religion

[Glenzig]

I win!

No we decided that I win.

[paulgiamatti]

The only evidence disproving that mankind is an evolutionary species is the sheer inability to understand simple concepts as presented by the parties of god in this thread.

[Glenzig]

The only evidence disproving that mankind is an evolutionary species is the sheer lack of faith in the Almighty process of evolution through natural selection by the parties of god in this thread.

[Whirled]

if evolution isn't real then how the FUCK did avocados become guacamole

There used to be this old quote/gif somewhere on internet that said:

"They said time heals all wounds...
... but I've never seen ground meat turn back into a cow."

Maybe start a new thread for this research though.

[paulgiamatti]

I forgot to add Glenzig to the list of disqualified, my bad.

[Eliseus]

Every species is transitional. Dogs are wolves with distinct traits they acquired through evolution (change over time). Just as wolves are canids with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Just as canids are mammals with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Evolution doesnt claim one day a cow gave birth to a chicken then all cows died off because the chicken was superior but that is exactly what you believe it seems.

Hybrids are when two distinct species are mixed to produce an offspring. That isnt evolution in even the broadest sense. Hybrids can only be made when the two species are closely related in evolutionary terms and the results are exactly what you would expect to see. Two isolated populations of animals use to be the same animal but through years and years of evolution they have changed. They have changed so much from one another they cannot produce non-sterile offspring.

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

I don't know, decided to stop looking after those 2 responses I quoted.

Inb4 he denies that him, or reading comprehension is too hard for what he literally said etc.

[Eliseus]

According to evolution, you can completely be altered to have NO similarities at all. Leewrong claims that isn't what evolution is. Proved that that is what is defined by using his own tools he uses to research (aka, wikipedia). Now never claims he made such claims. Would says credibility shattered, but that happened I think a long time ago.

[Glenzig]

I forgot to add Glenzig to the list of disqualified, my bad.

At least I made someone's list. Thanks.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

According to evolution, you can completely be altered to have NO similarities at all.

*citation needed*

[paulgiamatti]

I can also list you guys in order of rationality too, if you like. I'll let you figure out which end is up and which is down.

RobotEvil
Glenzig
Eliseus
G13

[Eliseus]

*citation needed*

What, I don't even, did you even read the last couple pages, I even note in my comment I used wikipedia. Is this for real right now?

[paulgiamatti]

Er, Elvis. Haha. Evil is kind of better though.

[leewong]

I don't know, decided to stop looking after those 2 responses I quoted.

Inb4 he denies that him, or reading comprehension is too hard for what he literally said etc.

What were those two quotes of me suppose to prove? That you cant understand a simple concept like evolution? Did I claim that new species dont arise due to evolution? No, I said there is a specific term for that called speciation which is part of the evolutionary process.

The two quotes you provided of me were responses to creationist claims that horses should give birth to squirrels which is a complete misrepresentation of what evolution is. Small changes over time, adding up over millennia, producing different organisms.

You support micro-evolution not even realizing that is exactly what evolution is. Macro evolution is just lots of small changes (micro-evolution), over time, adding up, and producing new species. Where in that theory does it even remotely imply that a horse will give birth to a squirrel? That would completely destroy the theory if such a thing was witnessed.

[RobotElvis]

I forgot to add Glenzig to the list of disqualified, my bad.

Ohhhh SNAP!!!!!!

Glenzig is taking off his earrings now watch out!

[Eliseus]

I can also list you guys in order of rationality too, if you like. I'll let you figure out which end is up and which is down.

RobotEvil
Glenzig
Eliseus
G13

Here's my last of hypocrites that present illogical arguments and are close-minded to any opinion other than those that support there.

Wait, no one gives a shit.

[paulgiamatti]

Wait, no one gives a shit.

Truer words have never been written.

[Glenzig]

Ohhhh SNAP!!!!!!

Glenzig is taking off his earrings now watch out!

They hoop earrings too.

[RobotElvis]

I can also list you guys in order of rationality too, if you like. I'll let you figure out which end is up and which is down.

RobotEvil
Glenzig
Eliseus
G13

I'm the most rational. I know your cipher bro!

[Eliseus]

What were those two quotes of me suppose to prove? That you cant understand a simple concept like evolution? Did I claim that new species dont arise due to evolution? No, I said there is a specific term for that called speciation which is part of the evolutionary process.

The two quotes you provided of me were responses to creationist claims that horses should give birth to squirrels which is a complete misrepresentation of what evolution is. Small changes over time, adding up over millennia, producing different organisms.

You support micro-evolution not even realizing that is exactly what evolution is. Macro evolution is just lots of small changes (micro-evolution), over time, adding up, and producing new species. Where in that theory does it even remotely imply that a horse will give birth to a squirrel? That would completely destroy the theory if such a thing was witnessed.

I knew this would happen. I point to 2 different responses where you claim that evolution consists of similarities among said species that has evolved (for example, why people claim we are from apes). I pointed out according to your own belief, what evolution really is, and you deny you never made such claims. You are just so goooooooood I love it. Sad part is, there is really morons out there who think/act like you. I really wish these was a phenomenon of stupidity, but it's not.

[paulgiamatti]

Don't let it go to your head ;)

[leewong]

According to evolution, you can completely be altered to have NO similarities at all. Leewrong claims that isn't what evolution is. Proved that that is what is defined by using his own tools he uses to research (aka, wikipedia). Now never claims he made such claims. Would says credibility shattered, but that happened I think a long time ago.

No, that isnt what it claims. Small changes over time will produce a different species. No where in the definition does evolution claim that all traces of similarity will vanish.

[leewong]

I knew this would happen. I point to 2 different responses where you claim that evolution consists of similarities among said species that has evolved (for example, why people claim we are from apes). I pointed out according to your own belief, what evolution really is, and you deny you never made such claims. You are just so goooooooood I love it. Sad part is, there is really morons out there who think/act like you. I really wish these was a phenomenon of stupidity, but it's not.

I cant help it if you cannot grasp a simple concept. That is all on you...not me or the scientific community. Take some time and read a few books. I have absolute "faith" that you can get it!

[Eliseus]

No, that isnt what it claims. Small changes over time will produce a different species. No where in the definition does evolution claim that all traces of similarity will vanish.

I legitimately am not even arguing anymore God vs science crap. I'm simply pointing out what YOU actually believe. Basically, I'm helping you, to correct your mistakes.

[Eliseus]

A thank you should be in order!

[paulgiamatti]

You're not helping anyone. Get over yourself. The world doesn't revolve around you. Read some books, they're intellectually stimulating. They won't bite, I promise.

[leewong]

I legitimately am not even arguing anymore God vs science crap. I'm simply pointing out what YOU actually believe. Basically, I'm helping you, to correct your mistakes.

That's nice but you arent pointing anything out but your complete lack of reading comprehension and rational thought.

[Eliseus]

You're not helping anyone. Get over yourself. The world doesn't revolve around you. Read some books, they're intellectually stimulating. They won't bite, I promise.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Even more so, what the hell are you going on about? He denied that as evolution. You are right though, I'm starting to think you are both the same poster..... LMAO

[RobotElvis]

You're not helping anyone. Get over yourself. The world doesn't revolve around you. Read some books, they're intellectually stimulating. They won't bite, I promise.

I love books. The doctrine of evolution by Henry Edward Crampton is especially good.

[Glenzig]

I love books. The doctrine of evolution by Henry Edward Crampton is especially good.

What Is Darwinism by Charles Hodge is good too. Some people may not believe this, since I am openly opposed to evolution, but the first books I downloaded on my kindle were all of darwins books and the one you cited. All pro evolution books. Go figure.

[iruinedyourday]

what the fuck is going on in this thread I wonder.

[iruinedyourday]

oh its about people that play eq that think they are smarter than Charles Darwin. I get it now, cool bro's.

[Glenzig]

what the fuck is going on in this thread I wonder.

Doesn't matter anymore. We hit 100 pages so I win.

[paulgiamatti]

I can tell Robot and Glenzig have at least taken into consideration the other side of the argument, but that doesn't excuse the absurdity of confusing evolutionary studies with religious theology and atheism with belief. No one needs to point out the fundamentally flawed thinking that leads to this, it's so painfully obvious that it warrants no further speculation or comment from anyone with even the faintest whiff of rationality.

[leewong]

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Even more so, what the hell are you going on about? He denied that as evolution. You are right though, I'm starting to think you are both the same poster..... LMAO

No, I didnt deny that as evolution...this is the 4th time I have pointed it out to you:

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

Did you miss that part? Should I increase the font size for you as well?

Here, I will explain it like you are a 5 year old so maybe, just maybe, you can wrap your tiny brain around it.

1. Driving a car is a process. Evolution is a process.
2. Specitation is part of the evolutionary process. Accelerating is part of process of driving a car.
3. You cant substitute the word "accelerating" with "driving" no more than you can substitute "evolution" with "speciation" even though they are subsets of those processes.

We call the subset of increasing your speed while driving, "accelerating" NOT driving for a VERY GOOD REASON.
We call the subset of producing new species, "speciation" NOT evolution FOR A VERY GOOD REASON.

Does that mean that driving doesnt exist or somehow it is negated by the word accelerating? NO! Does it mean that evolution doesnt happen because we call it's subset speciation? NO!

READING SKILLS...GET SOME DUMBASS.

[Glenzig]

I can tell Robot and Glenzig have at least taken into consideration the other side of the argument, but that doesn't excuse the absurdity of confusing evolutionary studies with religious theology and atheism with belief. No one needs to point out the fundamentally flawed thinking that leads to this, it's so painfully obvious that it warrants no further speculation or comment from anyone with even the faintest whiff of rationality.

Research the origins of the theory and what drove the thinking behind it. You'll see.

[paulgiamatti]

Yeah, damn those theories! They've never done anything for us! Suck it, Einstein! Relativity shmrelativity.

[Eliseus]

No, I didnt deny that as evolution...this is the 4th time I have pointed it out to you:

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

Did you miss that part? Should I increase the font size for you as well?

Here, I will explain it like you are a 5 year old so maybe, just maybe, you can wrap your tiny brain around it.

1. Driving a car is a process. Evolution is a process.
2. Specitation is part of the evolutionary process. Accelerating is part of process of driving a car.
3. You cant substitute the word "accelerating" with "driving" no more than you can substitute "evolution" with "speciation" even though they are subsets of those processes.

We call the subset of increasing your speed while driving, "accelerating" NOT driving for a VERY GOOD REASON.
We call the subset of producing new species, "speciation" NOT evolution FOR A VERY GOOD REASON.

Does that mean that driving doesnt exist or somehow it is negated by the word accelerating? NO! Does it mean that evolution doesnt happen because we call it's subset speciation? NO!

READING SKILLS...GET SOME DUMBASS.

Lawls.

[Eliseus]

I can tell Robot and Glenzig have at least taken into consideration the other side of the argument, but that doesn't excuse the absurdity of confusing evolutionary studies with religious theology and atheism with belief. No one needs to point out the fundamentally flawed thinking that leads to this, it's so painfully obvious that it warrants no further speculation or comment from anyone with even the faintest whiff of rationality.

You have no idea what I have or haven't read. You make this claim based off you not liking me at all. Don't make yourself look like a tool as much as you already have.

[Champion_Standing]

I feel bad for everyone in this thread.

/hug

[leewong]

Lawls.

I assume you are laughing at yourself since you have no response.

[Eliseus]

I assume you are laughing at yourself since you have no response.

Yeah, I laughed so hard at myself, I typed out lawls on my keyboard quoting you.

[leewong]

You have no idea what I have or haven't read. You make this claim based off you not liking me at all. Don't make yourself look like a tool as much as you already have.

It is pretty obvious you arent well read. You cant even pay attention for one paragraph here let alone a book with a few hundred pages in it.

[leewong]

Yeah, I laughed so hard at myself, I typed out lawls on my keyboard quoting you.

