I prefer a living Dr. Ron Paul over a martyred Dr. Paul. If I have my way he will die in his sleep at age 103 after a hearty dinner & a glass of wine.
[No H.I.V. virus has ever been proven to exist.... A.I.D.S. is not a new disease, but a collection of old diseases renamed, and that the real threat to the public's health are the worthless H.I.V. tests and toxic H.I.V./A.I.D.S. drugs. [1992 first ed] "Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black Community" by Curtis Cost ]
Media darling Carl Sagan, who succumbed to the easily-preventable chronic metabolic disease known as cancer, made a career of rehashing Darwin's plagiarized, Sumerian-based texts. All Darwinian rubbish champions eugenics. Anyone who pontificates, to the positive, in regards to the abominable Darwin approves of Red Chinese totalitarianism: drowning neonates in buckets, public execution vans for expedient organ harvests, sedition laws, and banishment to re-education camps.
@TheWorldFarOff Your first and second statements are both lies and slander. From then on, the lies and slander pile upon each other like carriages in a train wreck. How I know you have very little idea what you are talking about? Carl Sagan was not a biologist or a zoologist, his field was not Darwins - so how did he make a career rehashing Darwin?
The vastness of the tables upon which stars repose are...are...? Excessive exposure to X-rays causes radiation-sickness. How might cancer sufferers with radiation-sickness be better off than cancer sufferers without radiation-sickness? The U.S./U.N. war fought in Cochin-China (Vietnam) was an abomination. A pox upon the houses of those who "served."
There are no theories in science, as the word is properly defined, as the terms THEORY and SCIENCE oppose one another: science is knowledge; theory is supposition. To suppose is not to know; to suppose is to postulate, to surmise, to guess, to opine. A colloquialism is defined as "a local or regional dialect expression" ("Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," 1961).
@MrBeeblebrook : On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, (continues)
@TheWorldFarOff ATheory takes together all the facts and assembles it into one cohesive observation that unifies the data that the facts are comprised of. Theories are the pinnacle of Science, not the opposite of it. You are playing word games.
I just think its very frightening that Hovind was a science teacher for some highschool. Imagine how brainwashed and, well, stupider those kids are after that experience.
People just pick on details. It is about the whole idea. Of'course we can use labaoratory conditions to create new species. Yet, this is all done consciously !!!
Actually the question should be , is the EVOLUTION product of consciousness or pure chance? I would bet on consciousness. Every one plans, somehow but plans. OK, otherwise states and laboratories would not plan. Just leave it to EVOLUTION through natural selection!
Moreover, it is less than accurate, and no argument supports the claim, that one can't test supernatural claims. If the claim offered has some effect on the physical world, then the claim is very much within the ambit of science; indeed, rainbows used to be supernatural, fire, disease, earthquakes, storms and so many other things. Science tested these claims, demonstrated they were false, and replaced them with an accurate model of all of those (and more).
Errata here for you: Genie Scott isn't a biologist; she's an anthropologist who happens to the head of the National Center for Science Education which encourages the teaching of evolution (and science in general). While it's true she has some biologists on staff, say Wesley R. Elsberry, she is not one herself.
well provide a natural testable mechanism that would create dogs, humans, and plats, if you show that there is such a natural mechanism, then creation will be disproved
yes, creation is not science, kent hovind has always say that
@Answerquestions1 fuck, you people are stupid. natural selection is what guides evolution and by the way, if you would only read a book about the evolution of dogs you would know that evolved from wolves, we know this because we fucking witnessed it, evolution happens, period, no debate, get over it
Proving that dogs came from wolves does not prove that dogs and bannanas have a common ancestor, but for some reason evolutioniys are unable to understand this.
@Answerquestions1 natural selection at a microbe level, shortly (in terms of the planets life to date) after abiogenesis leads to major differentiation down the line. All life has one point of origin, but the differentiation between plants and animals, for example, happend WAY before the first appearance of life resembled either of those things. I think you'll find that we do, in fact, understand this.
@Answerquestions1 We do understand! Dogs and bananas do share a common ancestor but this common ancestor is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY distant! The common ancestor they share lived millions of years ago and it looked neither like a banana (tree) nor a dog. it most likely looked like a bacterial organism. Over time, this bacteria's descendants diverged where some would evolve into plants and some would evolve into animals starting with marine animals.
@Answerquestions1 Read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book that gives you detailed examples of evolution and natural selection at work with evidential support. Read chapters 2, 4, & 5.
Is he saying he believes in SUPER or rapid-evolution after Noah's Ark? (which didn't actually happen)
LOGICandREAS0N 2 months ago
Euginie Scott owned Hovind's ass.In order to be a Creationist you literrally have to turn your brain off.
TheThunderduck 2 months ago 3
@TheThunderduck ahahhahahaha
LOGICandREAS0N 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I prefer a living Dr. Ron Paul over a martyred Dr. Paul. If I have my way he will die in his sleep at age 103 after a hearty dinner & a glass of wine.
TheWorldFarOff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Teleprompter-reader Diane “muff-diving” Sawyer is as loose as a goose after the second Ex-Lax, as her movements are routine by 7:30.
