Disgusting and sickening

[RD2191]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/freethought-oasis-bullies079991.html

[RD2191]

The outline of the story is now, sadly, a familiar one. Instructor wants to discuss intelligent design (ID). Intolerant atheists throw a fit. College quickly capitulates to the demands of the atheists. Instructor is censored.
The scenario played out again this past semester in Amarillo, Texas. I'll give the identities of the parties involved in just a moment, but for now, let's note some twists unique to the situation. According to internal communications, campus administrators feared that disgruntled atheists would stage a "disruption" if the ID class went forward. The atheist leader got so "intense" in arguing for Darwinian evolution over intelligent design that college staff called the police on him, apparently potentially concerned over their own safety. And get this: the intolerant atheists call themselves the "Freethought Oasis." You can't make this stuff up.

[ChumpDumper]

lol intense

lol apparently

lol Amarillo

[xmas1997]

The outline of the story is now, sadly, a familiar one. Instructor wants to discuss intelligent design (ID). Intolerant atheists throw a fit. College quickly capitulates to the demands of the atheists. Instructor is censored.
The scenario played out again this past semester in Amarillo, Texas. I'll give the identities of the parties involved in just a moment, but for now, let's note some twists unique to the situation. According to internal communications, campus administrators feared that disgruntled atheists would stage a "disruption" if the ID class went forward. The atheist leader got so "intense" in arguing for Darwinian evolution over intelligent design that college staff called the police on him, apparently potentially concerned over their own safety. And get this: the intolerant atheists call themselves the "Freethought Oasis." You can't make this stuff up.

:rollin

[SupremeGuy]

Wait bro, you seriously don't understand evolution? For cereal?

[RD2191]

Wait bro, you seriously don't understand evolution? For cereal?
What? My link has nothing to with evolution. It has to do with academic freedom/freedom of speech.

[SupremeGuy]

What? My link has nothing to with evolution. It has to do with academic freedom/freedom of speech.My bad, thought I was posting in the other thread. I'm trying to play madden, drink, and post with you fuckers. lol Oops. By my question/statement still stands.

[RD2191]

My bad, thought I was posting in the other thread. I'm trying to play madden, drink, and post with you fuckers. lol Oops. By my question/statement still stands.
:lolAs I said before. I understand some of it. To claim I understand all of it would be a lie. The theory does not interest me so I haven't done much research on the subject.

[SupremeGuy]

Well, it's a pretty simple concept man. Like, it can't be denied. lol

[RD2191]

Well, it's a pretty simple concept man. Like, it can't be denied. lol
I disagree. The theory is full of flaws. Scientists though, don't want the public to see that. Any scientist who even begins to question it are ridiculed by their peers and deemed pseudoscientist. They have a hatred towards God/Religion and I don't know why. They'll say because religion is holding science back but that is a lie.

[ChumpDumper]

I disagree. The theory is full of flaws. What flaws are scientists trying to hide?

List them in your own words.

[RD2191]

If there was any doubt that the rebooted Cosmos (http://www.cosmosontv.com/) series, which premiered last night, would be politically charged and have a materialistic ideological message, consider what viewers saw in its first sixty seconds. The opening featured President Obama giving a statement endorsing the series. That's not necessarily bad, except for what happened next. Immediately following President Obama's endorsement, the show replayed Carl Sagan's famous materialistic credo from the original Cosmos series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7n71pm0K04) that "The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be." Does it violate the separation of church and state for the President of the United States to be portrayed seemingly endorsing Sagan's materialistic viewpoint? Is this what President Obama meant when he said in his first inaugural address that we should "restore science to its rightful place (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22science.html)"?
The irony is that viewers were then immediately told by series host Neil deGrasse Tyson that science follows a "set of rules." It should:


"follow the evidence wherever leads (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/is_president_ob_1071791.html),"
"question everything," and
put things to the test.

Again, that all sounds fine and good. But does science support Sagan's belief that the "The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be"? At best, that's a philosophical or metaphysical claim that goes beyond science. At worst, Sagan's claim is refuted by science, since known natural laws are incapable of explaining certain peculiar properties of the cosmos, including the life-friendly fine-tuning of the universe (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/837), and the fine-tuning of biological information to yield complex structures (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/what_is_a_proper_test_of_intel050631.html). If the cosmos is "all there is," then the cosmos cannot account for its own existence, nor the complexity of what's inside it.Before I launch into any more critiques, let me note some genuine positives about the rebooted series. First, the expensive CGI which animates the new Cosmos is easy on the eyes, and deliberately appeals to sci-fi fans like myself. Having watched every episode of every Star Trek series multiple times, I was excited to learn that the new Cosmos series was directed by Brannon Braga, who also helped create Star Trek: The Next Generation,Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Enterprise. In the first few minutes of Cosmos, Braga's influence was clear. Neil deGrasse Tyson is portrayed flying in a sleek spaceship through our solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and then the entire universe, giving us a visually stunning and innovative tour of our "cosmic address," as Tyson puts it. That's another positive about the series: Tyson is a fabulous science communicator. If only he had used this series to simply communicate science, rather than science plus a heavy dose of materialist philosophy.
During the first episode, Tyson devotes lengthy segments to promoting the old tale that religion is at war science, and strongly promotes the idea that religion opposes intellectual advancement. He tells the story of the 16th-century astronomer Giordano Bruno, who he says lived in a time without "freedom of speech" or "separation of church and state," and thus fell into the clutches of the "thought police" of the Inquisition for disagreeing with the church's geocentric views. Never mind that his show made it appear that President Obama endorsed Sagan-style materialism, but I digress... Of course the main religious authority of that time was the Catholic Church, and the program shows angry priests with evil-sounding British accents dressed in full religious garb throwing Bruno out on the street, and eventually burning him at the stake.
Just to make sure that other Christians who aren't Catholic also understand their religions too hinder scientific progress, Tyson goes out of his way to point out that Bruno was opposed by "Calvinists in Switzerland," and "Lutherans in Germany," including the great protestant reformer Martin Luther himself. He never mentions that Protestants aren't the ones who burned Bruno at the stake, nor does he ever mention that most of the founders of modern science were Christians. But I digress...
It's a lengthy scene, all to highlight some of the darkest chapters of Christianity in Europe. But the entire retelling of Bruno's fate lasts a good portion of the first episode's hour. Why make the religious persecution of scientists some four hundred years ago a major focus of a widely publicized television series that is ostensibly about promoting science?
Actually, I'd love to see a TV show aimed at helping the public to understand the dangers of hindering academic freedom for scientists. I suppose if you wanted to cover that topic, you'd want to talk about the evil things some members of the church did to persecute scientists hundreds of years ago. But why stop there? Why not also talk about how Lysenkoists (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/evolutionary_bi067491.html) in the USSR persecuted scientists who didn't support their atheist, Communist ideology during the 20th century? Or why not talk about the numerous well-documented examples of scientists who have faced persecution and discrimination for disagreeing with Darwinian evolution in just the last few years? For example:


In 2005, Smithsonian spokesman Randall Kremer objected (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16671/title/Misrepresenting-intelligent-design/) to a private screening of the pro-ID film The Privileged Planet because it drew a "philosophical conclusion." The Smithsonian made no complaints when Sagan's original Cosmos in 1980 argued that "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."



