Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,972
63%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Dimensio

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Rare fossil find on roadside (Extraordinarily preserved pterosaur)

    11/10/2006 8:40:30 AM PST · 94 of 492
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    In order for you to prove the theory of evolution and to have it universally accepted by all people as true fact, you must first completely destroy the Holy Bible and all it teaches us.

    There can be no Creator. No God. No miracles.


    The frequency of this level of irrationality and dishonesty is exactly why I do not post here anymore. The theory of evolution makes no such implications, and only someone fundamentally ignorant of the theory or someone who is dishonestly promoting another agenda would claim that it does.

    There is no further purpose in posting on these discussions. When so many engage in repeated acts of shameless, fundamental dishonesty in lying about what the theory of evolution states or implies and falsely claiming that all who accept the theory of evolution are atheists, Marxists, fascists, racists and/or socialists, it is obvious that their motives are not about honest debate. It is clear to me that the false claims -- clams that the theory of evolution has direct political, social or racial implications; claims, debunked every time that they are made, purporting to show physical evidence "disproves" evolution; claims that evolution addresses the formation of the cosmos, planets, stars, solar systems, the first life forms, political parties, ice crystals, sitcoms, etc; claims that the theory of evolution is supported by frauds and fakes without any evidence, or with bogus "evidence", of any acts of fraud; claims that extensive references to evidence for the theory are inadequate or 'bogus' without any actual explanation or justification of the claims of inadaquecy; claims that those who accept evolution are liberals, communists, socialists, etc -- from most of the vocal creationists are not the result of ignorance, they are the result of those creationists willfully repeating the same lies over and over again, without shame and without concern for how many times their falsehoods have been exposed.

    The theory of evolution neither states no implies that there is no God nor that there can be no God. If someone claims othewise either they are fundamentally ignorant of the theory or they are lying. This applies whether they accept that the theory is sound or reject it. There are no exceptions.
  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/30/2006 8:35:43 AM PST · 141 of 349
    Dimensio to cornelis
    That's plain English. But not the whole story. The "facts" are never enough.

    What more, exactly, do you propose is involved?
  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/30/2006 8:24:57 AM PST · 139 of 349
    Dimensio to cornelis

    Am I to take it, then, that you agree with my statement that the theory of evolution has no political bias?

  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/30/2006 8:23:18 AM PST · 138 of 349
    Dimensio to betty boop
    Do you mind if we turn this question around, so that I might ask you: What part of evolution theory have you directly observed?

    Remnants in the fossil record, DNA relics across species previously concluded to be closely related, imperfect replication of organisms in biological populations and reproductive success relative to environmental conditions as a result of heriditable traits leading to increased expression of those traits in future populations have all been observed.
  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/30/2006 7:53:17 AM PST · 133 of 349
    Dimensio to betty boop
    f Bohr is right -- epistemologically speaking -- then it needs to be recognized (IMHO) that even such a widely-accepted theory as Darwinist evolution is to some degree compromised as science, because it rests so much on things that no one has ever directly observed.

    To what as yet unobserved events do you refer?
  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/30/2006 6:16:59 AM PST · 127 of 349
    Dimensio to cornelis

    You have yet to provide any evidence to show that my statement that the theory of evolution has no inherent bias is incorrect. Comparing me to Wolf Blitzer is not a substitute for providing actual evidence.

  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/30/2006 6:00:25 AM PST · 125 of 349
    Dimensio to cornelis

    I do not believe it an unreasonable conclusion that you were presenting what you believe to be my position as a means of mocking it, as evidenced by your comparison to Wolf Blitzer.

  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/30/2006 5:57:35 AM PST · 124 of 349
    Dimensio to apologist
    The inherent bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed.

    This is a limitation of the scope of science, not a "bias" specifically of the theory of evolution.

    Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors.

    Do you have evidence that it does not?

    ALL behaviors are the product of, and allegedly explainable by, physical processes, there is no such thing as true free will. We are all, as Pearcey states in her book Total Truth, machines made out of meat.