Interesting...so now you finally get it?

[Eliseus]

It is pretty obvious you arent well read. You cant even pay attention for one paragraph here let alone a book with a few hundred pages in it.

You make this basis off what? Me quoting

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Does this somehow make your vagina bleed?

[Eliseus]

Also point out more contradictions from leewrong.

Check the dictionary, dipshit.

was directed at Glenzig for apparently not knowing the definition of faith, according to the dictionary. Says though that religion isn't relevant, according to the dictionary, when trying to define what falls under that category.

[leewong]

You make this basis off what? Me quoting

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Does this somehow make your vagina bleed?

No, I make that assumption off of every post I have seen you make. I have no qualms with you quoting me. I do have a problem when you dont understand what I said and reply with nonsense.

[Eliseus]

Going through his post history is just disgusting, anyone and everyone who disagrees with him (not just me) has very poor reading comprehension.

[leewong]

Also point out more contradictions from leewrong.



was directed at Glenzig for apparently not knowing the definition of faith, according to the dictionary. Says though that religion isn't relevant, according to the dictionary, when trying to define what falls under that category.

Please show me the post where I said religion was absolutely necessary when considering faith. I have ALWAYS defined faith as "belief without evidence". Nothing more...nothing less.

[leewong]

Going through his post history is just disgusting, anyone and everyone who disagrees with him (not just me) has very poor reading comprehension.

No, you just have bad reading comprehension. Somehow you have misread.

[leewong]

Eliseus, is too busy rooting through my post history to respond now. Talk about obsessed.

[leewong]

Remember this post, Eliseus?

"What do you think scientist actually do? You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of the scientific method or you are being purposefully deceptive. Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.


Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?"

Still waiting on an answer....

[Eliseus]

I am not sure what you are asking for because your question is malformed. I will try to answer it anyway.

"Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record."
I am assuming you mean transitional. As I said before, every fossil we find was or had the potential to be a transitional fossil. You seem to think that one day a fish gave birth to a full blown lizard and I am suppose to show you that fossil. That isnt what evolution claims happens. You are asking for something that is nonsensical.

Transitional fossils > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities.

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face.

Every species is transitional. Dogs are wolves with distinct traits they acquired through evolution (change over time). Just as wolves are canids with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Just as canids are mammals with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Evolution doesnt claim one day a cow gave birth to a chicken then all cows died off because the chicken was superior but that is exactly what you believe it seems.

Hybrids are when two distinct species are mixed to produce an offspring. That isnt evolution in even the broadest sense. Hybrids can only be made when the two species are closely related in evolutionary terms and the results are exactly what you would expect to see. Two isolated populations of animals use to be the same animal but through years and years of evolution they have changed. They have changed so much from one another they cannot produce non-sterile offspring.

Claimed distinct traits exist, but apparently they don't have to now? More saving face.

It has been explained about 50 different ways for you but you still dont get it. Small changes over time. Add up those small changes over a long period of time. Congrats...evolution. Nothing magical or mind blowing about it.

Directed at robot for making fun of you. But the small things are still "present" according to you.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Apparently didn't exist in your previous responses, now does. I also would like to note that you have some weird infatuation with Darwin while completing ignoring quotes from him that reduce a lot of credibility towards his own opinion of evolution. The biggest basically him basically saying no know fucking knows.

[Eliseus]

So much contradicting. I really hope you don't speak on anyone's behalf.

[Eliseus]

Remember this post, Eliseus?

"What do you think scientist actually do? You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of the scientific method or you are being purposefully deceptive. Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.


Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?"

Still waiting on an answer....

You had your answer and chose to ignore it, the pettiness is high with you.

[Eliseus]

[QUOTE=Eliseus;1622640]The biggest him basically saying no one fucking knows.[/QUOTE

Quoted for corrections.

[paulgiamatti]

Nope, you never answered or rebutted anything from his post.

[Ket]

Nope, you never answered or rebutted anything from his post.

Heh. You said butt.

[Eliseus]

Remember this post, Eliseus?

"What do you think scientist actually do? You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of the scientific method or you are being purposefully deceptive. Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.


Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?"

Still waiting on an answer....

1. Does prayer work.

2. Think of an experiment to do with prayer.

3. Conduct experiment.

4. Have others repeat experiment with same results.

Just because you didn't like the answers, doesn't make you some kind of right.

"A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion."

Now let us assume for a minute, that people do things that they believe in. For example, you believe in evolution, so I'm assuming you wouldn't a join a "club" that contradicts your beliefs. That is roughly 2.18 billion people that have probably had some sort of success in their "test" to confirm their beliefs.

I bit again to your response, and I know you will laugh, it is completely irrelevant to you being wrong about your own belief in evolution, and you trying to deter away from your own stupidity again, but I'll bite with............ the exact same response you ignored earlier.

Show me your conducted experiences on the success of evolution. Oh wait, it would take too long to ever have any legit proof.

Here goes the big circle again for 50 more pages where you ignore everything, repeat that no one is understanding you or that we are all too dumb. Repeating that no one gave you answers to the answers they gave you. I'll tell you what, I'll stop posting and come back in 50 pages and respond to the exact same question you ask again. Err no I won't, I'm having too much fun mocking you right now. Would rather not wait to do that later.

Again, back to the original point.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

[RobotElvis]

Please show me the post where I said religion was absolutely necessary when considering faith. I have ALWAYS defined faith as "belief without evidence". Nothing more...nothing less.

Like the fossil record

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I feel bad for everyone in this thread.

/hug

http://stoprunningawaydotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/worf-edo-hug.jpeg

[Eliseus]

"Peter Mandaville and Paul James define religion as "a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing".[24] This definition has the virtue of taking into account the emphasis in the literature on the relationship between the immanent and transcendent without treating it in the modern way as a dualism of two separate worlds. There is no mention of 'God' or 'gods', allowing Buddhism, for example, to be considered a religion."

"The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."[26] Alluding perhaps to Tylor's "deeper motive", Geertz remarked that "we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished. We just know that it is done, annually, weekly, daily, for some people almost hourly; and we have an enormous ethnographic literature to demonstrate it".[27] The theologian Antoine Vergote also emphasized the "cultural reality" of religion, which he defined as "the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings"; he took the term "supernatural" simply to mean whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency."

"The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".[29] By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them". Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits.[note 2] On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred".[30] Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.[31]"

"In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine".[32] By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not"[33] to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.[34]"

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

1. Does prayer work.

2. Think of an experiment to do with prayer.

3. Conduct experiment.

4. Have others repeat experiment with same results.

Just because you didn't like the answers, doesn't make you some kind of right.

"A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion."

Now let us assume for a minute, that people do things that they believe in. For example, you believe in evolution, so I'm assuming you wouldn't a join a "club" that contradicts your beliefs. That is roughly 2.18 billion people that have probably had some sort of success in their "test" to confirm their beliefs.

I bit again to your response, and I know you will laugh, it is completely irrelevant to you being wrong about your own belief in evolution, and you trying to deter away from your own stupidity again, but I'll bite with............ the exact same response you ignored earlier.

Show me your conducted experiences on the success of evolution. Oh wait, it would take too long to ever have any legit proof.

Here goes the big circle again for 50 more pages where you ignore everything, repeat that no one is understanding you or that we are all too dumb. Repeating that no one gave you answers to the answers they gave you. I'll tell you what, I'll stop posting and come back in 50 pages and respond to the exact same question you ask again. Err no I won't, I'm having too much fun mocking you right now. Would rather not wait to do that later.

Again, back to the original point.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."
Again conflating two completely different things.

It's impossible to discuss this subject with you when language itself proves to be an impassable barrier for you.
Like the fossil record
The fossil record is a piece of tangible, testable, predictable evidence, yes.

[Eliseus]

Again conflating two completely different things.

It's impossible to discuss this subject with you when language itself proves to be an impassable barrier for you.

The fossil record is a piece of tangible, testable, predictable evidence, yes.

It would be conflating if he didn't ask for an example. He asked how someone could do said numbers in "religion". I gave him an example.

Let me rephrase this. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT. IT FITS THE CRITERIA HE PROVIDED TO HAVE AN EXAMPLE.

[Eliseus]

Again conflating two completely different things.

It's impossible to discuss this subject with you when language itself proves to be an impassable barrier for you.

The fossil record is a piece of tangible, testable, predictable evidence, yes.

Also, are you an idiot? I'm currently, right now, responding to you in text that you have made it quiet apparent, you understand, or you wouldm't respond in the manner you do.

[paulgiamatti]

Like the fossil record

That doesn't even... I just don't...

Nope, you never answered or rebutted anything from his post.

And by the way, that was a very good post, one of the better ones in this thread. It also clearly demonstrates how scientific results are easily falsifiable - if someone else conducts the same experiment and achieves different results that fall outside the margin of error (a margin which is very small but necessary to account for human discrepancy), it is then proven false.

The evolutionary theory was achieved using the exact same method. Every claim within it is easily falsifiable, and was not predicated on wishful thinking or a desire for it to be true. Scientists are completely neutral in this. They're not out conducting experiments for their ego, they simply want to figure out how the world works and how it came into existence. When one paleontologist finds a set of fossils in a geographic area that doesn't line up with a current scientific hypothesis, then they scrap that hypothesis and start over. They're not making claims and then working endlessly toward those claims to prove that they're true. Instead, they're working endlessly and using the scientific method to develop theory. Theory is not the starting point. There's a whole world of hypothesis and inference and study and research and observation and crosschecking and peer review that goes on before theory.

[paulgiamatti]

Show me your conducted experiences on the success of evolution. Oh wait, it would take too long to ever have any legit proof.

These two sentences are completely nonsensical, even if you assume experiences is meant to be experiments. This is why you're disqualified, and why you've disqualified yourself from rational argument. Don't blame us for your shortcomings. Get serious and learn how to articulate an actual point if you want to participate in these kind of discussions.

[leewong]

.....

"Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities."

I didnt imply anything. I said exactly what I meant. It IS impossible to have a new species that doesnt share similarities with it's nearest ancestor. A whale isnt going to give birth to a bird (even though these have similarities still). Instead, a whale will give birth to another whale with minor differences but still a whale. Repeat that process over and over and over and over....for billions of years....that is what evolution is.

"After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face."

I said a horse doesnt give birth to a squirrel not that a horse cannot eventually evolve into a squirrel like creator. The point is, the horse would first give birth to horse that has some mutation that makes it .000001% more like a squirrel. Then those traits would have to be selected for. Repeat that same process a few hundred times over the course of millions of years and boom...you got yourself a squirrel-like creature.

"some weird infatuation with Darwin"

Lol, what? I havent even read the Origin of Species....imagine that. Science has long moved on since Darwin. I give the man credit but modern science has a better grasp on the mechanisms of evolution than he did. He was even...gasp...wrong on some things! It's not like all science stopped when he died or every word he uttered is infallible unchanging truth.

Science, unlike your religion, isnt ruled by edict. It is ruled by experiment and evidence. It is an ongoing process that will never have all the answers but it has the BEST answers. As soon as you answer one question, "What is an atom made of?" you have made 50 more questions, "What are the individual parts that make up and atom made of?", etc. Some may see that as a flaw in science but I think it is the best part.

[iruinedyourday]

Based on how you creationists behave in this thread you better hope the atheists are right, otherwise your foul souls are going to burn for eternity cause you are a nasty bunch of posters.

[Eliseus]

These two sentences are completely nonsensical, even if you assume experiences is meant to be experiments. This is why you're disqualified, and why you've disqualified yourself from rational argument. Don't blame us for your shortcomings. Get serious and learn how to articulate an actual point if you want to participate in these kind of discussions.

It was meant to be experiences. Yes it does make sense. Cool story though.

[Eliseus]

Based on how you creationists behave in this thread you better hope the atheists are right, otherwise your foul souls are going to burn for eternity cause you are a nasty bunch of posters.

