Evolution & politics
Mr. Buchanan apparently “knows” that among the unspecified inorganic molecules that came from either nothing or an unknown but material source (itself from nowhere), some were the fittest to evolve into the as yet nonexistent life by a proces
It figures. When you insist that a hypothesis is a fact without having any proof, d
An educated person isn’t averse to saying “I don’t know.”
This letter has not been edited.
"An educated person isn’t averse to saying “I don’t know.”"
True enough, but a wise man bets the odds Dr. Skala...
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 03:02 PMRaising your hand when asked if you don't believe in evolution is the opposite of admitting you "don't know" by the way...
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 03:06 PMin order to discuss Evolution, first know what it is not about.
The origin of life
Inorganic molecules evolving into life (cute)
A totally random system.
Primordial soup. (cartoon here, of God holding a can of condensed primordial- soup: just add water).
The big bang.
Something from nothing.
Ape evolving into humans.
Evolution is simply a mechanism for life, not the cause.
Over time, science is self correcting, anti-science never is.
It sounds as if those three are pandering to their rabid base than being honest.
Posted by Sean on May 15, 2007 04:33 PMAs extreme as it may have seemed to Dr. Skala, Mr. Buchanan's remarks were well stated. I would probably have been much more direct, though. I don't think Buchanan was making an exact equivalence, but the current anti-science, anti-evolution rhetoric we hear often demonstrates a lack of understanding of science itself as well as of evolution. Skala does not seem to understand that evolution is far more than an hypothesis, it is a well understood, well documented, well studied process. In years of teaching science, especially biology, I have not heard a single rational, substantive argument against it that was not political and/or religious. In the Dover, PA evolution trial in 2005, one of the "intelligent design" witnesses claimed there was not much study of how the eye evolved, but when a stack of research on the very subject was presented to him, he did not seem to have much more to say. Read the court decision yourself to see what else the judge had to say about the anti-evolutionists. In an earlier post, Sharon said it best: "Over time, science is self correcting, anti-science never is."
Posted by Rob on May 15, 2007 05:21 PMRob -
"Read the court decision yourself to see what else the judge had to say about the anti-evolutionists."
Here's a link to it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
Look at how much that cost the taxpayers, Christians never worry about spendilng our tax money to fight their nuttyness.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 04:32 AMIf nothing existed before the big bang, what went bang? If someone can explain that to me without having to admit there was something in the nothing, please do. Also the argument about creation vs evolution is unnecessary.Creations evolve and by that Evolution things are Created. What's all the ranting and raving about.
Posted by Allen Campbell on May 16, 2007 08:39 AM"Over time, science is self correcting, anti-science never is"
But the repercussions of putting too much faith in a scientific belief can be devastating to a society.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 10:09 AMMuslim fundamentalists, suicide bombers, Dark Ages, Crusades, Inquisition, N. Ireland - the list is long. There are many instances where putting too much "faith" in religion has had and continues to have devastating consequences for society, KW.
Please cite examples of your assertion that "the repercussions of putting too much faith in a scientific belief can be devastating to a society." I don't recall massacres resulting from the Theory of Relativity.
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 10:31 AMKW,
Yes, it is putting too much faith in a SCIENTIFIC belief that can be devastating to society. Things like the Spanish Inquisition, witch burnings, the Crusades, the 100 years war, the current civil war in Iraq, etc. etc. etc. don't seem to you to prove the exact opposite of what you're saying, but that is because you're an idiot.
Can you name one instance where putting too much faith in a scientific belief was "devastating to a society?" I named 5 examples of too much faith in religious beliefs bringing "devastation," but I'd be surprised if you could even get 2.
Oh, and don't try your usual "wow, I must have struck a nerve with my truth spouting" crap. Give me an example, or shut the hell up.
Posted by Grog on May 16, 2007 10:35 AMAllen,
One part of the ranting is creationists who confuse biological evolution with the cosmological theory of the big bang when they are in fact 2 totally different theories.
Biological evolution deals with how life developed over time, how it started is immaterial. The big bang deals with the beginning and development of the universe - how life developed is pretty irrelevant to the big bang theory.