A congressional subcommittee staff investigation found that biologist Richard Sternberg (http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php) experienced retaliation by his co-workers and superiors at the Smithsonian, including transfer to a hostile supervisor, removal of his name placard from his door, deprivation of workspace, subjection to work requirements not imposed on others, restriction of specimen access, and loss of his keys, because he allowed a pro-ID article to be published in a biology journal. The Congressional staff investigation concluded that the "Smithsonian's top officials permit[ed] the demotion and harassment of [a] scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution" and "officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the [pro-ID] Meyer paper and his views on evolution."



In 2009 the state-funded California Science Center (CSC) museum cancelled the contract of a pro-ID group, American Freedom Alliance (AFA), to show a pro-ID film. The lawsuit was settled in August 2011, with the CSC agreeing to pay AFA $110,000 to avoid a public trial. However, documents disclosed during the course of litigation (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/evidence_revealed_in_californi050191.html) showed that employees of the CSC, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, joined with other LA-area academics to suppress the expression of ID, most egregiously by pressing CSC decision-makers to hastily cancel AFA's event.



In 2005, over 120 faculty members at Iowa State University (ISU) signed a petition denouncing ID and calling on "all faculty members to ... reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science." These efforts were significant not just because they opposed academic freedom by demanding conformity among faculty to reject ID, but because they focused on creating a hostile environment for pro-ID astronomerGuillermo Gonzalez (http://www.discovery.org/a/2939), co-author of The Privileged Planet, who was denied tenure at ISU in 2006 due to his support for ID. Both public and private statements exposed through public records requests revealed that members of ISU's department in physics and astronomy voted against Gonzalez's tenure due to his support for ID.



In 1993, San Francisco State University biology professor Dean Kenyon (http://www.discovery.org/a/93) was forced to stop teaching introductory biology because he was informing students that scientists had doubts about materialist theories of the origin of life.



In a similar case five years later, Minnesota high school teacher Rodney LeVake (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/levake_v_independent_school_di031411.html) was removed from teaching biology after expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory. LeVake, who holds a master's degree in biology, agreed to teach evolution as required in the district's curriculum, but said he wanted to "accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory."



Rogert DeHart (http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/03/teaching_the_controversy_in_so.html), a public high school biology teacher in Washington State, was denied the right to have his students read articles from mainstream science publications that made scientific criticisms of certain pieces of evidence typically offered to support Darwinian theory. One of the forbidden articles was written by noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Although DeHart complied with this ban, he was later removed from teaching biology.



In Mississippi, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was asked by Mississippi University for Women to resign as head of the Division of Science and Mathematics after she gave a lecture to honors students called "Critical Thinking on Evolution." She remarked, "Students at my college got the message very clearly[;] do not ask any questions about Darwinism."



In 1999, ID theorist William Dembski (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2007.12.MPC_Rise_and_Fall.htm) founded the Polanyi Center at Baylor University to allow scientists and scholars to conduct scientific research into intelligent design. The Center was later shut down largely due to intolerance of ID among Baylor faculty.



In 2005, the president of the University of Idaho instituted a campus-wide classroom speech-code (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/ap_breaks_story_on_academic_freedom_unde001069.htm l), where "evolution" was "the only curriculum that is appropriate" for science classes. This was done in retaliation towards a professor at the university, Scott Minnich, who at the time was testifying in favor of intelligent design as an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.



Also in 2005, Cornell's former interim president Hunter Rawlings (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/24/id) devoted a State of the University Address "to denounce 'intelligent design,' arguing that it has no place in science classrooms and calling on faculty members in a range of disciplines" to similarly attack ID.



In 2005, top biology professors at Ohio State University (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/07/darwinists_continue_smear_campaign_again000979.htm l) derailed a doctoral student's thesis defense by writing a letter claiming "there are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution" and therefore the student's teaching about problems with neo-Darwinism was "unethical" and "deliberate miseducation."



In 2005, pro-ID adjunct biology professor Caroline Crocker (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/free_to_think_caroline_crocker036671.html) lost her job at George Mason University after teaching students about both the evidence for and against evolution in the classroom, and mentioning ID as a possible alternative to Darwinism. While her former employer maintains that it simply chose not to renew her contract, she was specifically told she would be "disciplined" for teaching students about the scientific controversy over evolution.



In 2007, Robert Marks (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/banned_item_of_the_year_dr_rob004303.html), Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, had established an Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor University to study the ability of Darwinian processes to generate new information using computer simulations and evolutionary algorithms. However, after Dr. Marks was interviewed by ID the Future in 2007, he subsequently received a letter from his dean warning that the website was "associated" with "ID," and he was forced to take the lab's site down and move the lab itself off campus.



In 2006, a professor of biochemistry and leading biochemistry textbook author at the University of Toronto, Laurence A. Moran (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/author_of_leading_biochemistry002876.html), stated that a major public research university "should never have admitted" students who support ID, and should "just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students."



In 2011, a biology professor at the University of Waikato (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/want_a_good_grade_in_allison_c044581.html) stated that "If, for example, a student were to use examples such as the bacterial flagellum to advance an ID view then they should expect to be marked down"



Likewise, that same year Jerry Coyne (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/jerry_coyne045001.html), an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, stated that "adherence to ID (which, after all, claims to be a nonreligious theory) should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor."



In January 2011, the University of Kentucky (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/e-mails_in_gaskell_case_show_t043711.html) (UK) paid over $100,000 to settle astronomer Martin Gaskell's lawsuit claiming that he was wrongfully denied employment for doubting Darwinism. UK faculty admitted that Gaskell was the most qualified applicant for the position, but they hired a much less qualified candidate out of concerns about statements Gaskell had made that were critical of Darwinian evolution.



In June 2011, the journal Applied Mathematics Letters (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html) paid $10,000 and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.



In 2009, David Coppedge (http://www.discovery.org/a/14511) was demoted and punished for sharing pro-ID videos with co-workers at Jet Propulsion Lab. Later, his employment was terminated.



In 2012, Springer-Verlag (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/on_the_origin_o_3075521.html) illegally breached a contract to publish the proceedings of an ID-friendly research conference at Cornell University after a pressure campaign was mounted by pro-Darwin activists to have the book scuttled.



In 2013, Ball State University (BSU) President Jo Ann Gora issued a speech code (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/ball_state_pres075041.html) declaring that "intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses" at BSU, after atheist activists from the Freedom from Religion Foundation charged that a "Boundaries of Science" course taught by a well-liked physics professor (Eric Hedin) was violating the Constitution by favorably discussing intelligent design.



Also in 2013, atheist activists forced Amarillo College (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/freethought-oasis-bullies079991.html) to cancel an intelligent design course after they threatened disruption if it went forward.

[RD2191]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3131543/posts

[ChumpDumper]

Knew you couldn't do it.

[RD2191]

What flaws are scientists trying to hide?

List them in your own words.
Don't need to. You can look for the truth if you want. My own words won't mean much as your mind is already set. I'm not gonna get into a circle jerk with you.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't need to. You can look for the truth if you want. My own words won't mean much as your mind is already set. I'm not gonna get into a circle jerk with you.Of course you can't think for yourself.

All you do is spout other people's beliefs by rote.

No wonder you are so scared and shut down so easily.

[Shastafarian]

Entering wild cobra territory here. I'm not doing your homework for you :lol

[SupremeGuy]

Like what flaws? lol Dude, study any microorganism and you'll see evolution first hand.

[RD2191]

Of course you can't think for yourself.

All you do is spout other people's beliefs by rote.

No wonder you are so scared and shut down so easily.
Not gonna play stupid games with you. To me you're a huge vagina who probably still lives at home and is terrified of anyone knowing who he really is. Your opinion does not matter to me, David.