Yeah, you are right, I probably should of not participated in the first place. It's just so hard sometimes when you view forums like this for a game you enjoy, and so many people spewing idiocy. It's like you try, but just sometimes you can't help it.

[Eliseus]

"Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities."

I didnt imply anything. I said exactly what I meant. It IS impossible to have a new species that doesnt share similarities with it's nearest ancestor. A whale isnt going to give birth to a bird (even though these have similarities still). Instead, a whale will give birth to another whale with minor differences but still a whale. Repeat that process over and over and over and over....for billions of years....that is what evolution is.

"After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face."

I said a horse doesnt give birth to a squirrel not that a horse cannot eventually evolve into a squirrel like creator. The point is, the horse would first give birth to horse that has some mutation that makes it .000001% more like a squirrel. Then those traits would have to be selected for. Repeat that same process a few hundred times over the course of millions of years and boom...you got yourself a squirrel-like creature.

"some weird infatuation with Darwin"

Lol, what? I havent even read the Origin of Species....imagine that. Science has long moved on since Darwin. I give the man credit but modern science has a better grasp on the mechanisms of evolution than he did. He was even...gasp...wrong on some things! It's not like all science stopped when he died or every word he uttered is infallible unchanging truth.

Science, unlike your religion, isnt ruled by edict. It is ruled by experiment and evidence. It is an ongoing process that will never have all the answers but it has the BEST answers. As soon as you answer one question, "What is an atom made of?" you have made 50 more questions, "What are the individual parts that make up and atom made of?", etc. Some may see that as a flaw in science but I think it is the best part.

So you, being a man who bases everything off of everyone else just getting what you are saying, and all the implications you have, blah blah blah. You now claim that those exact three posts you were being 100% literal in. If that is the case, I apologize, but it is more probable than not, you weren't.

[leewong]

It would be conflating if he didn't ask for an example. He asked how someone could do said numbers in "religion". I gave him an example.

Let me rephrase this. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT. IT FITS THE CRITERIA HE PROVIDED TO HAVE AN EXAMPLE.

No, I even rephrased the question 3 different ways 40 pages back. You still dont understand the question in even the basic sense.

[leewong]

So you, being a man who bases everything off of everyone else just getting what you are saying, and all the implications you have, blah blah blah. You now claim that those exact three posts you were being 100% literal in. If that is the case, I apologize, but it is more probable than not, you weren't.

No, I expect motherfuckers like you to understand English or have a 4th grade reading comprehension. If you cant understand the conversation then perhaps you should take a seat.

[Eliseus]

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.

You can't observe prayer?

You can't determine an experiment to be done to determine if prayer works or not?

You can't conduct a prayer?

You can't find several people who confirm prayer works?

What am I not getting?

[Eliseus]

No, I expect motherfuckers like you to understand English or have a 4th grade reading comprehension. If you cant understand the conversation then perhaps you should take a seat.

Really? What credentials do you have to speak on behalf of scientists that create these theories? Like I've pointed out in several threads, your own contradictions, it destroys basically all your credibility. You clearly should be letting other people argue. I really enjoyed paul for a bit before he basically said he lets people into his house that preach the words of some religion so that he can just ridicule them.

Kaga has never had any respected opinion. And all the other people haven't even been in this thread long enough to even argue anything more than a couple posts because in reality, this thread is a piece of shit and has been a huge circle jerk for over 100 pages now. I'm really still here because I have nothing else to do and find your outposts in the above quote pretty hilarious.

[leewong]

You can't observe prayer?

You can't determine an experiment to be done to determine if prayer works or not?

You can't conduct a prayer?

You can't find several people who confirm prayer works?

What am I not getting?

The question > *

Your head > .

Go back and read the three times I rephrased it for you. I tried to make it as simple as possible and you still dont get it.

[Eliseus]

outbursts even.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

It would be conflating if he didn't ask for an example. He asked how someone could do said numbers in "religion". I gave him an example.

Let me rephrase this. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT. IT FITS THE CRITERIA HE PROVIDED TO HAVE AN EXAMPLE.
Ok. It was still a terrible conflated example. It did nothing to show even a remote correlation between scientific method and religion. I don't know how how to break it down for you any more.
Also, are you an idiot? I'm currently, right now, responding to you in text that you have made it quiet apparent, you understand, or you wouldm't respond in the manner you do.

Your post illustrates my point more effectively than any rebuttal I could have come up with.

[leewong]

Really? What credentials do you have to speak on behalf of scientists that create these theories? Like I've pointed out in several threads, your own contradictions, it destroys basically all your credibility. You clearly should be letting other people argue. I really enjoyed paul for a bit before he basically said he lets people into his house that preach the words of some religion so that he can just ridicule them.

Kaga has never had any respected opinion. And all the other people haven't even been in this thread long enough to even argue anything more than a couple posts because in reality, this thread is a piece of shit and has been a huge circle jerk for over 100 pages now. I'm really still here because I have nothing else to do and find your outposts in the above quote pretty hilarious.

Stayed 30 minutes late at work to argue this crap :P Will carry on the convo when I get home in 2-3 hours. Then I will happily answer your question.

[Eliseus]

The question > *

Your head > .

Go back and read the three times I rephrased it for you. I tried to make it as simple as possible and you still dont get it.

I just asked what I'm not getting, and you aren't pointing it out. I have exactly what you said quoted, and still don't see what I'm missing. It's your job to make me understand your question if I don't supposedly understand it. I answered exactly what you asked. It is probable you that is fucking up and not asking properly what you want.

[Eliseus]

Ok. It was still a terrible conflated example. It did nothing to show even a remote correlation between scientific method and religion. I don't know how how to break it down for you any more.


Your post illustrates my point more effectively than any rebuttal I could have come up with.

Yet you respond.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I just asked what I'm not getting, and you aren't pointing it out. I have exactly what you said quoted, and still don't see what I'm missing. It's your job to make me understand your question if I don't supposedly understand it. I answered exactly what you asked. It is probable you that is fucking up and not asking properly what you want.

It's not his job. It would be on him if his posts lacked articulation. They don't, therefore it isn't.

You only have yourself to blame for your lack of understanding / refusal to understand.

[Daldolma]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Yet you respond.

Yes. I'm hoping that if you see it often enough you'll understand that you should endeavor to improve your communication skills.

[paulgiamatti]

You can't observe prayer?

You can't determine an experiment to be done to determine if prayer works or not?

You can't conduct a prayer?

You can't find several people who confirm prayer works?

What am I not getting?

Ok, now that's an honest question. That's a place we can begin a discussion. I think it was already addressed, but I'll try and explain.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient recovers! They are now cancer free and living happily

3. Hypothesis: Prayer works

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will then recover

Ok, we've just completed an experiment. Now, let's repeat it just to be sure.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient dies

3. Hypothesis: Prayer does not work all of the time

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will not always recover

So, that's two experiments, and so far our success rate is 50%. Do I need to continue on so you can see where this is going?

[Eliseus]

It's not his job. It would be on him if his posts lacked articulation. They don't, therefore it isn't.

You only have yourself to blame for your lack of understanding / refusal to understand.

Then tell me, what did I not understand Kagatob? Because I responded to the T exactly the 4 questions he asked. Point to where I didn't. Tell me where I didn't. Don't just say I fail to understand, but don't provide any feedback. I don't tell my child he just doesn't get how to catch a baseball, then proceed on my life without telling him what he is missing. Is this another one of those I'm just suppose to read his mind? That I did answer his questions to exactly what he asked, but I was suppose to really answer the questions in his head?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

The former is clearly lacking in some respect. The latter is likely bored or has copious amounts of free time.

[iruinedyourday]

Yeah, you are right, I probably should of not participated in the first place. It's just so hard sometimes when you view forums like this for a game you enjoy, and so many people spewing idiocy. It's like you try, but just sometimes you can't help it.

Meh, I do the same thing about racism on this forum.

You know who I think created life on earth? Mother fuckn veeshan.

Veeshan for prez!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Then tell me, what did I not understand Kagatob? Because I responded to the T exactly the 4 questions he asked. Point to where I didn't. Tell me where I didn't. Don't just say I fail to understand, but don't provide any feedback. I don't tell my child he just doesn't get how to catch a baseball, then proceed on my life without telling him what he is missing. Is this another one of those I'm just suppose to read his mind? That I did answer his questions to exactly what he asked, but I was suppose to really answer the questions in his head?
That's the issue. You don't (I'm leaning towards: refuse to) understand any of it.

Even your analogy is bad. If you are the kid, you can't catch because even though I've shown you a dozen times, you can't even put on the glove.
Meh, I do the same thing about racism on this forum.

You know who I think created life on earth? Mother fuckn veeshan.

Veeshan for prez!
That's racist.

[Eliseus]

Ok, now that's an honest question. That's a place we can begin a discussion. I think it was already addressed, but I'll try and explain.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient recovers! They are now cancer free and living happily

3. Hypothesis: Prayer works

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will then recover

Ok, we've just completed an experiment. Now, let's repeat it just to be sure.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient dies

3. Hypothesis: Prayer does not work all of the time

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will not always recover

So, that's two experiments, and so far our success rate is 50%. Do I need to continue on so you can see where this is going?

Well there lies another issue. First being, and I'm assuming you already know this, the statistical data for health related issues is an effort that has fallen by the waste side. Most, if not all data (though substantially small) proves that it doesn't work...... for healing sicknesses. Some have claimed it to be true, I'm just merely pointing out what you can find off google. Side note, let us assume God did exist, and he had some sort of expectation to help out our fellow man, would it really rely on him so much to heal the sick when there is the technology to heal the sick?

The next is although it isn't 100%, it's safe to assume that many scientific claims aren't 100% (which is funny, because that was the whole basis of a lot of arguments in this thread, and something I've specifically tried pointing out. I actually haven't claimed once that evolution is false, I've merely presented that it's possible that it's fabricated in the same sense that religion is fabricated). A majority of scientific minds could believe one thing to be so, therefore it is so. It works kind of like a majority vote you could say. It's also one reason science is always evolving, because things in life may later point out something wrong in previous conclusions.

Anyways, if you are to use what leewrong presented expecting a 100% result, then you are right. That wouldn't work since 100% of the population would receive the same results. It also depends on the question you ask, for example, if I ask if gravity is real by dropping a pen. It would be impossible to refute (does that make any sense what I'm saying, because honestly, don't know how to explain where I'm getting at better with that comment). There was no claim though that there had to be 100% result, and better yet, I would argue the hypocrisy for me to provide 100% results when he can't do anything of the sorts to the most heated argument in the thread, evolution.

I think you know what I'm saying though, but who knows, because supposedly no one understands anyone in this thread.

[paulgiamatti]

No scientific claims are made from experiments that yield a 100% success rate. A 100% success rate means that claim is unfasifiable. However, as I mentioned earlier, when an experiment is conducted properly the margin of error accounting for simple human discrepancy is very, very small. Every scientific claim is predicated on experimentation that yields a success rate of in the percentile of 99.9 with a bunch of numbers repeating afterwards.

[paulgiamatti]

let us assume God did exist, and he had some sort of expectation to help out our fellow man, would it really rely on him so much to heal the sick when there is the technology to heal the sick?

I'd be happy to repeat the experiment for you without involving the healing of the sick, if you so desire. This isn't about what prayer is used for, but if prayer itself is testable, which it is.

A majority of scientific minds could believe one thing to be so, therefore it is so. It works kind of like a majority vote you could say. It's also one reason science is always evolving, because things in life may later point out something wrong in previous conclusions.

No one is denying this. This is the entire basis on which the groundwork of scientific methodology is predicated.

[RobotElvis]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

HA! I get it

[Eliseus]

I'd be happy to repeat the experiment for you without involving the healing of the sick, if you so desire. This isn't about what prayer is used for, but if prayer itself is testable, which it is.



No one is denying this. This is the entire basis on which the groundwork of scientific methodology is predicated.