In other words, falsifying either theory would have no impact on the other, so when people talk about the two as being the same, it is clear they either don't have a clue about the science, or they are purposely being deceptive - hence the "ranting"
Posted by CL on May 16, 2007 10:56 AMKW -
"But the repercussions of putting too much faith in a scientific belief can be devastating to a society."
You mean like that the "faith" that the prevailing theory (not so much belief) is, at most, the best at the time and has the potential to be falsified and be replaced by another theory?
You obviously have confused what society does with science confused with what science does. That's not to say there isn't an ethic that science (or more correctly scientists) shouldn't consider the impact on society and the potential misuse of science (like in politics).
Posted by CL on May 16, 2007 11:15 AMGood point - science formulates theories from hypotheses over time - only thing that involves "faith" is religion since you can't "prove" hocus-pocus superstitions (how convenient).
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 11:23 AMHang tight. If the dems get their way with this global warming hoopla you'll see devastating effects on our economy. Not to mention the trillions of dollars that could have been put to use helping third world countries develop things such as electricity and clean water but will be wasted on trying to change a simply natural phenomenon.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 11:27 AMOh, that figures, KW - it's the "global warming" bogeyman that's going to bankrupt us! Scaling down from your Hummer to a sedan is going to be devastating!
And : "trillions of dollars that could have been put to use helping third world countries develop things such as electricity and clean water..."
Republicans are such philanthropists - always helping the third world with clean water & electricity! Well, maybe it's just me, but don't you Cons spend a lot more time bombing foreigners than helping them?
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 11:35 AMKW, surely you can come up with at least a few examples that actually happened, rather than one that only "may" still happen?
How about Thalidomide?
... or nuclear fission?
... or gunpowder?
KW,
Even though it hasn't happened yet, I think we can all agree that this global warming thing is going to work out just about the same as thousands of people being rounded up and tortured to death in incredibly gruesome ways because they failed to accept Christ as the one true saviour. It's probably going to be worse than never ending war in the Middle East, although it will probably be slightly better than burning people alive at the stake.
I'm glad you can look at this objectively.
Dumbass.
Posted by Grog on May 16, 2007 12:24 PMCome on KW, let's see what you can come up with on your own, without the rightwing talking points...
Surely it must get tiring to have someone else telling you what to think ALL of the time?
Posted by on May 16, 2007 12:30 PMI just love to watch all of you weekend scientists get your panties in a twist when your faith is called into question. You make quite an interesting congregation. Do you play an organ too?
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 12:37 PMOne thing I don't like is name calling and implying stupidity because someone believes in creation. The same also applies to creationists calling evolutionists names.
Back in the 60's and 70's when I was in school evolution was taught as a theory, because there were no facts to support the hypothesis. As for creation, we were told it was a matter of faith.
After reading the data from the mathematicians who participated in the Wistar Institute Symposium, I believe that the Theory of Evolution needs more proof to support their claim. I am not touching on creation because that is a matter of faith.
As Albert Einstein said; Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
Wow, couldn't come up with a thing, huh?
Sad...
Posted by Hmmmmm. on May 16, 2007 12:46 PMOur "faith?" Seems like you're still quite confused, KW. FYI science is based on facts & observation - not "faith." I guess you must be confused since your beliefs are based on voodoo, superstition & myth - you're the one who clings to "faith."
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 12:53 PMKaren,
How come scientists have to provide facts and "prove" hypotheses, but apparently creationists don't because "that is a matter of faith." ie creationism is true because, well, I believe it is true! How very convenient!
I believe mountains are formed by a giant worm who lives at the center of the earth - and it's true because I have faith that it is. And if you think that is false, then prove it!
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 01:03 PMDrew,"FYI science is based on facts & observation - not "faith."
So no hypothesis, theory, conjecture, speculation, supposition?
Where did you go to school again Drew? Did you major in liberal arts because you surely aren't very familiar with how science works.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 01:16 PMYou know, its funny--when I look up the definition of "faith", I see nothing mentioned about hypthesis, theory, conjecture, speculation and/or supposition...
I do find this however...