[ChumpDumper]

http://cdn2.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/im-not-listening-stephen-colbert-gif.gifit's a shutdown meltdown

So Avante, rob and xmas have all done their best to copy and paste evolution out of our schools.

Nice try, fellas.

[RD2191]

Like what flaws? lol Dude, study any microorganism and you'll see evolution first hand.
Look for the truth my man. It's not hard to Google "flaws in evolution". And why would I study that when it does not interest me at all? I enjoy History, Mechanics, cars/motorcycles, Guns of the Old West. I'm not gonna waste my time researching a flawed theory.

[RD2191]

it's a shutdown meltdown
What you're doing? I agree.

[ChumpDumper]

What you're doing? I agree.Sorry, you're the one who is running away from the discussion and trying to make everything personal.


Why are you so afraid of me?

[exstatic]

Entering wild cobra territory here. I'm not doing your homework for you :lol

No shit. The last refuge of the confused and misinformed.

[RD2191]

Sorry, you're the one who is running away from the discussion and trying to make everything personal.


Why are you so afraid of me?
Who are you and why would I be afraid of you? At least answer the first question.

[Shastafarian]

Can't find any scientific, as in not faith-based sources, hits on flaws in evolution. And when those sources put more faith in a book written by men who didn't understand physics or biology or any basic science, they have 0 credibility.

[RD2191]

As stated, the thread has nothing to do with the flawed theory of evolution.

[RD2191]

Can't find any scientific, as in not faith-based sources, hits on flaws in evolution. And when those sources put more faith in a book written by men who didn't understand physics or biology or any basic science, they have 0 credibility.
What is your credibility on the subject?

[Shastafarian]

Look for the truth my man. It's not hard to Google "flaws in evolution". And why would I study that when it does not interest me at all? I enjoy History, Mechanics, cars/motorcycles, Guns of the Old West. I'm not gonna waste my time researching a flawed theory.

lol is that why you started this thread?

[ChumpDumper]

Who are you and why would I be afraid of you? At least answer the first question.I'm the guy who called you out on the internet after you said you weren't afraid.

Turns out you are.

[Shastafarian]

What is your credibility on the subject?Not the issue. You said you know of flaws. Present them.

[spurraider21]

disgusting and sickening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

[ChumpDumper]

As stated, the thread has nothing to do with the flawed theory of evolution.How much have you studied intelligent design?

Describe it in your own words.

[RD2191]

lol is that why you started this thread?
Lol, are you slow? Serious question.

[Shastafarian]

Lol, are you slow? Serious question.
For a subject you claim to not care about you sure do talk about it a lot.

[RD2191]

disgusting and sickening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
I agree, false religion is terrible and disgusting.

[Shastafarian]

disgusting and sickening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Puzzling why atheists (and even some religious people) are afraid and angry people are attempting to teach theology as a science.

[RD2191]

For a subject you claim to not care about you sure do talk about it a lot.
Shasta, read the original post. This has to do with academic freedom/freedom of speech. Also with atheists who claim they are tolerant when they clearly are not.

[RD2191]

How much have you studied intelligent design?

Describe it in your own words.
I don't care about ID either.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't care about ID either.What do you study?

[Shastafarian]

Shasta, read the original post. This has to do with academic freedom/freedom of speech. Also with atheists who claim they are tolerant when they clearly are not.
Is had to do with freedom of speech in regards to a subject you claim not to care about. Yet you're discussing it in three different threads

[Shastafarian]

What do you study?

Guns of the old west :rollin

[SupremeGuy]

As stated, the thread has nothing to do with the flawed theory of evolution.It has to do with you and your non-acceptance of evolution now, tbh. lol

Let's see, do you agree that we've bred certain organisms to have characteristics that we want?

[xmas1997]

Atheists are still pissed off "In God We Trust" is on our money!
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Atheists are still pissed off "In God We Trust" is on our money!
:lolEh, all that official God stuff was a by-product of anticommunist hysteria and justifying the killing of other Americans.

[RD2191]

Is had to do with freedom of speech in regards to a subject you claim not to care about. Yet you're discussing it in three different threads
Just because the subject of evolution was involved does not mean that it is what the thread is about, nor is the article that I posted about evolution. It is about freedom of speech and the right to study/discuss/believe what a person chooses. If you want to keep being ignorant then go right ahead.

[RD2191]

It has to do with you and your non-acceptance of evolution now, tbh. lol

Let's see, do you agree that we've bred certain organisms to have characteristics that we want?
Bro, I am not qualified to answer that question nor do I care to. If one day I feel I need to study the theory of evolution/biology then I will.

[RD2191]

Guns of the old west :rollin
What are your hobbies/interest?

[RD2191]

What do you study?
I enjoy reading about History and such. That's about it.

[RD2191]

Atheists are still pissed off "In God We Trust" is on our money!
:lol
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Bro, I am not qualified to answer that question nor do I care to. If one day I feel I need to study the theory of evolution/biology then I will.What do you study?

Only history?

[xmas1997]

Eh, all that official God stuff was a by-product of anticommunist hysteria and justifying the killing of other Americans.

If by "stuff" you are referring to "In God We Trust" on our money, if I am not mistaken it was there long before Communism was around.

[ChumpDumper]

If by "stuff" you are referring to "In God We Trust" on our money, if I am not mistaken it was there long before Communism was around.Read the second part of the sentence, Ivy.

[xmas1997]

Read the second part of the sentence, Ivy.

What has communism got to do with the Civil War, dimwit?

[ChumpDumper]

What has communism got to do with the Civil War, dimwit?Who said it did, Ivy?

I didn't.

Your assumption of "stuff" is as limited as the rest of your thinking.

You may now be upset and post emoticons again.

[Shastafarian]

What are your hobbies/interest?

I have many, including various aspects of history. I'm reading an interesting book about the history of the congo under belgian colonial rule. I just found it amusing you take more interest in obsolete firearms than you know, how you came to exist.

[xmas1997]

Eh, all that official God stuff was a by-product of anticommunist hysteria and justifying the killing of other Americans.


You're the one who said it was a "by-product of anti-communist hysteria", not me, numbnuts.

[ChumpDumper]

You're the one who said it was a "by-product of anti-communist hysteria", not me, numbnuts.Yes, I did.

What part of that do you not understand?

[spurraider21]

under god was added to the pledge as an anti-communist thing in the 50's. in god we trust on currency was around for a while

[xmas1997]

Yes, I did.

What part of that do you not understand?

I understand perfectly.

It has nothing to do with anti-communist hysteria because it first started in the Civil War.

I also understand you are talking out your ass again.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

under god was added to the pledge as an anti-communist thing in the 50's. in god we trust on currency was around for a whileYep, it really took off when Americans needed to justify killing other Americans.

Using God for purposes of fear and rationalization is pretty weak tbh.

[xmas1997]

I specifically mentioned "In God We Trust" not "Under God".

[ChumpDumper]

I understand perfectly.

It has nothing to do with anti-communist hysteria because it first started in the Civil War.

I also understand you are talking out your ass again.

:lmaoWhat year did "In God We Trust" start to appear on paper currency?

What year did "In God We Trust" become the official motto of the United States of America?

Don't dodge these questions.

[ChumpDumper]

I specifically mentioned "In God We Trust" not "Under God".You limited your own thinking.

You can't force others to do so.

[xmas1997]

You limited your own thinking.

You can't force others to do so.


There were no limitations except where it comes to your mind.

I specifically said "In God We Trust", it is there in black and white.

You made a comment and quoted me on that specific phrase and attributed it to anti-communist hysteria.

This is not true. It was around since the Civil War.

It was another faux pas on your part.