You are opening yourself into an entirely different ballpark. There is more to prayer than just committing the act. You can try though, doesn't matter to me. It's irrelevant to the criteria leewrong gave though. Again, he didn't ask for 100% certainty, and no scientist would even ask for 100%, because they know they would be shooting themselves in the foot to claim any theory is ever 100%. He asked for people to have the same results, which people have. Also considering prayer requires some sort of faith rather than doing it out of proof. I'm sure if God does exist, he doesn't sit up there following your demands. This is entirely a different topic though not relevant to the current discussion, at least in my opinion.

The second part, you can somewhat see the issue that arises. I don't want to say people would skew results, or vote for some kind of majority thing that is wrong (we will ignore Obama being in office), but basically, this could imply everything in life is fake, even religion etc. When 10 idiots gang up against 1 person for the info he gives, doesn't make the 10 idiots correct. Well, with the idea present, it actually does. It just make them misinformed, but what do you base things in life off of? Usually if the majority views it as correct, it usually is correct.

To give more examples, and this is just off of googling.

Geocentric Universe

Miasmatic theory of disease

there is a bunch more, but I don't really feel there is a need to post so many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

is a good read to give an example of what I'm talking about. It also supports the evolving idea that you have present on scientific theories. The issue arises is when theories are presented which actually have a lot of wholes, and scientists who believe we should accept such theories because they say so, what do you believe. Evolution may not be right, it may not be wrong, but truly, there is a lot of wholes and contradictions in the theory when examined thoroughly (just like you would claim with religion). Hell, I just read an article during this debate about scientists being baffled on the origin of some random creatures they are discovering and plants that don't hold true at all to the evolutionary theory (yes, as much as you guys don't think I read on this stuff, I do, I actually find this stuff very enlightening and entertaining).

[Eliseus]

And I mean holes, sorry, really wish we could edit

[Eliseus]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

[RobotElvis]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.

[paulgiamatti]

You are opening yourself into an entirely different ballpark. There is more to prayer than just committing the act. You can try though, doesn't matter to me.

Ah yes, the unfaithful will not have their prayers answered, so in this case we would simply adjust the experiment to make sure the one doing the praying is committed to whichever deity it is that's being prayed to. I can assure you though, this is actually a testable subject. I don't need to try to do it, because it's already been done and repeated by real scientists. And just in case you're wondering, the success rate doesn't get any better than the mock-results I gave. In fact it gets much, much worse.

no scientist would even ask for 100%, because they know they would be shooting themselves in the foot to claim any theory is ever 100%.

I'm not denying this, and no one who understands anything about scientific methodology would either.

When 10 idiots gang up against 1 person for the info he gives, doesn't make the 10 idiots correct.

Again, I don't know why this needs to be pointed out. I'm not denying this, and this is not an accurate representation of the scientific method.

[Eliseus]

In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.

Here's a question, if God doesn't exist, do you think man would create him? This might need to be explained further.

[iruinedyourday]

If you guys keep it up the energy produced in the rapped page numbers increasing on this thread it will create a second big bang and all our DNA will be imprinted into a norrathian/earthlike planet and all shall live in harmony, except for some of the more serious raiding guilds.

[Glenzig]

In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.

http://replygif.net/i/782.gif

[RobotElvis]

I can tell Robot and Glenzig have at least taken into consideration the other side of the argument, but that doesn't excuse the absurdity of confusing evolutionary studies with religious theology and atheism with belief. No one needs to point out the fundamentally flawed thinking that leads to this, it's so painfully obvious that it warrants no further speculation or comment from anyone with even the faintest whiff of rationality.

As the ruling elite’s religious institutions began to lose credibility with the masses, it became apparent that the oligarchs would have to adopt a more secular system of control. The result of this transformation was the emergence of what Aldous Huxley called a “scientific dictatorship.” Huxley explains:


The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries.

Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. (Brave New World Revisited 116)

In essence, the scientific dictatorship is merely a theocracy premised upon the religion of scientism. Scientism is epistemological imperialism. It stipulates the ecumenical imposition of science upon all fields of study. No doubt, a majority of contemporary thinkers would regard this universal extrapolation of science as desirable. After all, science has contributed to the technological advancement of human society. It harnessed electricity through the light bulb, cured illnesses through inoculations, and traversed space through rockets. Surely, such a force could equally enhance the human condition if applied to questions of history, morality, and governance.

However, the contemporary mind, blinded as it is by its own chronocentricism, has failed to recognize a significant shortcoming in the investigational methods of science. Michael Hoffman reveals this shortcoming:

The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or “cut, burn and poison” methods of cancer “treatment.” (49)

[Eliseus]

Ah yes, the unfaithful will not have their prayers answered, so in this case we would simply adjust the experiment to make sure the one doing the praying is committed to whichever deity it is that's being prayed to. I can assure you though, this is actually a testable subject. I don't need to try to do it, because it's already been done and repeated by real scientists. And just in case you're wondering, the success rate doesn't get any better than the mock-results I gave. In fact it gets much, much worse.



I'm not denying this, and no one who understands anything about scientific methodology would either.



Again, I don't know why this needs to be pointed out. I'm not denying this, and this is not an accurate representation of the scientific method.

I know, what I mean is, let us say the science claims to know how life was formed. Other scientists disagree, Christians disagree, etc. There stands an issue where we must believe the ones that claim they know how life was formed, no matter how inaccurate it may be, we have to assume that is how it is and it's a disgusting though, it really is, especially when there isn't a lot of supporting evidence, except all them agreeing with each other based off knowledge we have (I'm not literally referring to how life was formed, just using as an example). It is also one reason scientist in the past could get away with a lot more things, same with religion, but now we have access and tools capable of creating our own opinions on the matters. So it really assists in the minorities ideas of what was correct.

Another issue I feel that just raised in my head while thinking this though is how do you even prove something like evolution is wrong? You can't, it almost stands in the same ground as belief in God. You can't prove he is wrong. What I'm saying is, we can base that fossils are correct, or w/e of the sorts to say Evolution is wrong, but how do you truly even go about trying to prove it's wrong. I would have the wait the same amount of time it would take for something to actually evolve to prove it wrong. So ultimately you are stuck with it must be correct. People can take notes in and stuff to contradict what science may say, which in turn makes it seem they are wrong, but there is no legit proof you can give you prove it's wrong. Maybe someone can correct here, because I honestly don't know.

Anyways, so these people are supposedly suppose to be some of the most intelligent people on the planet, which helps their cause even more. That is one reason I was pointing out the vast amount of theories commonly accepted among not just scientists, but the population, that are later not just proven wrong, but completely destroyed.

[paulgiamatti]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

This is actually fairly similar to my beef with creationism. It's an unfalsifiable argument; no matter what the advancement in science reveals, no matter how heavy the hammer blows of scrupulous experimentation and hard, scientific results, the creationist can always attribute it to a supreme creator of the universe. An argument such as this, an argument which can always explain away any new discovery by saying it was made by a grand, unfaltering creator, no matter how ignorant we were of said new discovery's existence before we discovered it, is absolutely unfalsifiable and therefore unsound.

Evolution on the other hand makes no claims without due evidence. Evolution doesn't even claim to be right - everything within the purview of evolution and science is completely falsifiable. You are free to go conduct any experiment you so desire in order to achieve results that fall contrary to the consensus, and in doing so you also have the opportunity to debunk the consensus. And scientists would love that. Scientists love new evidence, they absolutely love it when the consensus changes and they are proven wrong, because this is the unfailing sign that humanity has progressed and our minds have expanded.

[paulgiamatti]

I'm done, not out of disrespect but because I've said enough. I might still post a response to Toofliss though, as I thought his posts were very honest and it would pain me to turn down the chance to dissuade a deist from creationism altogether.

[RobotElvis]

Here's a question, if God doesn't exist, do you think man would create him? This might need to be explained further.

Man is inherently spiritual. What I mean by that is that thoughts of philosophy, epistemology, ontology, scientific curiosity, et cetera, stem from a core in our humanity.

Everyone who has asked the why and how of something has had a spiritual thought.
Not to be confused with religious thought.

We are like this because we are made this way by a creator.
I honestly cannot say if man would invent a God if a God did not exist because we are all products of special creation by God so any gods that are falsely invented are from the spiritually ingrained curiosity that we are encoded with.

Animals lack this quality, as they do not worship gods.

So I guess the answer would lie in the animal kingdom, where abstract spiritual curiosity is not present.

[iruinedyourday]

http://i.imgur.com/IhjW15i.gif

[RobotElvis]

I'm done, not out of disrespect but because I've said enough. I might still post a response to Toofliss though, as I thought his posts were very honest and it would pain me to turn down the chance to dissuade a deist from creationism altogether.

You're taking your scientist and going home?

Man I was about to show the deep rooted spiritual nature of the ideology of Darwinism.
Oh well.

[iruinedyourday]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a71b2dbed348ad1423ce3eb22d2a2d0b/tumblr_nc4gaeWHh71rt28efo1_500.gif

[RobotElvis]

Darwinism itself was always a social theory, not a scientific one. It was designed according to Darwin’s presuppositions, which were already oligarchical in character. Darwin was surrounded by aristocrats, technocrats, and other elitists. Freemason T.H. Huxley, who was involved in the establishment of the oligarchical Round Table groups, is just one case in point. The influence of such elements is evident in the Darwinian concept of natural selection itself. Ian Taylor observes that:

the political doctrine implied by natural selection is elitist, and the principle derived according to Haeckel is “‘aristocratic in the strictest sense of the word'” (411).

Darwinism facilitates the revolutionary dialectic of “[f]reedom followed by Draconian control.” First, it appropriates currency to moral relativism, an economy of thought already bankrupted by self-refuting logical contradictions. H.G. Wells reiterates:

If all animals and man evolved, then there were no first parents, no paradise, no fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historic fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for the atonement collapses like a house of cards. (The Outline of History 616)

Subsequently, the architects of revolution establish their “sociocracy” over the thoroughly demolished “house of cards.” Jane H. Ingraham explains:

“His [Darwin's] shattering “explanation” of the evolution of man from the lower animals through means excluding the supernatural delivered the coup de grace to man’s idea of himself as a created being in a world of fixed truth. Confronted with the “scientific proof” of his own animal origin and nature, Western man, set free at last from God, began the long trek through scientific rationalism, environmental determinism, cultural conditioning, perfectibility of human nature, behaviorism, and secular humanism to today’s inverted morality and totalitarian man.” (Qutd. In Jasper, Global Tyranny. . .Step by Step 262-63)

William Jasper eloquently synopsizes this observation:

The rejection of Divine revelation and the sovereignty of God has resulted in the enthronement of man’s “reason” as the ultimate source of truth and the apotheosis of the State as the supreme authority. (Global Tyranny. . .Step by Step 263)

[RobotElvis]

In essence, Darwinism was an epistemological weapon for sociocratic revolution. As such, it was destined to merge with the rest of the technocratic social sciences. This was a prearranged marriage and one that was made in Hell. In the contemporary religious milieu of sociolatry, the golden calf of the Israelites has been exchanged for the golden ape-man of Darwinism.

[iruinedyourday]

wait, are you people here saying you dont think man evolved from monkies?

[Eliseus]

I think God took a shit, and we were born.

[mtb tripper]

an epistemological weapon for sociocratic revolution.

hmmm sounds familiar? How about Roman Catholicism and the crusades?

[Eliseus]

hmmm sounds familiar? How about Roman Catholicism and the crusades?

Hmm I see what you did there, and raise you a Nazi.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Hmm I see what you did there, and raise you a Nazi.

A roman Catholic one to be precise.

[Ahldagor]

All of you trusting a notion and wishing it to spread to satisfy your weltanshauung like so many before you. Also, fuck Socrates.

[Glenzig]

hmmm sounds familiar? How about Roman Catholicism and the crusades?

Exactly. It should remind you of that.

[Eliseus]

A roman Catholic one to be precise.