"belief in something for which there is no proof"
I don't think you are very firmilar with how anything works, KW--no matter what you studied or where. Of course, you probably graduated from Univ. of Jerry Falwell.
Posted by on May 16, 2007 01:27 PMBut when you look up hypothesis you get:
1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
Notice the absence of the word FACT anywhere in the definition.
And Drew thought all science was fact... tsk, tsk.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 01:41 PMKW, so since you are on about science education, what exactly are your scientific credentials?
Posted by Spud on May 16, 2007 02:18 PMSpud - I don't pretend to be a scientist at Rocky Talk Live like so many here do.
But I can peel a pretty mean potato!
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 02:46 PMKW,
Wow, for a creationist you fancy yourself as quite the scientist. Actually, you start with a hypothesis, examine FACTS over the course of time that do or do not support the hypothesis and then reach a scientific THEORY which is the best explanation for said hypothesis and "conjecture, speculation, supposition" really don't have much to do with it.
However, being a fan of creationism, I didn't expect you to have much of a grasp of what facts are-since you deal with "faith" - which seems to have a lot more in common with conjecture, speculation, supposition, superstition, voodoo, mythology, etc.
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 03:03 PMDrew,
Where are your facts about the giant worm? I thought "Tremors" was just a movie.
Again you and others like you are putting down religion. I guess Albert Einstein is on your hit list as being stupid. He believed in creation and God. Your statements are LAME.
Faith is just faith. All that is needed is belief. I myself do not have enough faith to be an atheist.
When an individual choses to be a scientist they learn that they must be able to prove their theories before they can become fact. Their standards.
So why did you put me down? The defense of your claim is a giant worm making mountains? I guess that makes geologists pretty damn dumb, because they believe in plate tetontics. Actually so do I.
Your intolerence is showing.
People should have the right to state their beliefs without being hasseled. I respect those canidates who said no to evolution. Whats your problem with their beliefs?
So google Wistar. But, maybe, math is too much for you. Is math science?
Nice rant Drew.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 03:15 PMKW, so if you have no scientific creds, what was your point - was it just a tu quoque?
I assume you were just playing "gotcha" with Drew about science and facts?
Or are you confused about how science works?
karen, Einstein did not believe in a personal god, and would far more fit into the Agnostic/Atheist category than he would into the Believer's.
Posted by Spud on May 16, 2007 03:26 PMSpud,"KW, so if you have no scientific creds, what was your point"
I hate to break it to you Spud, but this is an opinion blog. You know, where people from all different walks of life share information they've gleaned from various sources. We exchange thoughts and ideas with relevance to the content of the letter.
I didn't know you had made a new rule requiring a doctorate before hitting the post button. If that's the case you'll empty this site faster than I could peel a potato!
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 03:49 PMSo just a place to shoot off one's mouth regardless of whether one knows the subject at all.
Ok, got it.
I didn't make any rules, but since you demanded to know what creds Drew had, that opened up the question of your creds. Turnabout is fair game, as they say.
Glad to hear that peeling potatoes is one of your stronger skills. I would hate to think that God gave you none.
Karen
Actually, the point of my metaphor was to show how religious people in his country are always pooh-poohing science (evolution, global warming,etc) because scientists 'don't have enough proof" for these theories. (But I guess people like you take everything literally - as you do the bible).
Yet creationists want to be taken seriously scientifically - yet claim that they don't need scientific proof because creationism is based on "faith." Again, how convenient. Funny how you quote science when it suits you.
And, Einstein believed in a deist concept of God, but certainly not in the "Christian" version of religion - look it up - but nice try.
And please don't give me the big boo-hoo about Christians being 'hasseled" for their beliefs - Christian fundamentalists have been shoving their intolerant beliefs down people's throats for generations in this country - look at Falwell, Robertson & Dobson, to name 3. Talk about intolerant!
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 04:12 PMSpud lied (which is so typical) - "but since you demanded to know what creds Drew had"
And I wrote these words where again??? I simply pointed out Drew's inept definition of "science" when he claimed it was nothing but facts.
But then again, if liberals didn't reword and rewrite my post to their liking, they wouldn't be able to feel victorious in their responses, would they?