Be a man and admit it.

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

There were no limitations except where it comes to your mind.

I specifically said "In God We Trust", it is there in black and white.

You made a comment and quoted me on that specific phrase and attributed it to anti-communist hysteria.

This is not true. It was around since the Civil War.

It was another faux pas on your part.

Be a man and admit it.

:lol
What year did "In God We Trust" start to appear on paper currency?

What year did "In God We Trust" become the official motto of the United States of America?

Don't dodge these questions.
You dodged those questions.

Answer them or dodge them again. Either way it's going to make you look like an idiot. No offense intended.

[xmas1997]

You dodged those questions.

Answer them or dodge them again. Either way it's going to make you look like an idiot. No offense intended.

I have your "dodge" hanging. :lol

I don't do anything because you demand it, I do it at my leisure.

It started on the 2 cent coin in 1864, and on other coins in 1866, and has been on the penny since 1909.

That is when it started and has gone on since then. When it was put on paper currency is besides the point.

[ChumpDumper]

I have your "dodge" hanging. :lol

I don't do anything because you demand it, I do it at my leisure.

It started on the 2 cent coin in 1864, and on other coins in 1866, and has been on the penny since 1909.

That is when it started and has gone on since then. When it was put on paper currency is besides the point.You dodged both questions again.

You look like an idiot.

[xmas1997]

You dodged both questions again.

You look like an idiot.

Told you already, it is besides the point I was making.
Everything else is unimportant, unnecessary, and a sidetrack.
And the only idiot is the one you are making of yourself.
Own it.
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/215537/thumbs/s-JACKIE-CHILES-large.jpg
What year did "In God We Trust" start to appear on paper currency?

What year did "In God We Trust" become the official motto of the United States of America?

Don't dodge these questions.You look like an idiot.

Just answer the questions honestly.

Why are you afraid of the truth?

[xmas1997]

You look like an idiot.

Just answer the questions honestly.

Why are you afraid of the truth?

Truth? You? All you do is lie.

Have you owned up to your insignificance yet?

You should.

[ChumpDumper]

Truth? You? All you do is lie.

Have you owned up to your insignificance yet?

You should.
What year did "In God We Trust" start to appear on paper currency?

What year did "In God We Trust" become the official motto of the United States of America?

Don't dodge these questions.You look like an idiot.

Just answer the questions honestly.

Why are you afraid of the truth?

[xmas1997]

You look like an idiot.

Just answer the questions honestly.

Why are you afraid of the truth?

Truth? You? All you do is lie.

Have you owned up to your insignificance yet?

You should.

[ChumpDumper]

Truth? You? All you do is lie.

Have you owned up to your insignificance yet?

You should.
What year did "In God We Trust" start to appear on paper currency? 1957

What year did "In God We Trust" become the official motto of the United States of America? 1956

Don't dodge these questions.lol no wonder you dodged those questions

You were terrified of the truth.

Now you have to accept it.

[xmas1997]

lol no wonder you dodged those questions

You were terrified of the truth.

Now you have to accept it.

It has nothing to do with the coins and the motto on the coins and when it first started.

Truth is a foreign concept to you, that is blatantly obvious.

Have you owned up to your insignificance yet?

You should.

[ChumpDumper]

It has nothing to do with the coins and the motto on the coins and when it first started.You're the only one trying to limit the conversation to that.

Why is your thinking so limited, Ivy?

Is it because you look like an idiot right now?

Is that why you shut down and stonewalled when asked two simple questions?

[xmas1997]

You're the only one trying to limit the conversation to that.

Why is your thinking so limited, Ivy?

Is it because you look like an idiot right now?

Is that why you shut down and stonewalled when asked two simple questions?

Me, don't try to flip it onto me.

This is your defcon 1 melt down, not mine.

I am still laughing so hard AT you I can barely post a reply.

:rollin

[ChumpDumper]

Me, don't try to flip it onto me.

This is your defcon 1 melt down, not mine.

I am still laughing so hard AT you I can barely post a reply.

:rollinYou'll never stop posting.

You have to try to live down looking like such an idiot when you shut down and stonewalled in the face of two simple questions.

It's going to take a long time, so post a whole lot about me.

[xmas1997]

You'll never stop posting.

You have to try to live down looking like such an idiot when you shut down and stonewalled in the face of two simple questions.

It's going to take a long time, so post a whole lot about me.

Don't you wish?

Maybe in a perfect world.

I can't stop laughing AT you!

Don't you wish we were laughing WITH you?

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Don't you wish?

Maybe in a perfect world.

I can't stop laughing AT you!

Don't you wish we were laughing WITH you?

:lmaoYou should try posting more about me. That's bound to make people think you aren't an idiot.

[xmas1997]

You should try posting more about me. That's bound to make people think you aren't an idiot.

You should try posting something intelligent, then they would get a different opinion of you than what it is.
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

You should try posting something intelligent, then they would get a different opinion of you than what it is.
:lolWell you posted about me again.

[xmas1997]

Well you posted about me again.

I merely gave you the customary reply.

You tried to make it into something other than that, not me.

Own it, be a man.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I merely gave you the customary reply.

You tried to make it into something other than that, not me.

Own it, be a man.

:lmaohow am I supposed to own your posting about me?

You're the one who keeps posting about me.

[xmas1997]

how am I supposed to own your posting about me?

You're the one who keeps posting about me.

I'm not posting ABOUT you, moron.

I am replying TO you.

Get it right, or get out.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not posting ABOUT you, moron.

I am replying TO you.

Get it right, or get out.

:lmaoOK, you keep replying to me and posting about me.

You can't help yourself.

[xmas1997]

OK, you keep replying to me and posting about me.

You can't help yourself.

I'm laughing the whole time while you make a bigger and bigger fool of yourself.

You can't fault me for that.

You wouldn't want to deny me my laughter at your defcon 1 melt down, would you?

:lmao

[RD2191]

:wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

I'm laughing the whole time while you make a bigger and bigger fool of yourself.

You can't fault me for that.

You wouldn't want to deny me my laughter at your defcon 1 melt down, would you?

:lmaoYEh, you got mad.

So you post about me all the time.

You aren't alone.

[xmas1997]

YEh, you got mad.

So you post about me all the time.

You aren't alone.

OOh, is the widdie chumpie all maddie and accusing me of the same?

Yet you know I am laughing AT you the whole time while you make a fool of yourself.

C'mon, tell some more preposterous lies, you might get lucky and we'll believe one of them.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

OOh, is the widdie chumpie all maddie and accusing me of the same?

Yet you know I am laughing AT you the whole time while you make a fool of yourself.

C'mon, tell some more preposterous lies, you might get lucky and we'll believe one of them.

:lmaoOf course your're mad. You turned on me the moment I said your speaking for Avante was arrogant.

I'm curious, why did that set you off more than anything I had said before?

You began your crusade right after that.

[xmas1997]

Of course your're mad. You turned on me the moment I said your speaking for Avante was arrogant.

I'm curious, why did that set you off more than anything I had said before?

You began your crusade right after that.

You would like to believe that was when it first started and when it actually did, when I told you it did.

It is easier on your conscience living in that rose colored glasses fantasy world of yours instead of facing reality and owning up to the FACT that you are wrong and that you do nothing but lie.

Yes, that is so much easier for you.

Should we humor you?

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

You would like to believe that was when it first started and when it actually did, when I told you it did.

It is easier on your conscience living in that rose colored glasses fantasy world of yours instead of facing reality and owning up to the FACT that you are wrong and that you do nothing but lie.

