 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Bait and Switch tactics used by evolutionists |
 |
|
The Theory of Evolution (i.e. common ancestry brought about solely by natural causes) can be tested. The problem for believers in evolution is that whenever The Theory of Evolution IS legitimately scientifically tested, it fails the test.
This is anathema for evolutionists. Their response to this failure was to redefine Evolution in terms allowing it to pass scientific tests under the new definition, and then lead both naive students who are being taught that evolution is fact in Academia and in our public schools, and even most private schools to believe this newly definition of 'Evolution' is actually the same old 'Theory of Evolution' championed by Darwin and His followers. This is a sophistical defense known as "Bait & Siwtch".
These new definitions include"
Evolution: Change Over Time.
Evolution: Changes in allele frequency.
Evolution: Speciation.
Every Creationary scientist will agree that these later 3 definitions actually do occur in nature without any additional divine help other than the genetic information God originally provided for them, in their genetic code, incuding the ability to vary within their created kind of animal or plant in order to adapt to many ecological niches or changing environments. Mendelian Genetics is explains the enormous ability to vary within their created kinds. For instance, the recombination of genes is a source of variation within a created type.
The Bible clearly states that God made all creatures, each within the genetic limits of their kind, And since we christians believe that our God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is intelligent, all christians ought to believe in and support the concept of Intelligent Design.
On the other hand, Atheists must believe in the theory of evolution, they must embrace it as a fact, for if there is no God, Materialistic Evolution has to be a fact.
Anthony Flew, once a famed atheist, has come to his senses, for he sees that in putting The Theory of Evolution to a genuine scientific test, the Theory does not hold up at all, therefore he has concluded atheism to be false and the existence of God to be true. He may not be Christian, but he has gone from atheist to deist purely on scientific grounds.
Praise be to our God, for Paul testified that none has an excuse not to believe in God, for the whole of Creation bears witness to His existence. Anthony Flew has found that to be a true statement.
How anyone could, in this day, look at Creation, and fail to realize it is Intelligently Designed by our Creator, such a person has to be either ignorant, stubbornly opposed to God, or simply deceived from their youth by the brainwashing indoctrination of our educational system and our liberal media, into accepting 'Evolution the Fact', despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dude, your claims are ridiculous. You keep talking about how evolution fails scientific tests, and yet you can't cite a single scientific paper showing this to be true.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bart007 wrote: | | The problem for believers in evolution is that whenever The Theory of Evolution IS legitimately scientifically tested, it fails the test. |
1. Anyone that claims they "believe evolution" is either glossing over facts for the sake of clarity or simply doesn't understand how science works. The theory of evolution is not to be believed, it is to be accepted as the best explanation of modern life available.
2. Define what you mean and what you are referring to by "legitimate scientific test." And do be a dear and give references for these "legitimate scientific tests" that the theory of evolution has failed.
| bart007 wrote: | | Anthony Flew, once a famed atheist, has come to his senses, for he sees that in putting The Theory of Evolution to a genuine scientific test, the Theory does not hold up at all, therefore he has concluded atheism to be false and the existence of God to be true. He may not be Christian, but he has gone from atheist to deist purely on scientific grounds. |
"I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." -Antony Flew (December 29 2004)
Antony Flew, as far as is currently known, is a deist only in that he believes the universe itself must have been started by an external force. That is to say, quoting Antony Flew in support of creationism (at least as far as creationism vs. evolution) is pretty much the most ridiculous thing you could do besides quotemine Darwin.
Bait and switch tactics indeed. You creationists crack me up when you quote people. And then spell their names wrong on top of it all.
| bart007 wrote: | | How anyone could, in this day, look at Creation, and fail to realize it is Intelligently Designed by our Creator, such a person has to be either ignorant, stubbornly opposed to God, or simply deceived from their youth by the brainwashing indoctrination of our educational system and our liberal media, into accepting 'Evolution the Fact', despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. |
How could anyone, in this day, look at the universe and fail to realize it operates entirely naturalistically? Such a person has to be either ignorant, stubbornly opposed to rationality or simply deceived from their youth by the brainwashing indoctrination of their religious systems and their family into accepting 'Creation the Fact' despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
See, I can make sweeping generalizations too! And they're even grammatically correct
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | How could anyone, in this day, look at the universe and fail to realize it operates entirely naturalistically? Such a person has to be either ignorant, stubbornly opposed to rationality or simply deceived from their youth by the brainwashing indoctrination of their religious systems and their family into accepting 'Creation the Fact' despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
|
And your sweeping generalization even has the advantage of being mostly, if not all true!
The most important part of your statement is that there is scientific evidence which disproves Biblical creationism. In fact, there is A LOT of it. To name a few arguments.