Do ya feel peeled Spud? Well do ya??
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 04:20 PMOh, and Karen, I don't have facts about the giant worm that makes mountains - I have "faith" that there is a giant worm, so it must be true - just like your faith about the origins of the universe.
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 04:21 PMKW,
"But then again, if liberals didn't reword and rewrite my post to their liking, they wouldn't be able to feel victorious in their responses, would they?"
Your posts are self-refuting KW, which is why most don't bother- it's like feeling victoriuos over a toddler because you didn't crap your pants.
Posted by Charles B on May 16, 2007 04:46 PM"fit into the Agnostic/Atheist category"
I hope you are aware how ridiculous this statement is, it's pretty much a contradiction in terms. An agnostic believes that God's existence or lack of existence is unknowable. An atheist believes that there is no God. It's always funny to see the atheist crowd bashing the God-toting crowd for their faith, because in the end they are just opposite sides of the same coin with no evidence to support either side.
Posted by No use on May 16, 2007 05:01 PMBut Charles B, they do bother and rewrite and reword. Just like you on so many occaisions. Why is that?
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 05:10 PM“Our country has been hijacked by a bunch of religious nuts. But how easy it was. That's a little scary.” -- Investigative reporter and Pulitzer-Prize winning author Seymour Hersh
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 16, 2007 05:11 PMKW said ” Where did you go to school again Drew? Did you major in liberal arts because you surely aren't very familiar with how science works.”
Hmmm
Sure looks like a demand for credentials to me.
Nobody has to reword what you say KW, you hang yourself no matter how short the rope.
You also get into arguments over subjects in which you clearly have but the most rudimentary grasp, and then you make ludicrous accusations when you run into trouble.
KW,
"But Charles B, they do bother and rewrite and reword. Just like you on so many occaisions. Why is that?"
Give me an example...
(crickets)
Excuse me! I. DID. NOT. MENTION. UNIVERSE!
Do you not believe in plate tetonics?
Yes there are intolerent Christians, just as there are intolerent atheists. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler.
How have we shoved our beliefs down our throat? Are you forced to go to church? Are you forced to pray? Are you threatened with a gas chamber for your beliefs or lack there of? Of course you and others bring up the inquisition. So how many years is it between the inquisition and the gas chambers? As far as I know, no one has been burned at the stake in the United States for their beliefs or lack of beliefs. I mean in recent times. Not Mary Tudor or THE SPANISH INQUISITION. In the 20th or 21st century.
That was a cut down Spud. Apparently you can't tell the difference.
Charles B - I can't go back very far since they remove the threads but I'm sure you'll do it again. Never fear.
Even like Spud above, he removes the text prior to my trashing Drew in order to take it out of context. I didn't realize you all learned your bag of tricks from Olbermann. But I do now!
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 09:04 AMKW:
"Charles B - I can't go back very far since they remove the threads"
There's a link to archives on the letters main page for each month - here's May's archive:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/05/
So you can go back as far as you want.
Posted by CL on May 17, 2007 09:21 AMNo nead to waste my time with you. You WILL do it again. It's in your nature.
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 09:24 AMKW:
"No nead to waste my time with you. You WILL do it again. It's in your nature."
But you HAVE been "wasting" your time with him. That just looks like a cop out.
Posted by CL on May 17, 2007 09:36 AMKaren, honey, take a breath - the worm was a METAPHOR to show the difference between science and "faith." Yes, I believe in plate techtonics.
And I think that Stalin, Hitler (raised Catholic). Pol Pot etc is a false analogy - they were madmen, but they didn't espouse atheism as an ideology that drove their killing - unlike religious nuts who kill in the name of god.
And no, Christianity alone isn't the problem - religion is : here are a list of religious conflicts that have claimed tens of millions in recent years (from Sam Harris):
Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. I
Posted by Drew on May 17, 2007 10:44 AMKaren said "How have we shoved our beliefs down [y]our throat?"
You are kidding, right Karen?
Here are just a few ways:
• Churches and religions get special tax breaks
• They get excused from many laws, including employment and workplace laws
• "Holy Men" get consulted on everything ranging from laws to policy
• Religions influence school curriculum, medical practices, and all manner of other laws.