No not that kind

[Eliseus]

No not that kind

Wait, doesn't even matter. They did horrible stuff in the name science, not Christ. It could been any religious denomination, wouldn't matter. Was still in the name of science.

[leewong]

I just asked what I'm not getting, and you aren't pointing it out. I have exactly what you said quoted, and still don't see what I'm missing. It's your job to make me understand your question if I don't supposedly understand it. I answered exactly what you asked. It is probable you that is fucking up and not asking properly what you want.

It isnt my job but I will try to explain for the 4th time what the question is.

Here is the original question:

"Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."
2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"
3. Conduct the experiment
4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.

Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like a religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?"

The number sentences 1-4 are only there to show you exactly what the scientific method is. They werent there as an example of how to form your answer. They were there only to show you what the scientific method was.

I then ask the question, "why do you consider this process like religion?". This is what I want answered. Another way to phrase it would be, "Are those 4 steps inherently religious? If you believe so please explain why". One other way to phrase the question, "Which of these 4 things is religious or are all 4 steps religious?"

I dont know any other way to explain the damn question. If you are able to answer it properly I may even crack open a beer to celebrate.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

No not that kind

Wait, doesn't even matter. They did horrible stuff in the name science, not Christ. It could been any religious denomination, wouldn't matter. Was still in the name of science.

Hitler was a devout roman Catholic. Have you ever listened to his speeches?

[Azure]

This is legit. PS. I was born with an extremely balanced and open Crown Chakra

http://thespiritscience.net/2012/03/27/working-with-chakras/

[leewong]

Wait, doesn't even matter. They did horrible stuff in the name science, not Christ. It could been any religious denomination, wouldn't matter. Was still in the name of science.

Is that why they had "Gott mit uns" on every Nazi belt buckle? I dont blame Christians/Catholics for Hitler's actions but holy hell...

Holding everyone accountable for the actions of a few is something a psychopathic God does. I have better sense than that.

[paulgiamatti]

Wait, doesn't even matter. They did horrible stuff in the name science, not Christ. It could been any religious denomination, wouldn't matter. Was still in the name of science.

That's antihistorical garbage. In Mein Kampf, Hitler declares several times that he's doing god's work by exterminating the Jews. Furthermore, the Vatican refused to ban this outrageously anti-Semitic propaganda when they were in the business of banning any literature that they didn't deem appropriate at the time. In the SS, when you took your compulsory oath to the Führer, you were expected to say, "I swear by almighty god, undying fealty." On your belt, if you were soldiered in the Nazi army, you had to wear a buckle that read, "Gott mit uns"; German for "God on our side".

Like every other form of totalitarianism and fanaticism, this was religious in and of itself.

[leewong]

Darwinism itself was always a social theory, not a scientific one. It was designed according...

Lol, lifted straight from:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/05/16/the-social-scientific-dictatorship/

Did you read any of the page long copy/pastes I posted to mock you? I bet not. Why do you think anyone is going to read this tripe and respond to it point by point? You are being intellectually lazy. At the very least, have the decency to paraphrase the arguments and cite sources.

[Eliseus]

You guys are joking right? I mean seriously, you guys are joking right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

You can even google real life experiences where people captured him claiming what he did "in the name of science".

We will start here, since you guys claim there was apparently no Nazi's that do anything in the name of science. I don't even know what to say, is this serious garbage?

The amount of horror stories you can find all due to "in the name of science" from the holocaust is momf blowing, just do 1 google search. Apparently it is all fake? I legitimately want to know, was all the science experiments that happened completely fabricated? Is the Holocaust real? I don't know anymore after being in this thread.

[paulgiamatti]

Please. I can't believe you are honestly this daft. And I suppose because Jeffrey Dahmer drilled holes in his unconscious victims' heads and filled them with battery acid in an attempt to keep them alive while he had his way them, this can also be attributed to an apparent brainwashing scheme perpetrated upon humanity by the scientific community.

This is complete bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for even making the comparison. In the second sentence of the Wikipedia article for Josef Mengele, his experiments are described as unscientific. Just because there are a thousand idiots like yourself attempting - very poorly I might add - to rationalize sickly and immoral creationist, religionist ideologies by fabricating this conspiratorial nonsense doesn't mean I'm inclined to take it seriously for a second.

[leewong]

You guys are joking right? I mean seriously, you guys are joking right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

You can even google real life experiences where people captured him claiming what he did "in the name of science".

We will start here, since you guys claim there was apparently no Nazi's that do anything in the name of science. I don't even know what to say, is this serious garbage?

The amount of horror stories you can find all due to "in the name of science" from the holocaust is momf blowing, just do 1 google search. Apparently it is all fake? I legitimately want to know, was all the science experiments that happened completely fabricated? Is the Holocaust real? I don't know anymore after being in this thread.

Let's assume you are 100% correct and EVERY act the Nazis committed was "in the name of science". Nevermind, that it is demonstrably false. How is the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, peer review) responsible for the abuses? You keep giving the process personal traits which baffles me.

Should we also assume all abortion clinic bombings were committed "in the name of God". How about witch burnings? The Inquisition? The Crusades? How about the massacre of the Native Americans? What are the key differences between blaming religion and blaming a process like the scientific method?

[mtb tripper]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/5294fd051f6f927b2ce64dbfa76e6a62/tumblr_n5fafsfxOn1s5bxm0o1_500.jpg

hey guys, its cool

[paulgiamatti]

It's just so, so very silly I can't even begin to even fathom the thought process that leads these conclusions. As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation - once you've carried out a scientific experiment of any kind you become a follower of the ghastly doctrine of science, now fully committed to perpetrating your wicked plans upon an unsuspecting population.

Should we point out again that the originators of the scientific method were entirely creationistic?

[mtb tripper]

It's just so, so very silly I can't even begin to even fathom the thought process that leads these conclusions. As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation - once you've carried out a scientific experiment of any kind you become a follower of the ghastly doctrine of science, now fully committed to perpetrating your wicked plans upon an unsuspecting population.

Should we point out again that the originators of the scientific method were entirely creationistic?

yeah haha its silly. As if those who use science and rationality were born to drive you toward the path of "sin"

[paulgiamatti]

And how dare you use the internet, live in a house or an apartment, or buy groceries, use public transportation or drive a car, or do anything at all in the 21st century while condemning the very thing that provides everything for you. You are nothing but a non-contributing, non-thinking, backwards neo-Luddite degenerate. How fucking dare you. This is what creationism leads to. This is what happens when creationism goes unchecked in people who simply don't know when to give up the facade. It's nothing but wishful thinking, self-centered, solipsistic, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe bullshit.

[mtb tripper]

And how dare you use the internet, live in a house or an apartment, or buy groceries, use public transportation or drive a car, or do anything at all in the 21st century while condemning the very thing that provides everything for you. You are nothing but a non-contributing, non-thinking, backwards neo-Luddite degenerate. How fucking dare you. This is what creationism leads to. This is what happens when creationism goes unchecked in people who simply don't know when to give up the facade. It's nothing but wishful thinking, self-centered, solipsistic, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe bullshit.

yes eating shellfish is also the same as murdering someone in gods eyes

[mtb tripper]

yes eating shellfish is also the same as murdering someone in gods eyes

and dont you fuckers dare try to twist the words of the holy book

[leewong]

....

"As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation"

This is exactly why I think Eliseus has avoided my question for 60+ pages. I was trying to get him to realize the scientific method is neither good nor evil nor religious nor atheistic. It is only a process that humans use to make discoveries and learn about the world we live in.

Creationist dont like some of the data that process uncovers. Creationists dont understand some of the theories science has verified. I am fine with that. I think they are ignorant but I am fine with that. What I do despise is when they blame science and conversely the scientific method.

[leewong]

Anyone here a fan of Mr.Diety?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI&list=PLD835E284A3AC7AA6

[iruinedyourday]

jfc

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

If we get 199 more posts do I win?

[RobotElvis]

It's just so, so very silly I can't even begin to even fathom the thought process that leads these conclusions. As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation - once you've carried out a scientific experiment of any kind you become a follower of the ghastly doctrine of science, now fully committed to perpetrating your wicked plans upon an unsuspecting population.

Should we point out again that the originators of the scientific method were entirely creationistic?

The entire point was completely missed by yourself, though I expect intentionally.

Science is not evil. True science is on hormone with the bible, as truth associates with truth not falsehood.

Evolution is a form of sociocratic control perpetuated, not by science, but by totalitarian scientific dictators that have told you it is the path of humanity.

They want to remove the your reasoning ability and make you a manipulatable being.
And it seems to be working.

It is the religion of the new state.

And also Marx and Hitler were heavily influenced by the writings of Darwin.
Using his idea of social evolution to promote their radical ideologues as scientifically justifiable and moral.

[Glenzig]

I see some very religious type responses to Robots posts. Like you walked into a Baptist church and lit their Jesus statue on fire.

[RobotElvis]

I see some very religious type responses to Robots posts. Like you walked into a Baptist church and lit their Jesus statue on fire.

Amen brother

[Whirled]

Ok who can read this?
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/gutenbergbible/pages/#top

http://beginningandend.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/faith_sign-Are-we-saved-by-works-or-faith.jpg

[Glenzig]

I think your link is broken.

[Whirled]

weird... works for me. It does take a few to appear tho.

[Glenzig]

I think I know what you're getting at though.

[Whirled]

I think I know what you're getting at though.

Just being neighborly and trying to help :D

[Patriam1066]

yeah haha its silly. As if those who use science and rationality were born to drive you toward the path of "sin"

http://lastresistance.com/7026/australian-meteorology-office-accused-manipulating-climate-data/

Not going to claim this is the most reputable source... But this is fairly controversial in Australia right now. The labour govt had scientists skewing climate data to show a warming trend when in fact there was a cooling trend. Why do you think scientists are perfect? They are human beings that can be manipulated by the prospect of tenure and grant money. You're advocating the idea that religion shouldn't be sacred. Fine. You should also retain a healthy level of skepticism for other aspects of our culture.

Many of you have said that religion was once used as a control mechanism. So if many elites had once used religious institutions to control or manipulate public opinion, what would they use to control a populace that was slowly denying their old traditions. Science, especially since you guys hold a science book to be as sacred as a Muslim with his Quran.

I'd like to reiterate that I believe in both evolution and the scientific method... But I am highly skeptical that, in a world where a weatherman can only tell me to 50% accuracy whether it will rain in a given day, that climate models, unaware presently of all of the feedback mechanisms and variables at work on the earth, can accurately predict the global climate in 100 years. It doesn't make sense to me. I think we should retain a healthy level of skepticism, especially when 90% of "climate change" in the U.S. is nothing more than El Niño being incorrectly attributed to this chicken little mentality that if we don't stop burning gas we're all going to die.

[Eliseus]

They mad that people have killed in the name of science, they choose to not believe it. They act as if it is all based off the beliefs of the known leader, so I assume they all believe in whatever Obama believes. That seems to be our driving force according them, is whatever the leader of said nation claims they are. Again I prove something done by science, and they laugh instead of coming up with any coherent thought in a response

[leewong]

The entire point was completely missed by yourself, though I expect intentionally.

Science is not evil. True science is on hormone with the bible, as truth associates with truth not falsehood.

Evolution is a form of sociocratic control perpetuated, not by science, but by totalitarian scientific dictators that have told you it is the path of humanity.

They want to remove the your reasoning ability and make you a manipulatable being.
And it seems to be working.

It is the religion of the new state.

And also Marx and Hitler were heavily influenced by the writings of Darwin.
Using his idea of social evolution to promote their radical ideologues as scientifically justifiable and moral.

Yeah, there is a worldwide conspiracy to dupe people into believing evolution just so a few elite can use it as a control device. Scientist, every single one of them, are complicit in this plot. They spend their entire lives producing false data and slaving away on experiments they know are lies only to grease the machine of evolutionary dominance. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of scientist all agreeing and being complicit in this plot! You folks cant even imagine how DEEP this goes! Thank goodness we have level headed folks like RobotElvis to shake us awake.