1. No large mammalian (let alone human) fossils have EVER been found below the K-T boundary, which directly contradicts what you'd expect to see if Genesis were true.
2. Every single genome ever sequenced looks EXACTLY like what you'd expect from billions of years of random evolution, and not a single one even shows the slightest hint of intelligent design.
3. The fact that two individuals from a population don't have nearly enough gene diversity in order to be able to people the Earth.
4. The comical absurdity of believing in talking snakes.
And then there's an entirely different issue which weighs very heavily on this topic: The people who are trained in science are called scientists. Your typical research scientist spent at least an extra 5 years studying at the highest level in order to gain the knowledge and techniques needed to better understand the world. Why is it that the VAST majority of research scientists in the areas of biology who have seen the arguments and evidence for themselves agree that evolution is fact?
Why is it that the only papers on this subject which survive the peer review process happen to be on the side of evolution, and the only place where creationists can publish their work is the internet, where no peer review is necessary, and third-rate hack journals?
Why is it that when a creationist visits a discussion forum and starts ranting about how evolution is garbage (which usually involves cutting and pasting large numbers of irrelevant quotes in a style which betrays borderline illiteracy), said creationist can't EVER provide a reference to a scientific paper supporting that position?
The worst part about it all is the dishonesty: Creationists masquerade around pretending to be scientists in order to convince people that their views are true. It lacks basic intellectual and moral integrity, and it breaks several commandments in the Bible.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Why is it that the only papers on this subject which survive the peer review process happen to be on the side of evolution, and the only place where creationists can publish their work is the internet, where no peer review is necessary, and third-rate hack journals? |
Papers by creationary scientists do get published in peer review magazines. As long as they do not blantantly include in their paper anything obviously negative concerning evolution.
I use the word obviously, because a close friend of mine, a creationary scientist with a PhD in Biology, has had many papers published in peer reviewed science Journals, but when His findings ran against evolution theory, the powers that be allowed that finding to be published but he was not allowed to highlight his finding as on opposition to evolutionary theory. He said other scientists who read the paper ought to pick that up.
On the other hand, there are all too many peer review articles approved that reference support for evolution theory when the article has nothing really to do with evolution. I know this first hand because evolutionists I have debated have often referenced peer review and published science articles allegedly supporting evolution in the abstract of the article, asked me to read them to see how true evolution is, then when I reviewed those papers, the references to supporting evolution were merely lip service and homage, the article invariably had nothing to do with evolution.
The reason why pro-creation papers do not get published in secular peer review papers is because these science periodicals are controlled by materialists, most of whom are atheist.
A 1996 poll of the National Academy of Scientists revealed that 71.2% of their members are atheists, 21.1% are agnostic, and 7% have a belief in an Intelligent Being.
Case in point is "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Dr Meyer submitted his paper for publication in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Per appropriate and standard policy, Dr. Meyers paper was sent to three separate scientists for Peer Review. Each scientist independantly reviewd Dr. Meyer's science paper and each found it worthy of publication. According to process, Dr Meyer's Paper was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
Meyer's paper summarizes multiple sources from scientists around the world and concludes that conventional theory does not adequately explain the change in cellular systems and body plans during the "Cambrian Explosion," and therefore science should consider the possibility of "intelligent design" (ID).
When Academia and all the other dogmatic adherents of Evolution as Fact, issued a howl of protest, in the most vicous and vile manner, full of verbal attacks and threats, issued by anti-creation dogmatic evolutionists from all over the United States aimed at the Smithsonian for letting a creationary science paper even go through the peer review process, and they particularly aimed their wrath at the Smithsonians' Richard Sternberg.
Richard Sternberg holds two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology. He has published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and Journals
The hatred of the pro-evolution devotees against Professor Sternberg led to their efforts to remove Sternberg from the Museum; to get NIH to fire him; led to Smithsonian officials attempts to investigate Richard Sternberg's personal religious and political beliefs in gross violation of my privacy and his First Amendment rights; his professional reputation, private life, and ethics were repeatedly impugned and publicly smeared with false allegations by government employees working in tandem with a non-governmental political advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE); Professor Sternberg was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. He was also told repeatedly that he should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas. Professor Sternberg was harrsed at work in several different ways.
Professor Sternberg, in his own words stated he was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because he failed in an unstated requirement in his role as editor of a scientific journal: he was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena. Instead, he allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy.
THE U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL investigated the Professor Sternberg's to investigate allegations of prohibited personnel practices and activities prohibited by civil service law, rule, or regulation. Their findings confirmed that Professor Sternberg's civil rights were violated by the Smithsonian staff and leadership, and by the NSCE (National Center for Science Education). They aslo determined that the evolutionists vitriol had a strong religious and political component.
