I volunteered to Edit the Evolution Debate forum simply because the only stories were being posted by the Roboeditor and frequently the stories had nothing to with the topic at hand, and I frequently came across stories that should be on Topix. Yes, I am a supporter of Evolution in science classrooms, and being an editor will not stop me from making my opinions clear, but I have no authority, or do I have an interest, to edit or remove other people's posts. That would be unethical of me and an action I will not be part of!
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
No, not necessarily. Now setting aside all the evidence supporting evolution for the moment -- just because we didn't evolve doesn't automatically bring in the supernatural. You are assuming it's either one or the other. If it was not evolution, again discounting all the evidence, then it may have been some other yet undetermined natural process. Assuming a Creator, for which there is no evidence at all, is nothing more than wishful thinking. (3 hrs ago | post #1294)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Where the did you get this date? Homo Sapiens have been around quite a bit longer. Try at least an order of magnitude, about 250,000 years. (3 hrs ago | post #1293)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Hey Wayne, you need better glasses. It is not that science cannot prove God, it is that SCIENCE will never address the issue of God. God is outside the borders of what is and is not science. That's why they call is metaphysics, not physics. This has been stated to you how many different ways in the last month? So your efforts to use God and the Bible to refute a scientific theory are also outside the borders! It is absurd and you keep making yourself, and your narrow version of religion, look pretty foolish. So let me put this in even simpler terms, maybe even you can grasp the significance. Science will not prove nor disprove the existance of God nor any of the works attributed to him by any form of religion known to man -- even your narrow one. That being said it should also be said that Religion cannot nor should not address issues of science for the same reason. You cannot refute a scientific theory with the Bible just like you can't refute God with a scientific theory. One of your many problems is that you only go halfway. You claim Science can't prove God, then you want to use God to disprove science. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Leave each area in it's bailiwick. You keep your religion out of the science classroom and I will keep my science off your pulpit. And yes Neph, I am being abrasive because being pleasant to Wayne didn't work weeks back, I have no reason to try now. He can react like and emotional cripple again and refuse to listen to what I said, but that doesn't make what I said less valid. Couching it in pleasantries blows past him even faster. (3 hrs ago | post #1292)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Hey Neph, just in case you missed it -- this is Wayne once again acting as the arbitrator of who or who is not a Christian. So get up on your Church of Wayne apologetics again. Your work is cut out for you! (3 hrs ago | post #1291)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Sorry Neph, Wayne is the one who granted himself the right to determine who is and who is not a Christian. Are you planning to spend your life supporting him? (3 hrs ago | post #1289)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Since you were the one commenting on my post, and not commenting when Wayne posts things like "You're nothing but a stupid jackass.", your name wasn't brought up needlessly -- you volunteered when you decided you were the arbitrator of the posts. If you find my personality abrasive, fine. After so many "You're nothing but a stupid jackass." posts by folks like Wayne, I think I can be as abrasive as I want. You can continue to be Wayne's apologetic supporter, because apparently speaking the truth is abrasive, yet referring to someone as a jackass without supporting the comment is OK in your book. Keep up the good work, Neph. Personally I find your attitude a bit hypocritical. (3 hrs ago | post #1288)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
I agree! In a way we do owe our life to the ability to evolve. If it weren't for evolution the human race would not be here. Now Wayne, I know you still have trouble understanding the difference between fact and theory, so let me be plainer. The FACT of evolution is why we are even here. If our ancestors hadn't evolved the highest level of life on this planet would probably be self-replicating molecules. No complexity, no cellular creatures, and certainly not homo sapiens. So you can thank heaven for Evolution or you wouldn't even be here to whine about the Theory of Evolution. (pun intended). (4 hrs ago | post #1280)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
WHat Wayne appears to mean is "I have run out of nonsense to cut and paste, time to go to another thread and start on my list of Biblical posts all over again." (9 hrs ago | post #1251)
The ToE is a better explanation than ID/Creation
Why end a perfect track record of unsupported posts now! (19 hrs ago | post #13)
The ToE is a better explanation than ID/Creation
Still lying I see. Let's see I haven't 'gotten' anyone to vote (Lie 1 in this post). I haven't posted any other polls (Lie 2 in this post). You don't seem ignorant, that would only be an 'appearance' . . . oh wait, you think the appearance of design is the same thing as being designed, so that means your 'seeming ignorant' must mean, to you anyway, that you are actually ignorant. But actually that is another one of your lies (number 3 in one short post), isn't it. I have never called you ignorant (Lie 4 of your very own). I have called you a liar, because you lie often. I have called you a moron, because you stick to the same arguments even though dozens of people on here have told you how ineffective they are and how wrong you have been. But if you prefer to call yourself ignorant, who am I do deny you such a pleasure. I do suggest you read it carefully, there are paragraph changes and punctuation -- things you only have a passing acquaintance. I know, I know, you are blind -- but having worked with a number of sight-challenged people, they don't use it as an excuse for lying, moronic posts, illiterate spelling and punctuation -- but then I know they are sight-challenged, you just use it as an excuse. (19 hrs ago | post #12)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
So now you are claiming God spoke in English? Or is this one of those only partially literal bible parts? So if he didn't speak English, those were not his exact words? Right? Hmmm so how do you know that was what he said? You weren't there . . oh I am so sorry, that is one of your creationist arguments about abiogenesis -- no one was there to see it, so it couldn't have possibly happened in any way imaginable by Man. I know Wayne won't see the illogic, but the whole "English " debate didn't come from me, you can thank a Catholic upbringing and St. Fortunata's in NYC for it. (19 hrs ago | post #1234)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Yes, you illiterate moron, science has it's own terminology, as do religions, lawyers, finance, medicine. All areas of human endeavor develop their own terminology. That is why the dictionary definition of falsifiability doesn't fit the bill. Take a course in logic and you will learn even more uses for the word falsifiable -- and they don't meet the dictionary definition either. But if you actually understood science you would realize that. Luckily no one will ever accuse you of understanding. You said it yourself "Creationism CANNOT be proven to be false by any scientific method" -- which means it is not falsifiable; therefore it is not science. Thank you for stumbling your way into a correct answer. I know you didn't do it on purpose. (19 hrs ago | post #1233)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Damn! OK, it's an air of mystery. How does one conjure up an air of mystery here on Topix? I think I have been married for too long :-)) (Yesterday | post #1169)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
Still having trouble with definitions, I see. Try on the definition as it pertains to Science and Scientific methodology: Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable " does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. One of the many reasons why Creationism, and it's little brother Intelligent Design is not scientific is because it cannot be asserted to be false by observable or physical experiment. There have been many assertions toward evolution, for example if you find a dinosaur skeleton in the Pre-cambrium strata, Evolution comes tumbling down. Darwin himself postulated falsifiable tests for Evolution and so far NONE have actually been found to be false. But one of the tests for the scientific viability for a theory is the ability to be falsifiable. If you are going to use arguments that you obviously do not understand, at least cut and paste the right definitions. (Yesterday | post #1155)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
LOL correcting your misconceptions is like second nature now. You have so many and you spout them so often. (Yesterday | post #1131)
Olympics