    Please justify this claim with evidence.

    And Pearcey illustrates the logical conclusion of such thinking, by evolutionists, with the examples brought out in the article at the beginning of this thread (e.g., Pinker).

    How does this demonstrate a "bias" with the theory of evolution? For what, exactly, are you arguing?
  • Ancient Fish Fossil May Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution

    10/29/2006 5:10:31 PM PST · 28 of 32
    Dimensio to Creationist
    No EVIDENCE

    You are incorrect.

    You are free to dispute the validity of the evidence presented for the theory of evolution, but claiming that no evidence exists at all demonstrates only that you have not actually researched the subject at all.
  • Ancient Fish Fossil May Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution

    10/29/2006 2:07:04 PM PST · 26 of 32
    Dimensio to Creationist
    There is no I mean no testable method of evolution only fantasy.

    Your ignorance of the existence of research supporting the theory of evolution does not negate the existence of research supporting the theory of evolution.

    You never have anything to say but circular reasoning.

    Please reference a specific argument that I have made wherein I assume the conclusion that I am attempting to demonstrate.

    You never prove anything only claim that I am wrong without evidence.

    You have claimed that nothing can be known from "dead bones". You are wrong.

    . You claim I do not understand yet every time I prove you wrong.

    You have proven nothing. Thus far you have asserted that evolution is false, but you have provided no explanation to demonstrate that you understand what the theory of evolution is, nor have you show that you have any understanding of the evidence used to support the theory of evolution. You have made references to "dead bones" and responded to questions with complete non-sequiturs. Your statements have "proven" nothing thus far.

    You bash me to make your self feel better

    I am not "bashing" you. Stating that your claims are incorrect is not an attempt to insult you.

    But you have not that is right not given me evidence that dead fossil bones gave birth to anything.

    You are again misrepresenting evidence. "Dead fossil bones" do not reproduce, and no one has claimed that they do. That you make such a demonstratably false claim further reinforces my belief that you have not actually studied any information relevant to this topic.
  • Ancient Fish Fossil May Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution

    10/29/2006 11:59:38 AM PST · 24 of 32
    Dimensio to Creationist
    Please show me evidence contrary to what I said.

    Your use of the word "proof" suggests that you do not understand how science operates. Nothing in science is "proven". Rather, reasonable conclusions are drown from evidence. In the case of the fossil record, educated inferences are drawn from the appearance and layout of the fossil record. Merely saying "dead bones" does not demonstrate that you have actually analyzed the evidence. You cannot dispute evidence if you have not actually studied it.

    Please show me my ignorance of the theory of evolution by my demonstration of evidence. You will not.

    You claim that "dead bones" are the total evidence presented for the theory of evolution. That is not true. You are simply wrong.

    In a court of law I would win you would lose.

    You have not demonstrated this to be the case. Asserting that you are correct does not demonstrate that you are correct.

    Your evidence is based upon what if, could have, might be, all circumstantial at best.

    Given that you have not demonstrated that you even understand the evidence, I see little reason to trust your claims as accurate.

    You do not have a leg to stand on, but Hey faith in your religion of evolution will evolve a leg someday.

    The theory of evolution is not a religion. Claiming that it is a religion demonstrates either that you are wholly ignorant of the theory and as such are not qualified to discuss it, or that you are lying and as such are not qualified to discuss it.
  • A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

    10/29/2006 10:43:19 AM PST · 104 of 349
    Dimensio to cornelis
    But the real problem is an advantage: Dimensio says, "The theory of evolution has no inherent political bias." In his view, the fact is evolution. Since evolution is science, voila! ergo-propter-hoc, evolution is without bias or prejudice.

