Science on TV Evolves : Intelligent Design Hits Prime Time

BreakPoint ^ | 9 June 03 | Chuck Colson

[gore3000]

The holy warrior is blinded by his faith

More insults from an evo loser. Whenever an evolutionist cannot win a discussion on the scientific merits, he turns to insults such as the above. Sort of shows that evolution has nothing to do with science, but with ideology. It is an inpenetrable belief system which totally dismisses facts which it cannot explain away.

[Aric2000]

We won this debate LONG ago, with thousands of pieces of evidence, fossils remains, dating methods, genetics, DNA, etc etc ad nauseum, all of which points to the fact that Evolution is INDEED the best theory to explain the evidence available.

Just because you claim to NOT understand the evidence, discount it out of hand because you are clueless about how science really works, and state BS likes it's some kind of law does NOT disprove evolution.

Evolution is still, and will remain, until something better replaces it, the BEST SCIENTIFIC theory to explain the available evidence.

The ONLY people that fight it, are fundamentalist christians such as yourself.

Tells me a whole lot more then I really need to know.

Good bye again G3K, you are a holy warrior extrodinaire, who's worldview MAKES it IMPOSSIBLE to have a scientific discussion on the evidence, because the evidence means NOTHING to you, therefore, it is a waste of bandwidth to even discuss it with you.

You go ahead and live in your literalist fantasy land, but I will not and cannot in good faith believe one little bit of your massive amounts of BS.

Misquotes, total misunderstandings of scientific concepts etc, it is aggravating, frustrating, and above all, VERY sad.

You are indeed a Holy Warrior, and nothing else needs be said.

[Aric2000]

You are again basing your entire statement on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Sorry, DOES NOT work that way.

Sure we can be freinds, just don't expect me to believe a thing you say about science. ;)

[Condorman]

Wrong, an assertion which provides supporting evidence is proven until refuted.

Very well: You are a liar.

[coincheck]

I understand that science is based on being able to test theories and hypothises (sp) and that evidence must be able to be reproduced.
I also know that science has made it possible for us to fight disease,therefore we live longer. science has opened new areas of knowledge in oceanography, space, and our own earth. science put men on the moon. science has provided us with most of the "modern conviences" we enjoy now.
I am not against science, we need men and women who ask "why, and how" then have the knowledge to find the answers.

[JudgemAll]

As the first person to bring up the Nazis (in a non-political discussion), you have run afoul of Godwin's Law and are thus declared the loser. What is not political about Darwin? And what is not scientific about Politics? Give me a break, the Founding Fathers did not pull out our constitution out of a cereal box, but was a highly political science product. The relationship between man and the environment is highly politicaly charged. And indeed, your personal attacks show. Then again, does man force the environment to adapt to it or does the environment forces man to adapt? What make we of the artist on a white canvas? If he can improve the softness of his art, why does he need a rough environment to excel? All he needs is inspiration, and yes, a fair amount of work, but a harsh environment? Aside from his clumsy hands as a baby, this is the only "harsh" environment he had to fight to make wonders and create. Again, Darwin's perception are unscientific fundamentaly in that made huge assumptions about man's reverse evolution altruism being the product of evolution. After all, people lie, and altruism is only an assumption we make about ourselves. How do we know our own nature since the datas coming out of our minds are never factual, but social adaptation assumptions? Where assumptions start and hard data stops, science stops, i.e in social man to man adaptation, people resort to Biblical models, which are in a way respectable social science models.

[JudgemAll]

As the first person to bring up the Nazis (in a non-political discussion), you have run afoul of Godwin's Law and are thus declared the loser.

What is not political about Darwin? And what is not scientific about Politics? Give me a break, the Founding Fathers did not pull out our constitution out of a cereal box, but was a highly political science product. The relationship between man and the environment is highly politicaly charged. And indeed, your personal attacks show.

Then again, does man force the environment to adapt to it or does the environment forces man to adapt?

What make we of the artist on a white canvas? If he can improve the softness of his art, why does he need a rough environment to excel? All he needs is inspiration, and yes, a fair amount of work, but a harsh environment? Aside from his clumsy hands as a baby, this is the only "harsh" environment he had to fight to make wonders and create.

Again, Darwin's perception are unscientific fundamentaly in that made huge assumptions about man's reverse evolution altruism being the product of evolution. After all, people lie, and altruism is only an assumption we make about ourselves. How do we know our own nature since the datas coming out of our minds are never factual, but social adaptation assumptions? Where assumptions start and hard data stops, science stops, i.e in social man to man adaptation, people resort to Biblical models, which are in a way respectable social science models.

[JudgemAll]

If any intellectuals get the blame for the Nazis, it's Nietzche.

I thought it was more Engels. Anyways, I don't know about the philosophical ramifications. What I do know is that pure perfect race evolution and selection and genomics started with Darwin.

[gore3000]

We won this debate

No, you have lost it, just as you keep losing all the debates nowadays because you cannot defend your position. I and many others have shown the falseness of evolutionists claims. Heck, evolutionists claim their theory is science and yet refuse completely to even state THE theory which has supposedly been verified.

As I said, the flagellum, the eye, the program by which humans develop from conception to birth are all proof that intelligent design is correct and evolution is wrong.

But the real proof that evolution is bunk comes from the evolutionists here themselves - they ignore, they insult, and they spam threads in an attempt to keep opponents from being heard.

[f.Christian]

SCHLOCKOLOGY

Denigrating God - Truth - Science to prove a falsehood !

Main Entry: false·hood
Pronunciation: 'fols-"hud
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : an untrue statement : LIE
2 : absence of truth or accuracy
3 : the practice of lying : MENDACITY

[Dimensio]

No, you have lost it,

True. None of us could come up with as many lies and false accusations as you did singlehandedly. What was it, you posted a false bibliography and then you accused me of making a statement regarding Gould's political views and you made up some lie about me claiming that I'd never heard of the peppered moth study. Oh, and lets not forget that anytime someone expresses a belief that runs counter to your own religious beliefs, you call them an atheist regardless of whether or not they believe in any gods.

Yep, we can't win any debates when faced with such a skilled liar as yourself.

[balrog666]

Dead and abandoned thread marker.

[Doctor Stochastic]

All that glitters is not Gould place marker.