Yes, that is so much easier for you.

Should we humor you?

:lmaoI provided a link. Anyone can read it.

If you have a different link showing where you turned on me, post it.

[xmas1997]

I provided a link. Anyone can read it.

If you have a different link showing where you turned on me, post it.

Your link didn't prove anything, other than that particular event happened.

It didn't disprove that I gave up on you and was bashing you way before that.

You were just too dense and obtuse to see that I was.

That's not my fault you didn't recognize what was going on, it was yours.

:lmao

[xmas1997]

Whoops! Sorry for the truth bomb dropped on you.
Karma is a bitch.
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Your link didn't prove anything, other than that particular event happened.

It didn't disprove that I gave up on you and was bashing you way before that.

You were just too dense and obtuse to see that I was.

That's not my fault you didn't recognize what was going on, it was yours.

:lmaoSo where's your link?

My link still shows you begging for a truce,

[xmas1997]

So where's your link?

My link still shows you begging for a truce,

I don't need a link to know the truth, unlike you.

That truth bomb hurt, didn't it?

Sorry about that, but you brought it on yourself.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I don't need a link to know the truth, unlike you.

That truth bomb hurt, didn't it?

Sorry about that, but you brought it on yourself.

:lmaoYou have no proof.

My link proves you are mistaken at best and outright lying at worst.

At this point, it's safe to say you are just outright lying. You've gotten quite used to it.

[xmas1997]

You have no proof.

My link proves you are mistaken at best and outright lying at worst.

At this point, it's safe to say you are just outright lying. You've gotten quite used to it.

:lmao

The only thing your link proves is that it happened.

I can't help it if you are so confused you don't remember the progression before all of that;

And I won't help you get out of it either, you don't deserve it, and you get what you put out.

Karma is a bitch sometimes.

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

The only thing your link proves is that it happened.

I can't help it if you are so confused you don't remember the progression before all of that;

And I won't help you get out of it either, you don't deserve it, and you get what you put out.

Karma is a bitch sometimes.

:lolThere are several posts and pages before that.

They prove you are still begging for a truce and hadn't turned on me.

Is it just your ego that makes you refuse your ego made you turn on me?

[xmas1997]

There are several posts and pages before that.

They prove you are still begging for a truce and hadn't turned on me.

Is it just your ego that makes you refuse your ego made you turn on me?

Ah, but you are wrong about that.

I never begged for any truce.

I tried to reason with you.

You need to look up the definitions of both words.

It is further proof that you are still confused and have the timeline all screwed up.

Senility creeping up on you or early onset of alzheimers?

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, but you are wrong about that.

I never begged for any truce.

I tried to reason with you.

You need to look up the definitions of both words.

It is further proof that you are still confused and have the timeline all screwed up.

Senility creeping up on you or early onset of alzheimers?

:lmaoGreat, whatever you want to call it -- you still hadn't turned on me.

Until I told you how arrogant you were being.

Your ego couldn't handle it just like it couldn't handle it every time you subsequently shut down and/or melted down.

[ChumpDumper]

Just provide the link to the post where you say you turned on me.

Or refuse, make excuses and whine about me.

[xmas1997]

Great, whatever -- you still hadn't turned on me.

Until I told you how arrogant you were being.

Your ego couldn't handle it just like it couldn't handle it every time you subsequently shut down and/or melted down.

You have more terms confused.

I never "turned" on you per se, I got fed up with your bullshit and told you so, and this was way before the arrogance bullshit.

If you were really honest, you would admit it, but just because you don't and wish it weren't, that still does not change the facts that it was.

The truth is still the truth no matter how many lies you weave to try to disguise or confuse the issue.

You tell so many lies that it is no wonder they are coming back to haunt you and trip you up.

Get used to it, that is the life of a liar.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I got fed up with your bullshit and told you so, and this was way before the arrogance bullshit.Post a link to it.

Prove it.

[xmas1997]

Post a link to it.

Prove it.

I have your "link" hanging.

And I don't need one to know the truth.

It wouldn't matter anyway because you would either lie some more about it, or not pay attention to it like you did with the Christian dogma post I made to educate you with.

So I no longer cater to you wants.

I do as I please when it comes to you, you have proven over and over you don't deserve any respect whatsoever.

Instead, I just keep laughing AT you as you weave your lies and try to convince others.

Your credibility is only good with your fellow trolls.

So I continue to laugh AT you.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I have your "link" hanging.

And I don't need one to know the truth.

It wouldn't matter anyway because you would either lie some more about it, or not pay attention to it like you did with the Christian dogma post I made to educate you with.

So I no longer cater to you wants.

I do as I please when it comes to you, you have proven over and over you don't deserve any respect whatsoever.

Instead, I just keep laughing AT you as you weave your lies and try to convince others.

Your credibility is only good with your fellow trolls.

So I continue to laugh AT you.

:lmaoRefusal, shut down, excuses, ad hominem. Like always.

You're as scared as you were of the two simple questions earlier.

You can't laugh at me; you're too afraid.

[xmas1997]

Refusal, shut down, excuses, ad hominem. Like always.

You're as scared as you were of the two simple questions earlier.

You can't laugh at me; you're too afraid.

It is what it is.

Too bad for you.

You don't remember the timeline because you were too busy melting down from SBM and SA210 killing you with photoshopping your picture in your photoshop thread to listen to any reason from me.

Which is another reason you confuse begging with reasoning, you mistook reasoning for begging because you were already so pissed off by them.

I gave up on you and cussed you out at the time for being so blockheaded.

You remember, but you'll lie to get out of admitting the truth.

I don't mind, and truth be known, I don't really care anymore like I did back then.

Now I laugh AT you and at your pathetic lie weaving, you are so predictable.

:lmao

[SupremeGuy]

Bro, I am not qualified to answer that question nor do I care to. If one day I feel I need to study the theory of evolution/biology then I will.Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[spurraider21]

Bro, I am not qualified to answer that question nor do I care to. If one day I feel I need to study the theory of evolution/biology then I will.
until that point it doesn't make sense to try to criticize it. it would be the equivalent of somebody who has never read the bible to be criticizing christian beliefs by misrepresenting the tales. like "lol noah built a space ship"

[ChumpDumper]

It is what it is.

Too bad for you.

You don't remember the timeline because you were too busy melting down from SBM and SA210 killing you with photoshopping your picture in your photoshop thread to listen to any reason from me.

Which is another reason you confuse begging with reasoning, you mistook reasoning for begging because you were already so pissed off by them.

I gave up on you and cussed you out at the time for being so blockheaded.

You remember, but you'll lie to get out of admitting the truth.

I don't mind, and truth be known, I don't really care anymore like I did back then.

Now I laugh AT you and at your pathetic lie weaving, you are so predictable.

:lmaolol no link.

Proves you are lying.

[xmas1997]

Because some on here are totally confused about a certain point on here concerning "dogma", I won't mention any names but his initial starts with a "c", I am posting a difference between "dogma" and what he thinks is dogma but is actually "doctrine" especially his faux pas (intellectual blunder) concerning Rob's statement that "c" attributes mistakenly to a J. W. "dogma", here it is:

DOGMA/DOCTRINE


Although in many contexts “dogma” and “doctrine” are used interchangeably, in technical theological contexts “dogma” has a narrower meaning: a doctrine which has been given official status by a religious body. Especially in the Catholic Church dogmas are required beliefs whereas many other less firmly established beliefs are only doctrines.


Nonspecialists writing about religion often ignore the distinction, and call a doctrine which has not received such official status a “dogma.” Since only some doctrines are dogmas but all dogmas are doctrines and since “dogma” often has negative connotations, it’s safer in non-technical religious contexts to stick with “doctrine.”