    If you believe that the theory of evolution actually has inherent bias, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate as much. If you believe that my statements are false, then explain how they are false. Claiming that I am either arrogant or dishonest while providing no evidence for the claims does not support your position.
  • Ancient Fish Fossil May Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution

    10/29/2006 10:40:37 AM PST · 22 of 32
    Dimensio to Creationist
    Dead Bones = dead bones, nothing else no proof that any thing else other then another one of the same kind came from it.

    This is both a complete misrepresentation of fossil evidence for evolution and completely irrelevant to my questions. You do not demonstrated that the theory of evolution is folse by demonstrating that you are wholly ignorant of the evidence that is said to support it.

    I was not responding to the fact that evolution does not exist in the real world

    Your claim is demonstratably false.

    and I know those who worship naturalist ways will never admit that God exists.

    You are now willfully lying about those who accept the theory of evolution. This does not, in any way, support your claims.

    But it is another grasp at a fictional process using evidence that proves nothing.

    Given that you have made no demonstration that you actually understand the information in the article, or that you have even read the article, your claim is difficult to accept as reliable.
  • Is God dead? Atheism finds a market in U.S

    10/28/2006 10:01:54 AM PDT · 483 of 500
    Dimensio to hripka

    You are asserting that because you believe the formation of the universe is unlikely without intelligent intervention, that intelligent intervention must have been involved. This is known as "appeal to ignorance". You are asserting that your lack of an alternative explanation is evidence for the explanation that you are putting forward. This is not a logical method of reasoning. You must provide positive evidence to support your claim in order for your claims to be credible.

  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/27/2006 10:30:39 AM PDT · 1,049 of 1,665
    Dimensio to jwalsh07
    Oh and one other thing, I am Catholic and to be Catholic one must, of necessity, be a creationist.

    Curious. Why, then, do you believe that Ken Miller claims to be Catholic?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/27/2006 5:48:41 AM PDT · 992 of 1,665
    Dimensio to fatima
    Well Dimensio it does because you think you are important.

    Considerations of "importance" are relative. I have never assumed myself particularly "important" with respect to your website. It would appear that your presumption is inaccurate.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 11:16:25 PM PDT · 921 of 1,665
    Dimensio to fatima
    You assume too much importance.

    Your unjustified presumption of my perception of importance has no relevance to my statment.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 11:10:02 PM PDT · 913 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    Just shooting fish in a barrel I guess.

    I do not believe that this statement is a valid analogy for the current discussion.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 11:09:02 PM PDT · 912 of 1,665
    Dimensio to onyx
    You claimed that I had requested others to "prove" that the Ten Commandments were authored by God. You were clearly incorrect, as I had merely inquired as to how they had arrived at that particular conclusion. You have also not explained how such a request is an application of science, nor have you established that such a request is an insult or attack.

    It's obvious for everyone to see that you enjoy taunting posters.

    Given that you have made a demonstratably false claim about my behaviour, it would not be wise to accept your assertion without further evidence.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 10:44:19 PM PDT · 879 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    Sheesh, the innocent one again.

    I have asserted no inncoence. I am merely requesting clarification of your claim.

    Apparently, you've never been on a "crevo" thread.

    You are mistaken. I have witnessed many such discussions, and I have participated in many of them as well.

    Not worth the effort.

    If it is "not worth the effort" to support your claim with evidence, why then did you make the claim?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 10:40:55 PM PDT · 877 of 1,665
    Dimensio to onyx
    FGS! Go read some of your own posts. You play head games with religious posters --- asking them to PROVE the Ten Commandments are God's words.

    Even if your assesment of my postings is correct -- and you have provided no direct references to support your claim -- how would that be an application of science, and in what way is insulting or "beating up" religious conservatives?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 10:33:25 PM PDT · 866 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    I say the evolutionists on FR (and elsewhere) who are using their science as a weapon to insult and beat up on religious conservatives

    Who here on Free Republic is using science as a "weapon" to "insult and beat up on religious conservatives", and how exactly is this being done?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 10:02:13 PM PDT · 819 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson

    Your response does not answer my question.

