theory of intelligence design which is supported ONLY by science and uses no religious doctrine at all. The fact some find it compatible with their own personal religious beliefs is irrelevant and does not amount to proof OR disproof!
People like YOU try to use the theory of intelligent design and creationism interchangeably even though they each come from two starkly different sources and for starkly different reasons. These are not interchangeable terms, they do NOT say the same thing and only one of them relies on scientific evidence to support it.
You also understand why it is wrong to reject any scientific theory but that which fits in with religious belief. But you can't accept the FACT it is equally wrong to reject a scientifically based theory just because someone else may find it compatible with their religious beliefs. Insisting this be discredited just because you don't like the possible religious implications is a stupid demand we all become the new flat earthers where certain scientific theories must be rejected because you just don't like the possible religious implications. Tough shit. The last time mankind did that it set back scientific discovery for CENTURIES yet here are the new flat earthers demanding we do the same thing and reject certain theories but now for the exact opposite reason -and neither demand that we automatically reject certain scientific theories were even based on science itself for the rejection, but based on religion only! If the theory of intelligent design is NOT the most scientifically sound explanation for these very specific phenomena, that means whatever is the most scientifically sound explanation is DISCOVERABLE -which is how the theory is disproven. Just like all theories that end up being tossed to the side are disproven as well. If this theory is proven to be wrong for even ONE phenomena for which it was proposed, it also serves to call into question whether it is for ANY of the specific instances for which it has been proposed - which will do FAR more to discredit this theory and in a far more effective way than this attempt to deceive people into believing this is a theory based on some religious doctrine when that is such an easily proven lie! But the problem is as our knowledge becomes greater and we delve more into the intricate specifics, the times science itself has pointed to intelligent design has only increased, not decreased. Whether you happen to like that fact or not is irrelevant -only the science behind it matters.
But creationism cannot be scientifically challenged because it isn't offering any science to support it that can be challenged. It is a statement that God created it all but since science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, this is NOT a scientific theory but a religious statement. But the theory of intelligent design CAN be scientifically challenged, the scientific evidence used to support it can be challenged as well -and should be because all challenges to this theory will only increase and enhance our scientific knowledge regardless of the outcome!
frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
I'd say the person who thinks the production of a living organism is the natural outcome of mixing non-living materials is the one who believes in "magic", wouldn't you? In order for it to be natural, it must be seen to occur in nature. That is what the word means -seen to occur in nature as part of the way our physical world works. Yet man has spent nearly his entire existence trying to prove it is possible to create a living organism from non-living materials only to prove each time the only known ways to create a new life is by means of another life and NEVER by non-living materials. If anything man's nonstop failure to produce a living organism from non-living materials only underscores just how UNNATURAL such an event would really be. First person who can create a living organism from non-living materials would be earth shattering news wouldn't it? And even then only proves the only way man saw it happen was definitely by intelligent design -our own. Again underscoring how unnatural it is and required intelligent intervention to achieve it because it still never occurs on its own in nature. Yet we still can't do it. All our efforts even if we were finally able to do it would only prove it is still something that has never once occurred naturally.
You adhere to a theory that our planet once had ASTOUNDING and AMAZING magical properties to create living organisms from non-living materials, only to lose that magical property where it was never seen to occur anywhere at any time under any circumstances in our known UNIVERSE and every attempt to force the production of a living organism from non-living materials has failed. Yet have the balls to mock the person who accepts the scientific fact that life has never once risen from non-living materials as if HE is the whacko here? All while you want to pretend it isn't YOU clinging to the magical explanation here? Oh get real! ROFL!
daveman
Diamond Member
Your problem is, you DO believe your own bullshit.
You probably like the taste, too.
How'd that whole "big tent" thing work out for Joe Lieberman?
daveman
Diamond Member
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,062
- 78,273
- 2,645
Would you vote for a President who was a Failed Leader, thought bank ATM and airport kiosks ruined the economy and threatened to withhold Social Security checks from our senior citizens?
Could you possibly be more disingenuous about your Thread Title? Is it even possible? Have you no shame? ...Of course not. You are a hack, and sometimes a waste of bandwidth.
There's an egregious misstatement here. Man has only been experimenting with how life started for a little over 200 years, NOT "nearly his entire existence". I'm not surprised we haven't been able to do it. The theory that it came about naturally assumes it took more than a billion years. If you want to see it in a lab, check back when we've been workinj on it for close to that time, thanks.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,062
- 78,273
- 2,645
There's an egregious misstatement here. Man has only been experimenting with how life started for a little over 200 years, NOT "nearly his entire existence". I'm not surprised we haven't been able to do it. The theory that it came about naturally assumes it took more than a billion years. If you want to see it in a lab, check back when we've been workinj on it for close to that time, thanks.
Wow. Hopefully that's the dumbest thing I read all day because...DAMN!
oldsalt
Active Member
- Jun 10, 2011
- 994
- 61
- 28
All lies, frankie. your litterbox needs cleaned. Pussy.
daveman
Diamond Member
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
There's an egregious misstatement here. Man has only been experimenting with how life started for a little over 200 years, NOT "nearly his entire existence". I'm not surprised we haven't been able to do it. The theory that it came about naturally assumes it took more than a billion years. If you want to see it in a lab, check back when we've been workinj on it for close to that time, thanks.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
There's an egregious misstatement here. Man has only been experimenting with how life started for a little over 200 years, NOT "nearly his entire existence". I'm not surprised we haven't been able to do it. The theory that it came about naturally assumes it took more than a billion years. If you want to see it in a lab, check back when we've been workinj on it for close to that time, thanks.
Wow. Hopefully that's the dumbest thing I read all day because...DAMN!
Guess you never read your own posts, eh?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Poor Poll Numbers Don't Yet Reflect the Full Picture- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 3
-
Trump Throws Base Under the Bus with Real ID China-Style, National Face Recognition Database
- Started by munkle
- Replies: 9
-
-