• They influence the whole justice and penal system
• They influence science and medical research
• They get special treatment when crimes are committed by their "staff" - look at how the Catholic child-molestation accusations were treated by the police and courts.
etc etc.
"Are you forced to go to church?
We would be if the Church had the ability to do so. The only reason that they can't is that the founders specifically ensured that they couldn't.
Karen, Christians in the US constantly bellow about how they are under attack and this is a huge problem because not only does it chill even the slightest criticism of the church, but also makes Christians behave as if they are under attack.
Paranoia leads to aggressive and violent behavior.
Bango - That entire post is nothing but crap. For every item you listed there are even greater number of counter groups fighting just as hard if not harder to have things done their way. The church is a huge underdog in this arena.
So who's shoving what down who's throat again?
And your answer to whether you are forced to go to church (even though you were very long winded about it) is "no." Plain and simple yet you whine that if not for blah blah blah...
Well you have the blah blah blah so what are you whining about? Or do you just feel the need to whine???
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 01:52 PM"The church is a huge underdog in this arena."
KW - either you're making a joke or you need to get a clue! Religious nutjobs from one of those religious "universities" run the justice Dept & had firing power in the US Attorneys scandal (goodness knows what else they're running) and Bush is barely able to wipe his *ss without getting permission from James Dobson.
Poor Christians, so picked on! And the points Bango made are all spot on - you just don't like the truth - and all you can say is blah, blah, blah,blah. That's a better vocabulary than most wingnuts, though.
Posted by Drew on May 17, 2007 02:08 PMKW, so as long as somebody else is also doing it, it's fine.
Got it.
Does that argument also work with traffic tickets?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 17, 2007 02:17 PMDrew,
What about Reno and Clinton firing 93 attorneys. Or was that okey doke because it was Clinton?
What I noticed is that you and Bango ignored the atheists. You know Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. The good old boys.
Now Drew and Bango are Christians protected by the Constituation? Yes, no, maybe.
I always thought that both groups were protected. Was I wrong?
Prayer was removed from school. No more praying.
Are Christians persecuted? Yep. At one time in Russia Churches were closed and religion was forbidden. Worship in China could be a death sentence, along with southeast asia and the middle east.
10 Million Christians have died for their faith so far, and yet people become Christians.
Christians don't want people to be forced to worship. Which church? Catholic, Quacker, Lutheran, Angelican, Mormon, and the list goes on.
You can't force someone to be something that they don't want to be.
God only wants those who come to him willingly.
Tell me guys, how many people in the 20th and the 21st century have been put to death for being an atheist or agnostic? Wellllll.
One last question. Did I call either of you a name? Did I imply that either of you are stupid? Why are you two angry? Have I put you two down for not believing? Can either of you say the same thing?
Posted by Karen on May 17, 2007 02:39 PMBango - YOU support the efforts of the other groups. You're on their side!!!
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 02:51 PMKaren,
Please refer to my previous postings & you will see that I addressed your favorite atheists (or are you ignoring that?)
Clinton fired 93 attorneys at THE END OF HIS TERM as all presidents do. He never fired a handful in mid-term because they weren't doing his political dirty work.
MILLIONS have been killed this century (whether religious or not) because they did not have the "correct" religious belief. If you want examples I'll give you plenty.
And I never called you a name, but I notice that you called me LAME. OK? And you're arguing for one position, I'm arguing from another - why does that make me "angry?" Sorry you're so sensitive.
Posted by Drew on May 17, 2007 03:04 PMmisspoke above - Clinton fired 93 attorneys at the BEGINNING of his term - not the end.
Posted by Drew on May 17, 2007 03:07 PMDrew - Were does the law say you have to do it at the beginning? If you were familiar with the provision you would know the president can fire them at any time during his term. Period.
The dems in congress and the media tried having a witch hunt but as you can see, nothing has become of it.
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 04:45 PMKaren, you lost me.
Why do I need to talk about what evils atheists might get up to, if I want to draw your attention to something about Christians in the US?