  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 10:01:52 PM PDT · 817 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    Have no idea. I'm sure you're the only innocent person here.

    If you do not know of any insults that I have made, why did you address your previous posting to me?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 9:49:55 PM PDT · 793 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson

    Also, in which posting did I deny a "Creator"?

  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 9:49:36 PM PDT · 792 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson

    Whom have I insulted?

  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 8:02:25 PM PDT · 696 of 1,665
    Dimensio to AndrewC
    Oh you mean like Ann Coulter?

    I would agree that Ann Coulter is a passionate science denier, as is evidenced by the content of her most recent book.
  • Scientists Find Lamprey A 'Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn't Evolved Much

    10/26/2006 7:22:39 PM PDT · 96 of 114
    Dimensio to onedoug
    Like I said: An evolutionary dead end.

    That is not an accurate assesment. An evolutionary "dead end" would be a papulation that is unable to reproduce in sustainable numbers within their environment. As lampreys are still extant, they are clearly not a 'dead end'.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 7:12:29 PM PDT · 683 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    I'm suggesting you should quit working with the leftists and or doing their dirty work for them.

    How, exactly, am I doing this?

    And you should quit insulting those of us who do believe in the Creator.

    I do not believe that I have insulted anyone specifically for that reason. In fact, many who accept the theory of evolution as valid science hold belief in a Creator. Your response appears to be a non-sequitur.

    If you guys want to prove the theory of evolution, more power to you.

    No theory in science has ever been nor will ever be "proven".

    But don't use it as a tool to attempt destroy our faith in God or to destroy our political and religious freedom.

    I do not believe that anyone here has made such an attempt. Do you have a reference to someone on Freerepublic attempting to use the theory of evolution to accomplish such a goal?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 5:55:47 PM PDT · 659 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    And I see it as a shame and disgrace that they have so many willing accomplices on the right aiding and abetting their subversive intentions.

    Are you suggesting that conservatives should reject the theory of evolution solely because it is misused by those on the left, regardless of its validity as science?
  • Scientists Find Lamprey A 'Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn't Evolved Much

    10/26/2006 5:25:49 PM PDT · 87 of 114
    Dimensio to fish hawk

    I am curious. Do you have an argument of substance to offer?

  • Scientists Find Lamprey A 'Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn't Evolved Much

    10/26/2006 3:48:38 PM PDT · 75 of 114
    Dimensio to muir_redwoods
    You failed to explain the logical leap you made from a lamprey, acted on by almost no outside pressure to adapt and evolve, to a human, probably the species subject to the most stresses and outside forces to adapt and evolve.

    If I may speculate, I believe that the failure is a direct result of there being absolutely no logical basis for taxesareforever's claim.
  • Scientists Find Lamprey A 'Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn't Evolved Much

    10/26/2006 2:04:08 PM PDT · 50 of 114
    Dimensio to HeadOn
    Think about it. All of these have been proposed on this one thread: 1) If there are changes, that must mean evolution. 2) If there are no changes, that must mean evolution. 3) If this branch didn't change, others must have, so that must mean evolution.

    You have not accurately portrayed the explanations and responses given on this discussion.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/26/2006 5:53:24 AM PDT · 575 of 1,665
    Dimensio to wyattearp
    I can't speak for Dimensio, or Mom MD for that matter, but I do know that Mom MD just applied the 2nd law of thermodynamics to an open system to support her argument, and that is just plain wrong. It is freshman physics for crying out loud!

    I learned of it as a junior in high school.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:39:45 PM PDT · 450 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Texasforever
    Oh I realize that most evolutionists dodge the initial origins of life question

    How, exactly, is this question "dodged"?

    However; without knowing HOW or WHY life begins and ends then the concept of ID is every bit as valid as ToE.

    This is not a logical conclusion. Knowing the means by which life ultimately originated does not alter the scientific validity -- or lack thereof -- of proposed events that occur within populations of extant life.

    The ToE is just the process of life between it's creation and its demise.