Religion is the saving grace of humanity and it has never been used as an instrument of control. Science is the tool of the devil and is only used to control.

You heard it hear first, folks. Now let's go build a great statue to salute our comrade RobotElvis. Humanity will never be the same now that we have received his message.

PS. UFOs are demons and HARP is used to produce hurricanes. 911 was an inside job and ISIS is just a puppet of Israel. I am pretty sure the Holocaust never happened either.

[leewong]

I assume they all believe in whatever Obama believes.

Of course we do. Everything our dear leader says is fact. Didnt you see me goose stepping behind his motorcade? I would be careful what you say...scientists could kill you in an instance and make it look like a heart attack. If you upset the worldwide conspiracy that is evolution and climate change they will come for you and you will pay.

[Whirled]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1umrxqCB-w

[leewong]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1umrxqCB-w

Hilarious.

[Whirled]

Hilarious.

and "Hysterical" :D
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085704/

[Eliseus]

Of course we do. Everything our dear leader says is fact. Didnt you see me goose stepping behind his motorcade? I would be careful what you say...scientists could kill you in an instance and make it look like a heart attack. If you upset the worldwide conspiracy that is evolution and climate change they will come for you and you will pay.

It's obvious you don't make your own opinions, we know you just follow whoever the current leader is. You apparently believe in Christ also. Didn't have tell us twice.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

They mad that people have killed in the name of science, they choose to not believe it. They act as if it is all based off the beliefs of the known leader, so I assume they all believe in whatever Obama believes. That seems to be our driving force according them, is whatever the leader of said nation claims they are. Again I prove something done by science, and they laugh instead of coming up with any coherent thought in a response

nonsensical doublespeak.

[Glenzig]

That is an extremely emotional response Leewong. And one completely lacking in substance. You purposefully misconstrue the while point of RobotElvis' posts on the matter. Its ok. You can still believe in evolution.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

That is an extremely emotional response Leewong. And one completely lacking in substance. You purposefully misconstrue the while point of RobotElvis' posts on the matter. Its ok. You can still believe in evolution.

Look man, I like you and all, but your troll persona gets really fucking stale when it's not in small doses. Can you go muck up the other threads and come back in like 3 days or something?

[G13]

It's just so, so very silly I can't even begin to even fathom the thought process that leads these conclusions. As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation - once you've carried out a scientific experiment of any kind you become a follower of the ghastly doctrine of science, now fully committed to perpetrating your wicked plans upon an unsuspecting population.

Should we point out again that the originators of the scientific method were entirely creationistic?

Human Nature is corrupt and fallen

Science itself has become corrupted and agenda driven. One only needs to point to The Global Warming scam for clear evidence

[Eliseus]

nonsensical doublespeak.

/comfort

[Eliseus]

Look man, I like you and all, but your troll persona gets really fucking stale when it's not in small doses. Can you go muck up the other threads and come back in like 3 days or something?

Coming from Kagatob. This guy smart.

[G13]

Look man, I like you and all, but your troll persona gets really fucking stale when it's not in small doses. Can you go muck up the other threads and come back in like 3 days or something?

Obvious lying fucking fraud is obvious

[Eliseus]

Obvious lying fucking fraud is obvious

Not just that, but reinforces almost all the time how dumb he is with his own troll persona.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Not just that, but reinforces almost all the time how dumb he is with his own troll persona.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that posting nothing but peer-reviewed evidence to counter your arguments that don't even properly address the subject matter is trolling. :rolleyes:

Try harder next time please.

[Eliseus]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that posting nothing but peer-reviewed evidence to counter your arguments that don't even properly address the subject matter is trolling. :rolleyes:

Try harder next time please.

You haven't posted anything. Don't take credit for other peoples posts, and then completely miss points while you are at it.

[Eliseus]

Nice defense though trying to call people trolls when it's pointed out that people do kill in the name of science.

[Eliseus]

"It doesn't happen brah, only stuff in the name of God is bad" "there is no crime ever except in the name of God"

[leewong]

It's obvious you don't make your own opinions, we know you just follow whoever the current leader is. You apparently believe in Christ also. Didn't have tell us twice.

Of course I dont form my own opinions. Instead, I copy/pasted every single paragraph I write from a website I found. Unlike you, who goes out and carefully constructs experiments to crush evolution and gets them publishes in peer reviewed journals. I am merely a robot that can only output instructions given to me and zero thought goes into anything I write.

Research is a tool of the devil. Never look at both sides of a claim. These are the mantras I hold dearest.

[Eliseus]

Of course I dont form my own opinions. Instead, I copy/pasted every single paragraph I write from a website I found. Unlike you, who goes out and carefully constructs experiments to crush evolution and gets them publishes in peer reviewed journals. I am merely a robot that can only output instructions given to me and zero thought goes into anything I write.

Research is a tool of the devil. Never look at both sides of a claim. These are the mantras I hold dearest.

Aww he gets it. Finally.

[Eliseus]

Pretty bad AI if you ask me, took you this long.

[leewong]

Nice defense though trying to call people trolls when it's pointed out that people do kill in the name of science.

People will kill for almost anything including your precious bible. What's your point? That morality is subjective?

[leewong]

Aww he gets it. Finally.

Someone doesnt understand sarcasm.

[Dior]

Look man, I like you and all, but your troll persona gets really fucking stale when it's not in small doses. Can you go muck up the other threads and come back in like 3 days or something?

You know why it becomes stale? When the account juggling starts. All of the accounts focus in on one person. It lacks the artistry of someone who can keep track of multiple lines of thinking. Even when the persona's split to keep the shitposting going, it's always a few accounts against that one other account and anyone who brings up a completely different point is ignore or given a one liner to stall for time.

I mean, I know the game is supposed to be a nostalgia bomb and kept at a certain time period of the game, but I didn't know the forums were supposed stay in 1999 too. It saddened me a little bit these few days to find the same shitposting that went on then still being repeated now. It's like people are stuck in autopilot.

RIP in pieces my hope

[Eliseus]

Someone doesnt understand sarcasm.

Sarcasm in text at it's best.

[Eliseus]

People will kill for almost anything including your precious bible. What's your point? That morality is subjective?

Really, because apparently they didn't in the Holocaust, well, according to your guys outbursts of absurdity.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You haven't posted anything.

Actually I've posted beyond too much in this thread.
http://i.imgur.com/orIrDto.png
Which of course is on me, as giving psychos such as yourself even a platform to speak your insufferable lunacy gives your argument more weight than it deserves.

I don't give a damn what the bible says about the origin/nature of life. The bible condones slavery, child-abuse, misogyny, war, genocide, and rape-marriages and should not be considered any type of "guidebook" whatsoever. You can't even show a single piece of evidence that God even exists. You complain about the fossil record not being "proof", you don't even have "evidence", your argument is irrelevant.

[leewong]

Sarcasm in text at it's best.

I thought it was rather witty. An eloquent display of the creationist mindset. It wasnt written for the mentally challenged such as yourself.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Really, because apparently they didn't in the Holocaust, well, according to your guys outbursts of absurdity.

How was the Holocaust "killing in the name of science"? It was killing in the name of deep-seeded antisemitism backed up by interpretations of religious doctrine which the Catholic church failed to dismiss until it was clear the Nazis had lost the war.

Stalin didn't kill "in the name of science" or "in the name of Atheism". He killed for power because he was a totalitarian sociopath, nothing more, nothing less.

[Eliseus]

Actually I've posted beyond too much in this thread.
http://i.imgur.com/orIrDto.png
Which of course is on me, as giving psychos such as yourself even a platform to speak your insufferable lunacy gives your argument more weight than it deserves.

I don't give a damn what the bible says about the origin/nature of life. The bible condones slavery, child-abuse, misogyny, war, genocide, and rape-marriages and should not be considered any type of "guidebook" whatsoever. You can't even show a single piece of evidence that God even exists. You complain about the fossil record not being "proof", you don't even have "evidence", your argument is irrelevant.

107 posts of absolute garbage. You point out you have 107 posts, and apparently every single one you provided has credibility behind it... LMAO. I have 169, I guess I win.

[leewong]

Really, because apparently they didn't in the Holocaust, well, according to your guys outbursts of absurdity.

Didnt what? Kill for science as you claim? It is demonstrably false. Hitler was a devout Catholic that seen exterminating Jews as God's work.

" If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.

Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

"His unfailing instinct in such things scents the original soul (die urspruengliche Seele) in everyone, and his hostility is assured to anyone who is not spirit of his spirit. Since the Jew is not the attacked but the attacker, not only anyone who attacks passes as his enemy, but also anyone who resists him. But the means with which he seeks to break such reckless but upright souls is not honest warfare, but lies and slander.

Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

The ignorance of the broad masses about the inner nature of the Jew, the lack of instinct and narrow-mindedness of our upper classes, make the people an easy victim for this Jewish campaign of lies.

While from innate cowardice the upper classes turn away from a man whom the Jew attacks with lies and slander, the broad masses from stupidity or simplicity believe everything. The state authorities either cloak themselves in silence or, what usually happens, in order to put an end to the Jewish press campaign, they persecute the unjustly attacked, which, in the eyes of such an official ass, passes as the preservation of state authority and the safeguarding of law and order.

Slowly fear and the Marxist weapon of Jewry descend like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people.

They begin to tremble before the terrible enemy and thus have become his final victim.

The Jew’s domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.

It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one section is still playing the German, Frenchman, or Englishman, the other with open effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.

How close they see approaching victory can be seen by the hideous aspect which their relations with the members of other peoples takes on.

With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale. It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master.

For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone.

And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poisoning of individuals.

And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist.

He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense: economic and political.

Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attack from within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants a flag of revolution on the very battlefields.

In economics he undermines the states until the social enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected to his financial control.

In the political field he refuses the state the means for its self-preservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history and past, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.

Culturally, he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere of his own base nature.

Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, until the last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world have fallen.

Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people’s Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave’s lot of permanent subjugation.

The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.

The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too."

So you dont even take Hitler's own words as proof? Interesting...

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

107 posts of absolute garbage. You point out you have 107 posts, and apparently every single one you provided has credibility behind it... LMAO. I have 169, I guess I win.

169 posts amounting to "a three mile tall mountain of evidence isn't enough, I love my bible." and you want to talk about post quality? :cool:

[Eliseus]

How was the Holocaust "killing in the name of science"? It was killing in the name of deep-seeded antisemitism backed up by interpretations of religious doctrine which the Catholic church failed to dismiss until it was clear the Nazis had lost the war.

Stalin didn't kill "in the name of science" or "in the name of Atheism". He killed for power because he was a totalitarian sociopath, nothing more, nothing less.

I already gave an example of someone who saw it as a way to further their scientific work. Even more so, you have access to same tools I have (well maybe not, you are kind of dumb) and can google many horrific things done "in the name of science" at least according to claims of people that you know, actually survived. Apparently though their opinions are irrelevant, because it's against your point of views. I understand though, I get where you are coming from, Hitler was a Christian at the time, therefore everything and anything done in the nation at the time was under God. Just as the same you argue right now, Obama being a Christian and all, everything you say must be under the basis that God exists and everything we do is for him.

[Eliseus]

169 posts amounting to "a three mile tall mountain of evidence isn't enough, I love my bible." and you want to talk about post quality? :cool:

You're the one who brought it up. LMAO, here we go some more. Let me put on my tin foil hat with you. Hold on.

[G13]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that posting nothing but peer-reviewed evidence to counter your arguments that don't even properly address the subject matter is trolling. :rolleyes:

Try harder next time please.

You're a proven lying fucking fraud

Just go away

[leewong]

I already gave an example of someone who saw it as a way to further their scientific work.

Of course, he claims it was only in the name of science. It is an easy cop-out that is meant to lessen his barbarism.