I am not doing a “compare & contrast” exercise between believers and non-believers here. I was simply arguing that you had overlooked just how powerful and influencial the Church actually is here in the US.
You also lost me when you talked about calling names and being angry.
I didn’t call you any names that I can recall, and I don’t see anything in my postings that should lead you to believe that I am angry with you.
KW, 02:51. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Support whom? What side?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 17, 2007 05:10 PMKaren,
Your presentation has several flaws.
It is not a case of "no more praying" in the schools. Rather, in line with the Constitutional provisions for separation of Church and State, the schools can no longer REQUIRE prayer, or impose any specific prayer on the pupils. The freedom to pray is left to the students themselves.
The idea of forced worship is quite strongly inherent in the expressions of such as Pat Robertson and the rest of the political preachers. It is expressed as a form of "Pass our laws; and live according to OUR commandments, or else". Along with absurd assertions that "God told ME this or that", as well.
Conditions in Russia and China are irrelevant to anything dealing with the United States. Persecutions there are unique to the area, NOT some kind of general wrongdoing that can be carried over to the United States by mere emotional attempts at analogy.
The Dobsonites, Falwellites, Robertsonites, and others certainly practice a form of trying to "force someone to be something they don't want to be". They call it "curing" a lifestyle. And it is one of the biggest religious frauds around today.
The idea that religion is an "underdog" in any arena in the United States is fantastic.
ALL RELIGIONS have Constitutional right and freedom. Most of them also recognize the accompanying responsibilities. No one of them is either more in need of "protection", nor more "protected" than any other. The State may not infringe on them; and conversley, they are not to infringe on the State.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 07:42 PMKaren:
"Back in the 60's and 70's when I was in school evolution was taught as a theory, because there were no facts to support the hypothesis. As for creation, we were told it was a matter of faith." Thank you for your comment about all the name-calling (logically fallacious "ad hominem" attacks), and especially for the Einstein quote. I go back slightly further than you, but there was plenty of evidence then, too, and since then the evidence keeps on mounting. Moreover the creationist etc. arguments are increasingly desperate and, frankly, dishonest. Keep up your curiousity, Karen.
KW:
Consider the costs of NOT considering science.
Forgive me for saying so, but your posts seem to be nothing but what Karen was talking about. You have shown no significant understanding of evolution, biology, atmospheric physics - you just seem to be a liberal-environmentalist-evolutionist bashing sycophant. You don't have to have an MS to discuss these things, but you should at least have the dignity to engage in rationality. What you are doing does not impress me in the least.
Posted by Rob on May 17, 2007 09:07 PM"The dems in congress and the media tried having a witch hunt but as you can see, nothing has become of it."
Poor stupid KW, might want to catch up on the news. The fat consigliere is as good as gone, he's just dragging it out to the bitter end. Shades of Tom DeLay; I'm sure last year you were assuring everyone that he had nothing to fear and was going to remain in power.
Posted by WK on May 17, 2007 10:39 PMYour side Bango. You know, republican bashing, Bush bashing, hate everything Christian groups. Don't you know who you are? It's very evident by your posts how you feel. Lots of anger and hatred for those you believe different than you. Sad, but that's what it is.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 09:49 AMfor KW and all other creationist who live a "faith" and say a theory is just a theory and nothing more,
here is a link as well :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
in science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
Look up Theory in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Contents
p.s. fallwell is dead looks like god did not save him he was a hate monger and greedy and closed minded, you creationist are so narrow minded and full of hate and ignorance, hell, even the catholic church accepts evolution
KW, you obviously know me far better than anybody else including myself, since none of us had any clue that I was part of this group you have identified.
Perhaps you can tell me what I am supposed to do, since this membership thing is all very new to me and I am at a bit of a loss as to what is expected of me.
Also, am I now entitled to any special ceremonial hat or uniform, and do I get to have a siren on my car?
Or not.
I suggest you look up the terms “transference” and “reaction formation” in a good psychology dictionary. You can get access to one through your local library.
Just remember to turn off your siren, it annoys the Librarians.
"Just remember to turn off your siren, it annoys the Librarians."
Thanks for the chuckle Bango!
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 03:50 PM