    This is a vague statement. Evolution is a process that affects populations of imperfectly replicating organisms.

    Where is the "God" gene that provides the spark to animate an organism.

    What do you mean by "spark"?

    I regret that I will be unable to address any response that you make until tomorrow morning, as I must retire for the night at this time.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:33:01 PM PDT · 438 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Texasforever
    If the Theory of Evolution is unassailable then, in the hands of a competent educator, there should be no problem putting it up against ID in the classroom

    The concern is not that Intelligent Design would appear to be more valid than the theory of evolution. The concern is that teaching Intelligent Design in the context of a science classroom would give the incorrect impression that Intelligent Design is science, and that it would create a false impression of what science is.

    That may be so BUT, like it or not, a majority of your fellow countrymen believe in some form of intelligent design and they bring those beliefs with them into the classroom.

    The number of individuals who "believe" Intelligent Design has no bearing on its lack of scientific merit. It is also interesting to note that many people who claim to believe in "Intelligent Design" have differing ideas of what "Intelligent Design" actually is.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:29:18 PM PDT · 435 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Mom MD
    For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.

    Could you provide evidence to support this assertion? It does not correspond to references that I have seen. I will attempt to locate these references, but I have found some information here.

    and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution.

    Please provide a reference to support this claim.

    In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology.

    Are you saying that the external energy input from the sun is insufficient for evolution to occur? If so, then please explain this claim by showing the energy required for evolution to occur and demonstrating that energy input from the sun is inadequate. If not, then please explain exactly how evolution "flies in the face" of the second law of thermodynamics.

    Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc

    Explain how evolution requires this. Also, are you suggesting that, if evolution requires such an event, that evidence suggests that this did not occur?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:18:18 PM PDT · 419 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Texasforever
    That is interesting. Would you provide an example of one of those experiments?

    Several experiments are referenced here.

    I realize that proving that the process of evolution is hard to show due to the apparent length of the process.

    The lack of proof is a fact of all scientific explanations. The mechanism for the process is well-established, however.

    Has any scientist been able to recreate the "cocktail" that allowed for life to come into being in the first place and, if so, has that cocktail been tested in the lab?

    I do not understand what relevance your question has to the theory of evolution.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:09:29 PM PDT · 409 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Mom MD
    I am a biologist.

    Then what do you believe is problematic about the theory of evolution?

    The physicist, cosmologist, etc have as much to say about evolution as the biologist, just like biology adds to the knowledge in fields.

    Could you provide an example of an observation in cosmology that has relevance to the theory of evolution?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:08:08 PM PDT · 408 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Beagle8U
    Personally I think Darwin is about 3 bones short of a monkey.

    Your assesment has no apparent basis in fact. There exists no evidence to show that Charles Darwin's sekeletal structure was significantly different than that of any other homo sapiens.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:04:17 PM PDT · 400 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Mom MD
    I work in the science field and do have problems with the evolutionary theory.

    What is your field of expertise, and what are some of the "problems" that you have with the theory of evolution?

    There are scientific facts to support both sides of the coin

    When you say "both sides of the coin", to what specific dichotomy do you refer?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 10:02:12 PM PDT · 397 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Mom MD
    THere are a growing number of us that are scientists and creationists. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

    This is correct, however creation itself is not science, and I have not observed any actual opposition to the theory of evolution that is scientifically valid. I have observed that the majority of scientists who reject the theory of evolution are not biologists. As the theory of evolution is a subject of biology, the existence of non-biologist scientsts who reject the theory of evolution demonstrates neither that evolution is not valid science nor that creotionism is valid science.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:59:59 PM PDT · 393 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Beagle8U
    So you admit there does exist a political bias against ID being taught in school.

    I do not deny suh a bias. While I have not encountered such individuals, I cannot rule out the possibility that there exist those who oppose the teaching of intelligent design purely on a political basis. While this reasoning, if it is held by anyone, is invalid, it does not alter the fact that there do exist valid reasons for not teaching intelligent design as science.

