Replies

It's not my strawman fantasy -joke, it's coyoteman's.

Fair enough. And I'm saying something different.

I'd like [creationism] taught in science class thank you very much.

That's fine. All you have to do is produce some testable, repeatable science with some predictions and some evidence. It should be pretty easy. Creationists need to stop merely critiquing published work and do some damn work themselves. Then maybe even conservative Bush appointed judges in Pennsylvania will hear you out. Until then, creationism does not belong in a science class, plain and simple.

I sure didn't [claim no "personal attacks], you must have me confused with someone else.I'm sure it seems that way a good bit of the time though, because I'm sure alot of posters are used to abusing people without a fight back or at the very least are used to people giving them a free pass while they try to undermine a conservative website with their PC liberal tripe.

Eh, no matter. I took this post to mean that you were challenging someone to show where you've been antagonistic. I was trying to be helpful by reminding you where you had been. And c'mon, those of us on the side of evolutionary science are FAR outnumbered here these days (at least in posting volume on these threads), so I hardly think you're being undermined.

string and membrane and multiverse theory...

Why the heck do I need to "learn up" on them? They have nothing in the world to do with biology and quite frankly, they are far from my area of expertise. I see why you're upset though; I admitted I don't know something which is quite foreign to you.

Fine, but like Michael Newdow, now all you need to do is understand no one's appointed you or anyone else to speak for all of us, or demand what's science or what's not science or what we can or can't teach our kids...

You have weird perceptions of what I think. I'm not that important. I don't speak for anyone but myself here. I don't wish to speak for anyone else here. I think Newdow is a nittering twit. (It's not that hard to say the Pledge of Allegiance and skip the "under god" part if that's what one chooses to do.)

So whattajoke...the reason you need to learn up on them is because you just said creationism requires all this repeatable and measurable stuff you know to be accepted and so on...

meanwhile I guess this is the ONLY theory that requires it?

Why the heck do I need to "learn up" on them? They have nothing in the world to do with biology and quite frankly, they are far from my area of expertise. I see why you're upset though; I admitted I don't know something which is quite foreign to you.

Ahhhhhhh....so some more endless goal post moving...now that the argument has been destroyed we move onto "that's not science" to "that's not biology"?

I hardly think you're being undermined.

Undermining encompasses much more than crevo debates, now and then a liberal let's their slip show when it comes to their PC disease. Just because liberals are outnumbered doesn't mean they're somehow incapable of undermining.

I do find it funny that on the one hand you admit you don't know something but you demand everyone conform to your versions of "that's not science...errrr...that's not biology" nonsense just the same.

Not because it's true, but because we wouldn't want to go around having you all offended and so forth?

(It’s not that hard to say the Pledge of Allegiance and skip the “under god” part if that’s what one chooses to do.)

But it’s too hard for children to properly hear or read that evolution is theory, not fact, or hear about ID at all, in any way shape or form.

Eh, no matter. I took this post to mean that you were challenging someone to show where you've been antagonistic.

Since you were being all anal about definitions earlier, such as it were, how do you get from "antagonistic" to "personal attacks"?

And how is it that when one merely observes another's habits, defending the NEA for instance, or endlessly projecting, this is construed as a personal attack?