I still dont see how it is suppose to change my view of science ....even if you were 100% right. By your own standards shouldnt you also abandon Christianity since bad things were done in it's name. Lots of bad things...

[G13]

Of course, he claims it was only in the name of science. It is an easy cop-out that is meant to lessen his barbarism.

I still dont see how it is suppose to change my view of science ....even if you were 100% right. By your own standards shouldnt you also abandon Christianity since bad things were done in it's name. Lots of bad things...

Humans do bad things

It's called Human Nature

[leewong]

Humans do bad things

It's called Human Nature

No shit Sherlock...exactly my point. The scientific method isnt a person. It isnt evil or good. It is a tool like any other that can be used for good and bad.

[Eliseus]

Of course, he claims it was only in the name of science. It is an easy cop-out that is meant to lessen his barbarism.

I still dont see how it is suppose to change my view of science ....even if you were 100% right. By your own standards shouldnt you also abandon Christianity since bad things were done in it's name. Lots of bad things...

There is no attention to change your views. I think you think I'm trying to accuse science of being evil, when it's on the contrary. It mostly started as sarcasm when someone brought up the crusades, so I raised them a Nazi. Then people freaked that there was no harm done in the holocaust due to science, but that is was all "In the name of God". So I had to stop for a sec, and really wonder, "What?" So I pointed out an example.

Bad people exist, doesn't matter what you believe. The implication here though from you guys is that only bad things happen from "religions" (I put in quotes because you guys still don't understand what a religion is, so yeah). Any implication at all, or examples given where evil was done "In the name of science" is supposedly fake, or just straight up wrong, which even more, supports your guys hypocritical views on..... well at this point, about everything.

[Eliseus]

intention, not attention, sorry.

[G13]

No shit Sherlock...exactly my point. The scientific method isnt a person. It isnt evil or good. It is a tool like any other that can be used for good and bad.

It's a tool that humans have corrupted because Human Nature is corrupt

You're taking the human nature factor out of science to try and claim bogus science like Evolution and Global Warming can't be questioned when they are obviously BS

Science is your religion

This has already been explained to you by Robot in this thread, but your head is in the sand

[iruinedyourday]

You're a proven lying fucking fraud

Just go away

you go away G13, youre a fuck too.

[G13]

you go away G13, youre a fuck too.

Lawl says the pathetic clown that embarrasses himself with every post

You offer nothing to every real discussion here but biffoonery

Nearly 1100 posts (RnF doesn't even count posts) of nothing but idiocy since April?

lol

[Eliseus]

Lawl says the pathetic clown that embarrasses himself with every post

You offer nothing to every real discussion here but biffoonery

Nearly 1100 posts (RnF doesn't even count posts) of nothing but idiocy since April?

lol

Lol, he literally argued with me in a thread on server chat when I said boxing is classic.

[FoxxHound]

The beard in the clouds tho

[iruinedyourday]

You offer nothing to every real discussion here but biffoonery

l


"real discussion on p99 RnF" lmao leave your home.

[iruinedyourday]

Lol, he literally argued with me in a thread on server chat when I said boxing is classic.

becuse you're an asshole and your opinions are stupid and wrong.

[Eliseus]

You know, he reminds me of Brian Griffin, literally argues just to argue and just takes whatever side he thinks has some kind of movement going on. Better way to explain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

[Eliseus]

becuse you're an asshole and your opinions are stupid and wrong.

You are right, boxing in classic was fake. Just like your intelligence.

[iruinedyourday]

You are right, boxing in classic was fake. Just like your intelligence.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25736152/qpbGU.gif

[leewong]

There is no attention to change your views. I think you think I'm trying to accuse science of being evil, when it's on the contrary. It mostly started as sarcasm when someone brought up the crusades, so I raised them a Nazi. Then people freaked that there was no harm done in the holocaust due to science, but that is was all "In the name of God". So I had to stop for a sec, and really wonder, "What?" So I pointed out an example.

Bad people exist, doesn't matter what you believe. The implication here though from you guys is that only bad things happen from "religions" (I put in quotes because you guys still don't understand what a religion is, so yeah). Any implication at all, or examples given where evil was done "In the name of science" is supposedly fake, or just straight up wrong, which even more, supports your guys hypocritical views on..... well at this point, about everything.

Show me a single post where I claim or even imply evil is only committed by the religious. Go on...find it. You cant because this shit is all in your head. You are so eager to dismiss science and demonize me that you forget you need to address the points I make not the imaginary atheist you have locked away in your head.

[RobotElvis]

How was the Holocaust "killing in the name of science"? It was killing in the name of deep-seeded antisemitism backed up by interpretations of religious doctrine which the Catholic church failed to dismiss until it was clear the Nazis had lost the war.

Stalin didn't kill "in the name of science" or "in the name of Atheism". He killed for power because he was a totalitarian sociopath, nothing more, nothing less.

Read something instructive from time to time it's good for you.


Following in Lenin’s footsteps, Stalin took control of Soviet Russia. Earlier in life, right before Stalin became a priest he read Origin of Species, and his life quickly changed; he became atheist and joined the Bolsheviks. As dictator, he executed scientists who rejected evolution and the projects developed from it, like soaking seeds in cold water for long periods of time expecting them to adapt to the low temperatures in Russia. As a result, 9 million starved to death and cannibalism once again turned humans into wild savages. During Stalin’s reign, 40 million died at his hands, more than the 25 million that died fighting Nazi Germany.


Fascist forms of government indoctrinate the same concepts of Darwinism as Communist governments. Mussolini and Hitler were great advocates of Darwin and Spencer’s work. Hitler’s National Socialist German Worker’s (Nazi) Party combined their deep mystical beliefs with Darwinism to inspire a grandiose vision of world conquest, leading the globe into a new age of enlightenment. Anyone who did not conform to Hitler’s ideas of the model citizen were rounded up and executed as inferior races that were holding back the rest of society from evolving. Professor of modern European History, Richard Weikart reviewing his book, From Darwin to Hitler, says “Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis”

[Eliseus]

Show me a single post where I claim or even imply evil is only committed by the religious. Go on...find it. You cant because this shit is all in your head. You are so eager to dismiss science and demonize me that you forget you need to address the points I make not the imaginary atheist you have locked away in your head.

Can't tell if serious

Even more so, someone of your intelligence I would assume knows what an implication is. Tried giving you at least that. So sad though D:

[iruinedyourday]

IRL and on forums.. sux 2 b u

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25736152/friends.JPG

[Eliseus]

IRL and on forums.. sux 2 b u

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25736152/friends.JPG

My wife and kids keep saying the same thing ><

[leewong]

Can't tell if serious

Even more so, someone of your intelligence I would assume knows what an implication is. Tried giving you at least that. So sad though D:

'The implication here though from you guys is that only bad things happen from "religions""

Pretty fucking straight forward if you ask me. I am fully aware of what it means to implicate something. Hence, why my reply contained the phrase, "Show me a single post where I claim or even imply evil is only committed by the religious".

Nice try at weaseling out of it though.

[leewong]

Read something instructive from time to time it's good for you.


Following in Lenin’s footsteps, Stalin took control of Soviet Russia. Earlier in life, right before Stalin became a priest he read Origin of Species, and his life quickly changed; he became atheist and joined the Bolsheviks. As dictator, he executed scientists who rejected evolution and the projects developed from it, like soaking seeds in cold water for long periods of time expecting them to adapt to the low temperatures in Russia. As a result, 9 million starved to death and cannibalism once again turned humans into wild savages. During Stalin’s reign, 40 million died at his hands, more than the 25 million that died fighting Nazi Germany.


Fascist forms of government indoctrinate the same concepts of Darwinism as Communist governments. Mussolini and Hitler were great advocates of Darwin and Spencer’s work. Hitler’s National Socialist German Worker’s (Nazi) Party combined their deep mystical beliefs with Darwinism to inspire a grandiose vision of world conquest, leading the globe into a new age of enlightenment. Anyone who did not conform to Hitler’s ideas of the model citizen were rounded up and executed as inferior races that were holding back the rest of society from evolving. Professor of modern European History, Richard Weikart reviewing his book, From Darwin to Hitler, says “Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis”

Once again...lifted straight from: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/02/04/darwinism-then-and-now/

It doesnt make you look intelligent when you copy/paste a bunch of shit from a conspiracy website. It makes you look intellectually lazy at best. A complete retard at worse.

[Eliseus]

'The implication here though from you guys is that only bad things happen from "religions""

Pretty fucking straight forward if you ask me. I am fully aware of what it means to implicate something. Hence, why my reply contained the phrase, "Show me a single post where I claim or even imply evil is only committed by the religious".

Nice try at weaseling out of it though.

Why would I show you posts of what you say. History shows you don't give 2 fucks about what your previous posts say. Don't make yourself look like a fucking retard. Anyone who has been in this thread knows exactly what you are implying. Don't try and hide from it now that you are pushed in a corner.

[Eliseus]

Once again...lifted straight from: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/02/04/darwinism-then-and-now/

It doesnt make you look intelligent when you copy/paste a bunch of shit from a conspiracy website. It makes you look intellectually lazy at best. A complete retard at worse.

Notice that he doesn't even argue any inaccuracy or misinformation, or anything. He just simple calls robot a fucking retard for researching what he is saying.

[RobotElvis]

Once again...lifted straight from: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/02/04/darwinism-then-and-now/

It doesnt make you look intelligent when you copy/paste a bunch of shit from a conspiracy website. It makes you look intellectually lazy at best. A complete retard at worse.

No I have given many posts in my own words showing that evolution is a religion.
I could also say that Lenin, Stalin, and hitler were influenced by Darwinism. But to show proof of it through historical accuracy is much more tangible.

That is called backing up a claim with proof.

It would be intellectually lazy to claim that Stalin and hitler were not influenced by Darwinism and then NOT show proof of your claim.

[G13]

Once again...lifted straight from: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/02/04/darwinism-then-and-now/

It doesnt make you look intelligent when you copy/paste a bunch of shit from a conspiracy website. It makes you look intellectually lazy at best. A complete retard at worse.

Are you trying to claim that Darwinism has no influence on Marx/Engels/Stalin/Hitler?

Communism is based in Materialism

Materialism is rooted in Darwinism

A 5 year old can grasp this. Why can't you?

[leewong]

.....

"Why would I show you posts of what you say"

To prove your point. You cant prove the point because I never implied the thing you accuse me of so now you are weaseling out of it.

"Anyone who has been in this thread knows exactly what you are implying."

Show me. Put up or shut up.

"Don't try and hide from it now that you are pushed in a corner"

What corner? You havent backed shit up. If I was running scared why would I challenge you to provide the post? You cant and now you are projecting your own feeling of being cornered and called out.

[G13]

"real discussion on p99 RnF" lmao leave your home.

1100 posts outside RnF since April

lawl

[Eliseus]

"Why would I show you posts of what you say"

To prove your point. You cant prove the point because I never implied the thing you accuse me of so now you are weaseling out of it.

"Anyone who has been in this thread knows exactly what you are implying."

Show me. Put up or shut up.

"Don't try and hide from it now that you are pushed in a corner"

What corner? You havent backed shit up. If I was running scared why would I challenge you to provide the post? You cant and now you are projecting your own feeling of being cornered and called out.

Deflecting from you ignoring previous posts pointing out stuff you have said. Completely ignored then when trying to pick apart my response. GG. Give me your address, I'll mail you some /comforts.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

No I have given many posts in my own words showing that evolution is a religion.
I could also say that Lenin, Stalin, and hitler were influenced by Darwinism. But to show proof of it through historical accuracy is much more tangible.

That is called backing up a claim with proof.

It would be intellectually lazy to claim that Stalin and hitler were not influenced by Darwinism and then NOT show proof of your claim.

Please realize that some sources are more reliable/accurate/factual than others. You've been scraping the bottom of the barrel the whole time.