The Smithsonian assured the complainers that they would never publish, or even send to peer review, another Creation science paper again.
It appears to me that it is the evolutionists masquerading around pretending to be scientists in order to convince people that their religious views are true.
In fairness, there are evolutionists I know who are sincere and I do respect, many of whom I have quoted in one post or other. Honesty is refreshing. Anyway-
This answers your question P12 as to why creationary scientists science papers do not get published in academia's Science Journals. Quality has nothing to do with it, religious fervor drives evolutionists in their pernicious behaviour and vitriol. A few evolutionists actually moaned, only if Stephen Gould was still present to lead our crusade against these heathens.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bart007 wrote: |
Papers by creationary scientists do get published in peer review magazines.
|
Do you mean peer-reviewed science journals?
| bart007 wrote: |
As long as they do not blantantly include in their paper anything obviously negative concerning evolution.
|
Actually, creationists CAN NOT get their pathetically unscientific ideas published in ANY respected scientific journal. I challenge you to cite three counterexamples.
As for the rest of your post, and the big conspiracy of evil materialist atheists trying to 'cover up the truth' by censoring the journals, I'll bet you also think that all of the bad press Yogic Flying got was masterminded by the stepladder and elevator lobby in Washington.
Creationists can't get their ideas published in scientific journals because their ideas aren't scientific. Period. Full stop. End of story. There's nothing more to it than that.
If you disagree with this, then by all means give just one creationist argument which you think is scientific.
| bart007 wrote: |
A 1996 poll of the National Academy of Scientists revealed that 71.2% of their members are atheists, 21.1% are agnostic, and 7% have a belief in an Intelligent Being. |
That should tell you something about which is more compatible with science, atheism or religion.
| bart007 wrote: |
In fairness, there are evolutionists I know who are sincere and I do respect, many of whom I have quoted in one post or other. Honesty is refreshing.
|
Oh, kind of like Gould, who had nothing but disrespect and loathing for dishonest creationists like you who quote-mined him?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Actually, creationists CAN NOT get their pathetically unscientific ideas published in ANY respected scientific journal. I challenge you to cite three counterexamples. |
That actually has to do with creation/evolution.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | bart007 wrote: |
Papers by creationary scientists do get published in peer review magazines.
|
Do you mean peer-reviewed science journals? |
Yes.
It's amazing how your posts sound so much like those Bible thumping backwood preachers. Were you ever a preacher? I mean a preaching the Bible. We know you preach evolutionism. 
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Actually, creationists CAN NOT get their pathetically unscientific ideas published in ANY respected scientific journal. I challenge you to cite three counterexamples. |
Ok, these are not the ones I referred to above, but these are a few of the creationary scientists who have had their science papers ( in support of Intelligent design) pass the peer review process, and were published in respectable secular Science Journals:
A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Creationists can't get their ideas published in scientific journals because their ideas aren't scientific. Period. Full stop. End of story. There's nothing more to it than that. |
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bart007 wrote: |
It's amazing how your posts sound so much like those Bible thumping backwood preachers. Were you ever a preacher? I mean a preaching the Bible.
|
Actually, no. But to return the favor, your posts sound a lot like they were generated by computer. Are you a markov-chain program?
| bart007 wrote: |
Ok, these are not the ones I referred to above, but these are a few of the creationary scientists who have had their science papers ( in support of Intelligent design) pass the peer review process, and were published in respectable secular Science Journals:
A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
|
Not a journal even remotely related to biology. Sorry, I forgot to mention that it had to be a *relevant* scientific journal.
| bart007 wrote: |
John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.
|
This is Sermonti's journal. It used to be respectable, but now is considered to be a joke.
| bart007 wrote: |
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
|
This is not really an ID paper. All it points out is that gene duplication can't be the only mechanism for evolution. Big deal. This paper doesn't look anything like Behe's other garbage. He really cleaned up his act to get this one accepted.
| bart007 wrote: |
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.
|
This is not an ID paper. In the first paragraph it states that new proteins with new functionality can arise via evolution.
| bart007 wrote: |
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
|
All I see in this paper is some arguments that punctuated equilibrium does a better job of explaining the diversity of species than does natural selection. If it is an ID paper, then it has been well-sanitized.
| bart007 wrote: |
D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
|
Again, if this is an ID paper, then it has been well-sanitized.
| bart007 wrote: |
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
|
Not a respected journal; see above.
The only paper above which even comes close to what I want to see is the Behe paper, and even that one can't be called an ID paper. Attacking gene duplication first of all doesn't refute evolution, and it CERTAINLY doesn't promote ID.
I want to see a paper from a *respected* biology journal which has *obvious* statements in it supporting ID (not just attacking some aspect of evolution).