    You also admit that evo isn't an exacting science that you can use any standard testing or experiments to prove.

    Absolutely no theory in science can be proven. Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory. The theory of evolution can be subjected to experimentation and testing, and in fact it has been subjected to this extensively, but this can only establish further confidence in the theory or potentially -- though this has yet to happen -- disprove the theory. No amout of testing, however, can prove any scientific theory.

    But you also say that ID can't be taught because its not proved to be a science.

    This is correct. If you disagree, please explain how intelligent design satisfies the requirements of the scientific method.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:53:48 PM PDT · 379 of 1,665
    Dimensio to eleni121
    I should have known you could dig me up in your archives. I feel like one of stalin's victims as they are led into the cellars of the the Kremlin after being found out that they didn't tow the CP line.

    I do not believe that your analogy is appropriate. I fail to see how asking you to support a claim that does not have any obvious correlation to reality is analagous to the treatment of anti-communists in the Soviet Union during the rule of Josef Stailn.

    Seriously...I'll get back to you on that when I have time.

    Are you saying that eleven months is an insufficient timeframe for investigating a claim that you have made and providing supporting evidence for it?
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:50:04 PM PDT · 370 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Doctor Stochastic

    Sir Francis Dashwood denies being a "creationist". Given his posting style, I am unable to hypothesize whether he is lying, or merely mentally unstable. However, he is still posting as of this evening, despite telling another poster to "get fisted" in a previous discussion. I do not understand why his account has not been banned in light of that clear violation of the terms of usage for this forum, but I do not have adequate information for meaningful speculation on the issue.

  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:40:46 PM PDT · 353 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Beagle8U
    If evo is such an exacting science you could prove your theory in a classroom experiment by causing something to evolve into something entirely different. I'll wait patiently for the results of your proof.

    Your statement is not correct, and in fact it is not even logical. Theories in science are not "proven". Moreover, the validity of the theory of evolution does not imply that it should be possible to "cause something to evolve into something entirely different" in a small-scale classroom experiment. In fact, your statement suggests that you do not understand the fundamental attributes of the theory of evolution.

    If there was no political bias against ID you wouldn't have to team up with the leftwing demonrats to prevent it from being taught in schools.

    I did not claim that there exists absolutely no "political" bias against intelligent design. This does not change the fact that intelligent design is not science, and as such it has no proper place in a science classroom.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:34:11 PM PDT · 336 of 1,665
    Dimensio to eleni121
    I have seen this request on your part before (it must be you)...but I confess I do not remember.

    On December 17, 2005, you stated "Piltdown---No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject (as per Muggeridge's "The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.)". This claim was refuted, and you were repeatedly asked to provide a reference to even a small number of these alleged dissertations. Thus far, you still have not done so. In fact, evidence suggests that your claim was, in fact, completely inaccurate and that there were no dissertations written at all about the subject until after it was exposed as a hoax, with dissertations on the subject after that time addressing the fact that the 'find' was in fact a hoax. I am curious why you chose to make a claim that you refused adamantly to support with evidence, and now you deride those who accept evolution for allegedly doing the same.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:23:52 PM PDT · 319 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Beagle8U
    Thats what the ACLU and the Godless liberal left said too.

    This has little if an relevance to my previous statement.

    But I can see your well reasoned point that there is no political bias./ sarc.

    If you believe that "political bias" exists, then please explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as science, and explain what you believe is political bias regarding the issue.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:15:05 PM PDT · 300 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Beagle8U
    Great! That means you have no bias against having ID taught as a companion theory along with evolution in public schools?

    "Intelligent Design" does not qualify as science, and as such it is not appropriate to teach it as a "companion" to the theory of evolution.
  • A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

    10/25/2006 9:09:50 PM PDT · 292 of 1,665
    Dimensio to Jim Robinson
    LOL. Right.

    Are you agreeing with my statement, or did you forget to provide evidence for a rebuttal?