[Zadrian]

1100 posts outside RnF since April

lawl

I've actually wanted to post something about that before, but I figured it was too easy.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Deflecting from you ignoring previous posts pointing out stuff you have said. Completely ignored then when trying to pick apart my response. GG. Give me your address, I'll mail you some /comforts.

If it's so obvious to you then quote them. WTF.

[Eliseus]

Please realize that some sources are more reliable/accurate/factual than others. You've been scraping the bottom of the barrel the whole time.

Yeah, like Darwin. I even pointed out him contradicting himself. How is that kind of stuff more credible?

[Glenzig]

Once again...lifted straight from: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/02/04/darwinism-then-and-now/

It doesnt make you look intelligent when you copy/paste a bunch of shit from a conspiracy website. It makes you look intellectually lazy at best. A complete retard at worse.

Your use of the word conspiracy as a pejorative term is misguided in this instance. If a conspiracy can be proven, which in this case it obviously can, then it could hardly be used as an insult. It also doesn't make you look intelligent when you flat out deny solid historical evidence just because it upsets your religious belief.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

becuse you're an asshole and your opinions are stupid and wrong.

I honestly don't care what side of the argument you are on, more inflammatory garbage has come from your keyboard than any two of the trolls in this thread combined.

[Eliseus]

I honestly don't care what side of the argument you are on, more inflammatory garbage has come from your keyboard than any two of the trolls in this thread combined.

Stop openly using the word troll like you are any better.

[Eliseus]

Mind you, anyone is a "troll" that disagrees with him.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Yeah, like Darwin. I even pointed out him contradicting himself. How is that kind of stuff more credible?

And yet you once again ignore the fact that Darwin merely got the ball rolling. Unlike creationist beliefs, 90% of what Darin wrote on evolution has been corrected/improved upon by the scientific community in the last century and a half. Just like any other field of science to exist.

I mean, if we were to follow your line of thinking you'd have to assume that Boeing has a dusty book written by the Wright brothers that they base all of their aircraft designs on.

[Whirled]

http://www.bananatriangle.com/comics/2011-12-07-is-what-it-is.jpg

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Stop openly using the word troll like you are any better.

Why did you of all people respond to that? I've explicitly stated yesterday that you were one of the few people in this thread NOT trolling. Do you just dismiss everything that's been presented so far when you make a post?

[leewong]

Notice that he doesn't even argue any inaccuracy or misinformation, or anything. He just simple calls robot a fucking retard for researching what he is saying.

I dont respond to intellectually lazy dribble. If Robot has a point to make he can use his own words and we can address each claim he makes point by point. To ask me to go through paragraph after paragraph of some copy/pasted tripe that has gone on for 80+ pages is asinine.

BTW, I dont even think Robot has read or understood some of the copy/pasted text he slapped up. Take this post for instance:

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1622160&postcount=901

Guess where that post comes from. It comes from here:

http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debunked

Notice the title of the article? 18 Creationist Arguments DEBUNKED. That's right. Your hero Robot copy/pasted from THAT site. Apparently, he doesnt even read the titles of the articles nor does he understand what they are actually saying. He thought he was providing more evidence but he was only showing what a fucking lazy and dishonest idiot he was.

So tell me...why am I suppose to debate with him?

[RobotElvis]

Please realize that some sources are more reliable/accurate/factual than others. You've been scraping the bottom of the barrel the whole time.

Please show your sources to support your claim to the contrary.

My source by the way is called history and facts.

[leewong]

Please show your sources to support your claim to the contrary.

My source by the way is called history and facts.

You wouldnt know a fact if it bite your face off. Go back to copy/pasting so we can all ignore you.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Please show your sources to support your claim to the contrary.

My source by the way is called history and facts.

I dont respond to intellectually lazy dribble. If Robot has a point to make he can use his own words and we can address each claim he makes point by point. To ask me to go through paragraph after paragraph of some copy/pasted tripe that has gone on for 80+ pages is asinine.

BTW, I dont even think Robot has read or understood some of the copy/pasted text he slapped up. Take this post for instance:

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1622160&postcount=901

Guess where that post comes from. It comes from here:

http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debunked

Notice the title of the article? 18 Creationist Arguments DEBUNKED. That's right. Your hero Robot copy/pasted from THAT site. Apparently, he doesnt even read the titles of the articles nor does he understand what they are actually saying. He thought he was providing more evidence but he was only showing what a fucking lazy and dishonest idiot he was.

So tell me...why am I suppose to debate with him?

[Glenzig]

I dont respond to intellectually lazy dribble. If Robot has a point to make he can use his own words and we can address each claim he makes point by point. To ask me to go through paragraph after paragraph of some copy/pasted tripe that has gone on for 80+ pages is asinine.

BTW, I dont even think Robot has read or understood some of the copy/pasted text he slapped up. Take this post for instance:

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1622160&postcount=901

Guess where that post comes from. It comes from here:

http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debunked

Notice the title of the article? 18 Creationist Arguments DEBUNKED. That's right. Your hero Robot copy/pasted from THAT site. Apparently, he doesnt even read the titles of the articles nor does he understand what they are actually saying. He thought he was providing more evidence but he was only showing what a fucking lazy and dishonest idiot he was.

So tell me...why am I suppose to debate with him?

So your 5 page long anecdotal story about how blood clotting happened by fully formed organs borrowing cells from other fully formed organs was all you? You typed that entire thing out? In your own words?

[leewong]

So your 5 page long anecdotal story about how blood clotting happened by fully formed organs borrowing cells from other fully formed organs was all you? You typed that entire thing out? In your own words?

No, if you notice before I started posting page long copy/pasted text I called Robot out on it. I did it simply to mock him and show how lazy/dishonest it was. Notice, no one responded to my copy/pasted text right? I think it proved the point rather well. Copy/pasted garbage is garbage...no one even needs to respond to it.

[RobotElvis]

And yet you once again ignore the fact that Darwin merely got the ball rolling. Unlike creationist beliefs, 90% of what Darin wrote on evolution has been corrected/improved upon by the scientific community in the last century and a half. Just like any other field of science to exist.

I mean, if we were to follow your line of thinking you'd have to assume that Boeing has a dusty book written by the Wright brothers that they base all of their aircraft designs on.

The "science" of Darwin has been updated, out of necessity if course to try to explain the theory.

But the tenants of Darwin remain I.e, survival if the fittest, natural selection.

Those Are the dogmatic ideologues that drive the oligarchic elite.

[Eliseus]

Why did you of all people respond to that? I've explicitly stated yesterday that you were one of the few people in this thread NOT trolling. Do you just dismiss everything that's been presented so far when you make a post?

Because I could care less who the fuck you are talking about. The fact is you are overly calling people trolls.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

The "science" of Darwin has been updated, out of necessity if course to try to explain the theory.

But the tenants of Darwin remain I.e, survival if the fittest, natural selection.

Those Are the dogmatic ideologues that drive the oligarchic elite.

Correlation =/= causation.

Please try harder.

[leewong]

But the tenants of Darwin remain I.e, survival if the fittest, natural selection.

Someone doesnt know what survival of the fittest means...

The fittest could mean the smallest. It could mean the smelliest. It could mean the dumbest. Nature selects for all kinds of traits. The "fittest" does not mean "the strongest". It simply means fit for that environment.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Because I could care less who the fuck you are talking about. The fact is you are overly calling people trolls.

Glinzig = RobotElvis.
G13 is a conspiracy nut among conspiracy nuts.

Please tell me you aren't so daft you don't realize those things.

[paulgiamatti]

True science is on hormone with the bible, as truth associates with truth not falsehood.

The entire basis of science is predicated on falsehood. Stop being antihistorical. Stop inventing versions of what you want science to be in order to justify your sickly, immoral creationist worldview.

I am highly skeptical that, in a world where a weatherman can only tell me to 50% accuracy whether it will rain in a given day, that climate models, unaware presently of all of the feedback mechanisms and variables at work on the earth, can accurately predict the global climate in 100 years.

Every real scientist is highly skeptical of this as well. The death of skepticism is the death of thought and scientific inquiry. No scientist is claiming to be able to definitively predict the global climate in 100 years, nor does this fact discredit the scientific method in any way whatsoever.

[G13]

I honestly don't care what side of the argument you are on, more inflammatory garbage has come from your keyboard than any two of the trolls in this thread combined.

Says the proven fraud and liar

[Eliseus]

So your 5 page long anecdotal story about how blood clotting happened by fully formed organs borrowing cells from other fully formed organs was all you? You typed that entire thing out? In your own words?

That's what I was about to say lmao. This thread is just starting to be more hilarious rather than serious. Maybe it just my opinion anyways. Having a good laugh reading it at least. Ok, well for some, the start of this thread was hilarious. I actually enjoyed a lot of this thread until it just ended up the other side being complete shit. Basically it's their way or the highway, their google searches are more superior than our google searches. Their opinions are more super than our opinions. Science is right no matter what. Religion is false no matter what. Their fabrications are better than our fabrications. We are all trolls, they don't troll at all. Everything robot says is copy/paste. Copy/pasting facts can't be used in the dicussion, not allowed. Only the copy/pasting facts, or mostly lack thereof from the other side are allowed. Etc.

[leewong]

The entire basis of science is predicated on falsehood. Stop being antihistorical. Stop inventing versions of what you want science to be in order to justify your sickly, immoral creationist worldview.



Every real scientist is highly skeptical of this as well. The death of skepticism is the death of thought and scientific inquiry. No scientist is claiming to be able to definitively predict the global climate in 100 years, nor does this fact discredit the scientific method in any way whatsoever.

Careful, he might hit you with a wall of text he copy/pasted "18-creationist-arguments-debunked". Nevermind the fact, that it is a website debunking creationist claims and he wouldnt be bright enough to realize it.

[Eliseus]

Glinzig = RobotElvis.
G13 is a conspiracy nut among conspiracy nuts.

Please tell me you aren't so daft you don't realize those things.

You are a pedophile. How come we should listen to you?

[Eliseus]

Also note that 2 of these people were supposedly "done with the thread" but are back arguing again. Attention whores much?

[Whirled]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f2/c6/41/f2c641f4ac1e9c20d4a199988860b4a8.jpg

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/17/study-could-change-what-you-think-you-know-about-views-on-science-and-religion/

[G13]

Glinzig = RobotElvis.
G13 is a conspiracy nut among conspiracy nuts.

Please tell me you aren't so daft you don't realize those things.

You're a proven liar and a fraud

It's not my problem you believe the BS corporate media and Government controlled indoctrination centers feed you

[paulgiamatti]

Oh, please. Stop being so self-pitying. Just because you're losing an argument, don't come crying to us about it. We're defending things that are actually worth defending.

[G13]

Careful, he might hit you with a wall of text he copy/pasted "18-creationist-arguments-debunked". Nevermind the fact, that it is a website debunking creationist claims and he wouldnt be bright enough to realize it.

Says the guy with massive TLDR copy/paste posts within this very thread

Comical and embarrassing

[paulgiamatti]

When the other side descends to self-pity and character assassination, by the way, you can be pretty sure who's winning the debate.

[Eliseus]

Oh, please. Stop being so self-pitying. Just because you're losing an argument, don't come crying to us about it. We're defending things that are actually worth defending.

Really, because your guys past few pages of defense have been "You are all a bunch of fucking retards" type comments. Good game on your part I guess.

[Eliseus]

When the other side descends to self-pity and character assassination, by the way, you can be pretty sure who's winning the debate.

/comfort

[G13]

When the other side descends to self-pity and character assassination, by the way, you can be pretty sure who's winning the debate.

Another laughably embarrassing post from the coward

This is the same moron who proclaimed people were "disqualified from the conversation" because he couldn't refute facts

You barely have 2 brain cells to rub together

[Eliseus]

Another laughably embarrassing post from the coward

This is the same moron who proclaimed people were "disqualified from the conversation" because he couldn't refute facts

You barely have 2 brain cells to rub together

^