TheWorldFarOff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[No H.I.V. virus has ever been proven to exist.... A.I.D.S. is not a new disease, but a collection of old diseases renamed, and that the real threat to the public's health are the worthless H.I.V. tests and toxic H.I.V./A.I.D.S. drugs. [1992 first ed] "Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black Community" by Curtis Cost ]
TheWorldFarOff 3 months ago
Media darling Carl Sagan, who succumbed to the easily-preventable chronic metabolic disease known as cancer, made a career of rehashing Darwin's plagiarized, Sumerian-based texts. All Darwinian rubbish champions eugenics. Anyone who pontificates, to the positive, in regards to the abominable Darwin approves of Red Chinese totalitarianism: drowning neonates in buckets, public execution vans for expedient organ harvests, sedition laws, and banishment to re-education camps.
TheWorldFarOff 3 months ago
@TheWorldFarOff Your first and second statements are both lies and slander. From then on, the lies and slander pile upon each other like carriages in a train wreck. How I know you have very little idea what you are talking about? Carl Sagan was not a biologist or a zoologist, his field was not Darwins - so how did he make a career rehashing Darwin?
arseymcpherson 3 months ago
@arseymcpherson : The truth has shaken your faith.
TheWorldFarOff 3 months ago
@TheWorldFarOff Don't ever change.
arseymcpherson 3 months ago
The vastness of the tables upon which stars repose are...are...? Excessive exposure to X-rays causes radiation-sickness. How might cancer sufferers with radiation-sickness be better off than cancer sufferers without radiation-sickness? The U.S./U.N. war fought in Cochin-China (Vietnam) was an abomination. A pox upon the houses of those who "served."
TheWorldFarOff 3 months ago
There are no theories in science, as the word is properly defined, as the terms THEORY and SCIENCE oppose one another: science is knowledge; theory is supposition. To suppose is not to know; to suppose is to postulate, to surmise, to guess, to opine. A colloquialism is defined as "a local or regional dialect expression" ("Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," 1961).
TheWorldFarOff 5 months ago
@TheWorldFarOff Somebody doesn understand the difference between a philosophical theory and a scientific theory.
MrBeeblebrook 4 months ago
@MrBeeblebrook : On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, (continues)
TheWorldFarOff 4 months ago
method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rational, scheme, speculation, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
TheWorldFarOff 4 months ago
@TheWorldFarOff Now look up 'scientific theory'. You will notice there's a signficant difference between the two.
MrBeeblebrook 3 months ago 2
@TheWorldFarOff ATheory takes together all the facts and assembles it into one cohesive observation that unifies the data that the facts are comprised of. Theories are the pinnacle of Science, not the opposite of it. You are playing word games.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Don't even bother. This guy is a nutter.
arseymcpherson 3 months ago
I just think its very frightening that Hovind was a science teacher for some highschool. Imagine how brainwashed and, well, stupider those kids are after that experience.
dajdawg69 5 months ago
People just pick on details. It is about the whole idea. Of'course we can use labaoratory conditions to create new species. Yet, this is all done consciously !!!
Actually the question should be , is the EVOLUTION product of consciousness or pure chance? I would bet on consciousness. Every one plans, somehow but plans. OK, otherwise states and laboratories would not plan. Just leave it to EVOLUTION through natural selection!
Kawagi1 6 months ago
Moreover, it is less than accurate, and no argument supports the claim, that one can't test supernatural claims. If the claim offered has some effect on the physical world, then the claim is very much within the ambit of science; indeed, rainbows used to be supernatural, fire, disease, earthquakes, storms and so many other things. Science tested these claims, demonstrated they were false, and replaced them with an accurate model of all of those (and more).
integralmath 8 months ago
Errata here for you: Genie Scott isn't a biologist; she's an anthropologist who happens to the head of the National Center for Science Education which encourages the teaching of evolution (and science in general). While it's true she has some biologists on staff, say Wesley R. Elsberry, she is not one herself.
integralmath 8 months ago
well provide a natural testable mechanism that would create dogs, humans, and plats, if you show that there is such a natural mechanism, then creation will be disproved
yes, creation is not science, kent hovind has always say that
Answerquestions1 10 months ago
@Answerquestions1 fuck, you people are stupid. natural selection is what guides evolution and by the way, if you would only read a book about the evolution of dogs you would know that evolved from wolves, we know this because we fucking witnessed it, evolution happens, period, no debate, get over it
wearestarstuffsagan 9 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan
Proving that dogs came from wolves does not prove that dogs and bannanas have a common ancestor, but for some reason evolutioniys are unable to understand this.
Answerquestions1 9 months ago
@Answerquestions1 natural selection at a microbe level, shortly (in terms of the planets life to date) after abiogenesis leads to major differentiation down the line. All life has one point of origin, but the differentiation between plants and animals, for example, happend WAY before the first appearance of life resembled either of those things. I think you'll find that we do, in fact, understand this.
EnceladusProductions 9 months ago 2
@Answerquestions1 We do understand! Dogs and bananas do share a common ancestor but this common ancestor is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY distant! The common ancestor they share lived millions of years ago and it looked neither like a banana (tree) nor a dog. it most likely looked like a bacterial organism. Over time, this bacteria's descendants diverged where some would evolve into plants and some would evolve into animals starting with marine animals.
Reaper081087 9 months ago 2
@Answerquestions1 Read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book that gives you detailed examples of evolution and natural selection at work with evidential support. Read chapters 2, 4, & 5.
Reaper081087 9 months ago
Watch Kent dodge and duck.
Danmill23 10 months ago