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/dogma.html

The rest of his questions, links, and what-have-you, are trivial nonsense which he wants to spin into truths, yet FAILS to bring weight to and are no less than lies at best.

This is the gospel truth of the matter and the last it should be brought up because the truth is all there in the threads to back me up, and is a waste of time to go and find it!

If you choose not to believe me even though it is there, then fine, no skin off my back, but I won't stoop to his petty childish immature games because that is all they are.

I will laugh a lot at his foolishness and his defcon 1 melt down however.

:lmao:rollin:lol < Here are the emoticons to exemplify it.

[Blake]

Wrong thread

Get over it, imo

[Blake]

The outline of the story is now, sadly, a familiar one. Instructor wants to discuss intelligent design (ID). Intolerant atheists throw a fit. College quickly capitulates to the demands of the atheists. Instructor is censored.
The scenario played out again this past semester in Amarillo, Texas. I'll give the identities of the parties involved in just a moment, but for now, let's note some twists unique to the situation. According to internal communications, campus administrators feared that disgruntled atheists would stage a "disruption" if the ID class went forward. The atheist leader got so "intense" in arguing for Darwinian evolution over intelligent design that college staff called the police on him, apparently potentially concerned over their own safety. And get this: the intolerant atheists call themselves the "Freethought Oasis." You can't make this stuff up.

This really disgusts and sickens you?

[ChumpDumper]

Because some on here are totally confused about a certain point on here concerning "dogma", I won't mention any names but his initial starts with a "c", I am posting a difference between "dogma" and what he thinks is dogma but is actually "doctrine" especially his faux pas (intellectual blunder) concerning Rob's statement that "c" attributes mistakenly to a J. W. "dogma", here it is:

DOGMA/DOCTRINE


Although in many contexts “dogma” and “doctrine” are used interchangeably, in technical theological contexts “dogma” has a narrower meaning: a doctrine which has been given official status by a religious body. Especially in the Catholic Church dogmas are required beliefs whereas many other less firmly established beliefs are only doctrines.


Nonspecialists writing about religion often ignore the distinction, and call a doctrine which has not received such official status a “dogma.” Since only some doctrines are dogmas but all dogmas are doctrines and since “dogma” often has negative connotations, it’s safer in non-technical religious contexts to stick with “doctrine.”

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/dogma.html

The rest of his questions, links, and what-have-you, are trivial nonsense which he wants to spin into truths, yet FAILS to bring weight to and are no less than lies at best.

This is the gospel truth of the matter and the last it should be brought up because the truth is all there in the threads to back me up, and is a waste of time to go and find it!

If you choose not to believe me even though it is there, then fine, no skin off my back, but I won't stoop to his petty childish immature games because that is all they are.

I will laugh a lot at his foolishness and his defcon 1 melt down however.

:lmao:rollin:lol < Here are the emoticons to exemplify it.dog·ma noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
plural dog·mas also dog·ma·ta

lol

[xmas1997]

dog·ma noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
plural dog·mas also dog·ma·ta

lol

The mistake you continue to make is that the other than the "commonly shared Christian dogmas that I posted expressly for your elucidation, the JWs have no other dogmas.

What they however have are doctrines!

And "within" those doctrines, are the commonly shared Christian dogmas that I listed for you!

Do you "get it" now?

Do you understand the difference?

I doubt you do.

It may be just too hard for you to comprehend.

It takes intelligence, something you clearly lack in spades.

:lmao

[xmas1997]

First off chump's dictionary definition applies to all religions, not just Christianity.
That needs to be cleared up in light of his misrepresentation and faux pas.

But it is still a good starting place.

There are many "denominations" within the umbrella term of Christianity, the largest of which are: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Protestantism.
Within Protestantism are: Lutherans, Protestants, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Baptists, etc.
Within Baptists are: Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Evangelical Christian Chrs. and others.
And there are what I call the "fringe" Christian denominations such as: Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, and Holy Rollers, and nondenominational, etc.

All of these denominations have their own particular sets of dogma and/or more likely "doctrines containing dogma", and for the most part do not agree with each other except on a few select sets of "commonly shared dogma".

Commonly shared Christian dogma
1. belief in God the Father, the Son of God Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
2. God is eternal, always existed, holy, sinless, and does not lie.
3. the Incarnation - the Son of God became flesh.
4. Baptism - forgiveness of original sin.
5. the Resurrection - the Son of God died for the sins of mankind and came back to life so that we might receive eternal life with the Father.
6. the Ascension - the resurrected Jesus Christ was taken up to heaven in His resurrected body.
7. the Transfiguration -where Jesus Christ is "shown physically" to be the Son of God.

Everything else, including the Bible is hotly contested and thus does not fall under the Common Christian dogma umbrella.
You later quoted something about one of the Ten Commandments, but even those are not all agreed on by all the denominations because Biblical interpretaions vary so widely from sect to sect within Christianity..

For example: Protestants believe as dogma "sola scriptura" - that the Bible is necessary for their salvation and holiness. Whereas the Anglicans and Methodists believe as dogma "prima scriptura" - where the Bible is "illumined" by tradition, reason, and experience.
Some sects believe in total strict literalism such as many of the Baptists and some of the "fringe" sects mentioned above like the Jehovah Witnesses and Pentecostals, etc., while the Mormons, SDAs, etc. while accepting as dogma the seven mentioned above, also have another "book" they believe as dogma along with the bible.

So when you consider all this and attempt to get a "Christian worldview" you must consider more than just one denominations dogmas, because it is inclusive in that it is the framework of ideas, dogmas, creeds, and beliefs that Christians interpret and interact with the world.

Whereas the "Biblical worldview" is much the same with one major difference, it views life through the "lens" of God's Word, the Bible, and that it is inspired, inerrant, and infallible.
Not all the denominations subscribe to this Biblical worldview in the same way or degree.

So Christian dogma is widely varied, hotly contested, interpreted in many different ways, and very little is commonly agreed upon, yet the seven that are agreed on are considered true principals that do not change.

[it's me]

I agree, false religion is terrible and disgusting.

xmas is catholic... so would you agree he practices a false religion?

[xmas1997]

xmas is catholic... so would you agree he practices a false religion?

Not quite specific enough for me.

More appropriately I am a "cafeteria" Catholic, and still a Christian.

[it's me]

disgusting and sickening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Faith is dangerous....Inquisition, Holocaust, Peoples temple Jonestown massacre, Catholic sect of the ten commandments in Uganda, The branch at Waco TX, Heaven’s Gate, 9-11, etc etc. Fortunately, religion is tending to decline as humans get access to information and education worldwide.

[it's me]

Not quite specific enough for me.

More appropriately I am a "cafeteria" Catholic, and still a Christian.

Sorry.... I was asking rob, let the guy answer by himself.

[xmas1997]

Sorry.... I was asking rob, let the guy answer by himself.

But you were asking him a question about me, so naturally I would reply to clear up any misconceptions you, or him, or anyone else might have.

[xmas1997]

Just because the subject of evolution was involved does not mean that it is what the thread is about, nor is the article that I posted about evolution. It is about freedom of speech and the right to study/discuss/believe what a person chooses. If you want to keep being ignorant then go right ahead.

Rob, I feel honor bound to apologize to you for my part in derailing the topic of your thread.

Freedom of speech and the right to study/discuss/believe what a person chooses is being challenged in court thankfully, and should be.

I would not be surprised to see this reach all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before all is said in done.