By the way, are you ever going to address my question about the K-T boundary?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, double post.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
......
Oh, kind of like Gould, who had nothing but disrespect and loathing for dishonest creationists like you who quote-mined him? |
Atoz: Thanx for that quote, P123!
The same Prejudice and Bias AE spoke about!
"This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct [of Love & Respect, on the right side of the brain]
can be
obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices [on the left side of the brain]."
A. Einstein, Autobiographical Notes
Hmmmmmmmmm
Remember who you are like: AE and BS and CS!
Right?
No Prejudice of Hatred and Disrespect....which make you overlook and disregard some facts that don't fit in the a priori mind-set.
So, must have been a poor scientist, or not as good as he could have been, that Mr. Gould, since to loathe and diss others he had to loathe and diss himself and so had to bring that blind mindset to his observations!!
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You are NOT, by any notion, seconding Gould's e-motion?
Right? smile
In Love & Respect for loathers and disrespetors of selves and others as self,
atoz
Last edited by atoz on Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
Must have been a poor scientist, that Mr. Gould, since to loathe and diss others he had to loathe and diss himself and so had to bring that blind mindset to his observations!!
|
Actually, it is perfectly fine to have contempt for people who lack intellectual and moral integrity.
The entire ID movement is fundamentally dishonest. That's *not* ok.
Gould was well within his rights to be angry that creationists constantly misquoted him in order to make it look like he was saying things that were exactly the opposite of what he was actually saying.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | atoz wrote: |
Must have been a poor scientist, that Mr. Gould, since to loathe and diss others he had to loathe and diss himself and so had to bring that blind mindset to his observations!!
|
Actually, it is perfectly fine to have contempt for people who lack intellectual and moral integrity.
The entire ID movement is fundamentally dishonest. That's *not* ok.
Gould was well within his rights to be angry that creationists constantly misquoted him in order to make it look like he was saying things that were exactly the opposite of what he was actually saying. |
Atoz: Wow!
So you DO ALSO hate and disrespect yourself as a fool and as a simpleton and as dishonest and as a person with NO integrity---unless you love those you have contempt for!
Hmmmmmmmmm
So too, are you dishonest and a liar
since you did say you loved yourself as a fool and simpleton implying that you loved you as a fool all the way?
Which is now not true.
See, by hating liars, all you are now saying is that you wd also hate lying fools or lying simpletons!
See?
You DON'T love fools nor yourself as a fool all the way!
Fortunately, let me hasten to add, I DO love and respect myself as a liar and so do love and respect you as a liar too!
Why?
To encouage you, if you are a liar, to stop lying about your lying!
See?
Those who hate liars MUST tell another lie about their lying!
Only those who love themselves as liars and know that others also do love and respect liars will RISK admitting the truth about their lies!
sigh
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Please re-read that!
So I can NOT take up your suggestion that I follow your example and Gould's that it is just fine if I hate and diss liars or the dishonest,
OR ELSE,
I wd be hating ME and wd have to hate ME,
and I wd be teaching YOU to hate ME when you THINK I am dishonest or a liar!
Very self-defeating as a scientist, wd you not say?
Gould was well within his rights to be wrong!
sigh
So, P123, Again:
Do you lvoe yourself as a fool and simpleton?
Do you lvoe yourself as dishonest and as a liar?
Only if you love you as all those words,
can you love you all the way as a fool, and disassociate yourself from G and associate yourself with AE and BS and CS!
Ok?
Hope that helps.
Please ask questions or make assertions.
In the Love in which we can be angry in Love at liars and etc when we first love ourselves as liars and fools and the dishonest and etc and good scientists and bad scientists,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
So too, are you dishonest and a liar
since you did say you loved yourself as a fool and simpleton implying that you loved you as a fool all the way? |
No, I am not dishonest, and I am not a liar. I'm doing my best to teach the creationists on this board what science is *actually* all about. I'm also not doing it for my sake; I'm doing it for yours!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | atoz wrote: |
So too, are you dishonest and a liar
since you did say you loved yourself as a fool and simpleton implying that you loved you as a fool all the way? |
No, I am not dishonest, and I am not a liar. I'm doing my best to teach the creationists on this board what science is *actually* all about. I'm also not doing it for my sake; I'm doing it for yours! |
Sorry, P123,
but you just told another lie---about your lying!
Bad bwoy!smile
Do you love or hate lying fools and foolish liars?
And what do you call people who try to help others for thier sakes when they can't because they won't help themselves for their own sakes?
Are you one of those?
And,
do you love yourself as one?
Do you see any connection between
fools who lie
and
liars who fool?
In Love of myself as a hypocrite and as a liar so i can love any others as myself, and so I can be a fool in Love and tell jokes[lies!] in Love and admit my lies,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