[RD2191]

Rob, I feel honor bound to apologize to you for my part in derailing the topic of your thread.

Freedom of speech and the right to study/discuss/believe what a person chooses is being challenged in court thankfully, and should be.

I would not be surprised to see this reach all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before all is said in done.
No hard feelings. I don't know why posters decided to make this thread about me and my beliefs when it simply has to do with freedom of speech/academic freedom.

And I completely agree. I just think it is very dangerous for one person to tell another what they can and can't discuss. Especially when they claim science has no bias and is only looking for the truth. From my understanding ID has nothing to with God.

[RD2191]

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
How so? Why would I study something I do not believe in and a subject that I do not care about? Do you usually read things that you have no interest in?

[spurraider21]

How so? Why would I study something I do not believe in and a subject that I do not care about? Do you usually read things that you have no interest in?
you don't even know what it is, so there's no logical way to form an opinion about it. thats like saying i dont believe the revolutionary war happened, so why would i read a history book about it?

[xmas1997]

How so? Why would I study something I do not believe in and a subject that I do not care about? Do you usually read things that you have no interest in?

I don't know about him, I don't usually do that, but sometimes I have to read things I have no interest in in order to gain a clearer understanding of it.

Mind you, I don't particularly like doing that unless I feel it is necessary to make a point, or explain one, but mostly in order to better understand something.

[RD2191]

you don't even know what it is, so there's no logical way to form an opinion about it. thats like saying i dont believe the revolutionary war happened, so why would i read a history book about it?
You have said that many times almost as if you are a parrot. I have a basic understanding of what evolution is. What is your definition of evolution? In your own words.

[RD2191]

I don't know about him, I don't usually do that, but sometimes I have to read things I have no interest in in order to gain a clearer understanding of it.

Mind you, I don't particularly like doing that unless I feel it is necessary to make a point, or explain one, but mostly in order to better understand something.
I completely understand. But I really don't feel the need to make a point. If I wanted to I could go back to school and study Biology. But as I said before, I have no interest in it.

[Shastafarian]

You have said that many times almost as if you are a parrot. I have a basic understanding of what evolution is. What is your definition of evolution? In your own words.
What's your definition of it, in your own words? You know, since you have a basic understanding of it.

[RD2191]

What's your definition of it, in your own words? You know, since you have a basic understanding of it.
I guess I'll go with random mutations.

[Shastafarian]

Random how?

[it's me]

But you were asking him a question about me, so naturally I would reply to clear up any misconceptions you, or him, or anyone else might have.

Again.... I was asking him... on top of that, you haven't answered stuff I've asked you in other threads.

[RD2191]

Random how?
What do you mean how? I just said random seeing as evolution claims to have no purpose. If the mutation is beneficial it will eventually lead to a new species.

[it's me]

Faith is dangerous....Inquisition, Holocaust, Peoples temple Jonestown massacre, Catholic sect of the ten commandments in Uganda, The branch at Waco TX, Heaven’s Gate, 9-11, etc etc. Fortunately, religion is tending to decline as humans get access to information and education worldwide.

:wakeup

[Shastafarian]

What do you mean how? I just said random seeing as evolution claims to have no purpose. If the mutation is beneficial it will eventually lead to a new species.

:rollin thanks for proving you don't understand evolution.

[xmas1997]

I completely understand. But I really don't feel the need to make a point. If I wanted to I could go back to school and study Biology. But as I said before, I have no interest in it.

IMHO this is perfectly logical and rational.

My only point was that there needs to be a good motivation to go further than what is comfortable to do, or what we would normally do, otherwise.

[RD2191]

:rollin thanks for proving you don't understand evolution.
Okay, scientist. Explain evolution in your own words.

[RD2191]

"Many people in this country were shocked when the U.S. Navy recently announced the removal of all Bibles from military hotels under their control. This was in response to pressure from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a well-known atheist group."

[RD2191]

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/20/ben-carson-atheist-absurdities

[RD2191]

Disgusting.

[RD2191]

"The surprise is not the hypocritical stance of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, but rather the fact that an established bulwark of American strength and patriotism caved to a self-serving group of religious fanatics. The previous sentence may seem out of place if you don’t realize that atheism is actually a religion.
Like traditional religions, atheism requires strong conviction. In the case of atheists, it’s the belief that there is no God and that all things can be proved by science. It is extremely hypocritical of the foundation to request the removal of Bibles from hotel rooms on the basis of their contention that the presence of Bibles indicates that the government is choosing one religion over another. If they really thought about it, they would realize that removal of religious materials imposes their religion on everyone else."

[ChumpDumper]

"Many people in this country were shocked when the U.S. Navy recently announced the removal of all Bibles from military hotels under their control. This was in response to pressure from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a well-known atheist group."
Good. People can get their own bibles.

[Shastafarian]

Okay, scientist. Explain evolution in your own words.

Meh that doesn't interest me. I'm sure you can google it if you try.

teehee

[RD2191]

Meh that doesn't interest me. I'm sure you can google it if you try.

teehee
Okay, thanks for letting me know you don't understand evolution. :rollin

[Shastafarian]

Okay, thanks for letting me know you don't understand evolution. :rollin

I guess I wasn't clear. Teaching you doesn't interest me.

[RD2191]

I guess I wasn't clear. Teaching you doesn't interest me.
Lol, keep playing games. The fact that you do not understand evolution stands.

[Shastafarian]

Lol, keep playing games. The fact that you do not understand evolution stands.

It's actually your assumption. The fact is I do and simply don't feel like teaching you about it. Google it when you're interested.

[RD2191]

It's actually your assumption. The fact is I do and simply don't feel like teaching you about it. Google it when you're interested.
No, fact is you're being called out on your bullshit and can't even explain what you were accusing me of not knowing. :lol

[pgardn]

I guess I'll go with random mutations.

What?

Evolution is simply the change in populations of organisms over time.

The mechanism, natural selection along with some other more subtle ideas that basically involve the exchange of, and change, in DNA. This is basically it. So where did the random part come in?

[leemajors]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/new-ant-species-evolved-within-the-nest-of-its-relatives/

[RD2191]

What?

Evolution is simply the change in populations of organisms over time.

The mechanism, natural selection along with some other more subtle ideas that basically involve the exchange of, and change, in DNA. This is basically it. So where did the random part come in?
The random part is everywhere. According to science. Although I've never been given or read a clear definition of what evolution is.

[Shastafarian]

What?

Evolution is simply the change in populations of organisms over time.

The mechanism, natural selection along with some other more subtle ideas that basically involve the exchange of, and change, in DNA. This is basically it. So where did the random part come in?

He doesn't know what evolution is

[RD2191]

He doesn't know what evolution is
And you can't put it in your own words. :lol

[RD2191]

Google evolution and you will find "random mutations" everywhere.

[Shastafarian]

And you can't put it in your own words. :lolI can. Like I said teaching you doesn't interest me. And according to you, this subject doesn't interest you either. Yet here you are.

[RD2191]

I can. Like I said teaching you doesn't interest me. And according to you, this subject doesn't interest you either. Yet here you are.
Here I am because I'm watching you squirm like a hypocritical little bitch. You keep saying I don't understand evolution yet you wont give me your definition of it. LOL. FAGGOT.

[pgardn]

Google evolution and you will find "random mutations" everywhere.

Its a part of what I wrote, but so is sex.

[RD2191]

Its a part of what I wrote, but so is sex.
I understand. Thanks for giving me your own explanation. It was very clear and coheres.

[pgardn]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/new-ant-species-evolved-within-the-nest-of-its-relatives/

There are so many cool studies like this.
Reproductive barriers are very important in speciation so this kind of study really helps us understand.
And often leads to more questions.
:tu

[Shastafarian]

Here I am because I'm watching you squirm like a hypocritical little bitch.I'm not squirming

You keep saying I don't understand evolutionYou don't

yet you wont give me your definition of it.Why should I?

LOL. FAGGOT.you're super cool

[spurraider21]

You have said that many times almost as if you are a parrot. I have a basic understanding of what evolution is. What is your definition of evolution? In your own words.
i repeat it because it's accurate. its stupid to try to discredit something you dont even understand... because you don't understand it.

imagine somebody bashing christianity and claiming how flawed it is if he didn't know what it was about and had never opened a bible

[xmas1997]

i repeat it because it's accurate. its stupid to try to discredit something you dont even understand... because you don't understand it.

imagine somebody bashing christianity and claiming how flawed it is if he didn't know what it was about and had never opened a bible

Christianity isn't solely about the bible, that would be a very naive Christian worldview, but I see your point, you seem to lean more toward a Biblical worldview when discussing Christians though.

There is much to learn and see concerning the theory of evolution and IMHO all part of God's plan, but it would also be very naive to think that evolution is completely correct and that we won't eventually have more knowledge about it in the future to change the flawed parts. It is more a theory in crisis in light of all the recent advances we have made in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology, etc.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

So too our conception of God, I have no doubts we will have more knowledge about God in the future too and so will adapt accordingly and change our flawed conceptions of Him.

[Agloco]

As stated, the thread has nothing to do with the flawed theory of evolution.

Nothing? Rly dough?

[RD2191]

Nothing? Rly dough?
No, nothing.

[bigzak25]

In God we Trust, boys. That's it and that's all.

[Agloco]

No, nothing.

:lol

[xmas1997]

Good. People can get their own bibles.

I am ready now to re-post your CHRISTIAN DOGMA BLUNDER where you ignorantly said ALL religions had the same dogma due to the dictionary definition of dogma you posted.

Are you ready to be humiliated again?

[ChumpDumper]

I am ready now to re-post your CHRISTIAN DOGMA BLUNDER where you ignorantly said ALL religions had the same dogma due to the dictionary definition of dogma you posted.

Are you ready to be humiliated again?Wow, your contest is so important you are posting this in multiple threads.

[xmas1997]

Wow, your contest is so important you are posting this in multiple threads.

See, you are the ONLY one calling it A CONTEST when I called your blunder a FAUX PAS.
Do you understand the difference between a contest and a blunder?
I don't think you do.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, your contest is so important you are posting this in multiple threads.

[xmas1997]

Now you are afraid to post it.
Because you can't find it.
Because you LIED the whole time.
You are too humiliated.

[ChumpDumper]

Now you are afraid to post it.
Because you can't find it.
Because you LIED the whole time.
You are too humiliated.Are you talking about what was posted in the other thread?

[xmas1997]

Are you talking about what was posted in the other thread?

You know exactly what we are talking about, your Christian dogma blunder, the one where you were humiliated so badly that you refused to even read the proper definition and explanation, and keep trying to turn it into, as well as attribute it to me of, some mythical contest, that apparently only you are concerned of.
I merely point out your huge blunder.
You now are adding that I am bitter for some other mythical reason that only exists in your mind and ego because you cannot accept that you are wrong and compound your wrongness with each post you make trying to hide from the truth.

[ChumpDumper]

blah blah blahWhat specifically were you saying i couldn't find?

[xmas1997]

You know exactly what we are talking about, your Christian dogma blunder, the one where you were humiliated so badly that you refused to even read the proper definition and explanation, and keep trying to turn it into, as well as attribute it to me of, some mythical contest, that apparently only you are concerned of.
I merely point out your huge blunder.
You now are adding that I am bitter for some other mythical reason that only exists in your mind and ego because you cannot accept that you are wrong and compound your wrongness with each post you make trying to hide from the truth.


What specifically were you saying i couldn't find?

In bold above, douche bag.

[ChumpDumper]

In bold above, douche bag.Oh, I'm sure I can both the dictionary definition and your contesting of it.

Is that all?

[xmas1997]

Oh, I'm sure I can both the dictionary definition and your contesting of it.

Is that all?

No you cannot.
I already tried.
Prove it to me and everyone else on here you can!
Otherwise you are LYING.

[ChumpDumper]

No you cannot.
I already tried.
Prove it to me and everyone else on here you can!
Otherwise you are LYING.You already tried what?

Going off your meds?

You just don't seem very lucid today, champ.

[xmas1997]

You already tried what?

Going off your meds?

You just don't seem very lucid today, champ.


OMG, you are so humiliated now, you are making stuff up again.

Do you love being a humiliation for everyone on here to see.

No intelligent person believes that crap.

Where is your proof, where are my quotes?

You have none because you made them up like the BS above to hide how humiliated you are, and your melt down is approaching defcon 1 status again.

[ChumpDumper]

OMG, you are so humiliated now, you are making stuff up again.

Do you love being a humiliation for everyone on here to see.

No intelligent person believes that crap.

Where is your proof, where are my quotes?

You have none because you made them up like the BS above to hide how humiliated you are, and your melt down is approaching defcon 1 status again.It was just a guess.

So you are taking all your meds?

[xmas1997]

It was just a guess.

So you are taking all your meds?

It was more of your LIES, nothing more, nothing less.

To be quite honest you are the one who needs to be on psyche meds.

So where is your proof that I said it was a contest, and that you did not make a huge blunder about dogma?

[ChumpDumper]

It was more of your LIES, nothing more, nothing less.

To be quite honest you are the one who needs to be on psyche meds.

So where is your proof that I said it was a contest, and that you did not make a huge blunder about dogma?Have you been prescribed any meds?

Let's suss this out. I think it's important to know what we're dealing with here.

[xmas1997]

Have you been prescribed any meds?

Let's suss this out. I think it's important to know what we're dealing with here.

Nope, no meds for me, sorry to be the one to pop your bubble about that.

But you sure need some, that is obvious.

For fun I will remind you of your humiliation, lies about meds, bitterness, your contests, and your dogma blunder wherever I see you post down here and up there.
That should be pretty funny.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, no meds for me, sorry to be the one to pop your bubble about that.

But you sure need some, that is obvious.

For fun I will remind you of your humiliation, lies about meds, bitterness, your contests, and your dogma blunder wherever I see you post down here and up there.
That should be pretty funny.Well do it already.

[xmas1997]

Well do it already.

Done and you are looking pretty funny.
:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

DoneGood boy.

Now sit.

[xmas1997]

Good boy.

Now sit.

You can leave now. Your humiliation is thorough.
:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

You can leave now. Your humiliation is thorough.
:lmaoFeel free to try and continue your contest in any thread at any time.

It will make you look insane.

[xmas1997]

Feel free to try and continue your contest in any thread at any time.

It will make you look insane.

Your words are insignificant and have no relevance anymore.

Keep trying though.

I am quite content, and since I have no emotional investment, like you do with your humiliation, then nothing you can say or do, noine of your LIES, and none of your misrepresentations, ridicule, nor insults can affect me.

I am impervious to you.

Since you are a necessary evil on sites like this to keep the vermin population down, then I will treat you as such and not hassle you anymore unless you FIRST hassle me.

So you can calm down and relax now, chump.

Those making their idiotic remarks and accusations that my troll-bashing was some sort of crusade can chill out now.

Chump. you trolls go ahead and do your thing.

:lmao