Thread View: sci.anthropology
11 messages
11 total messages
Started by Ed Conrad
Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:57
BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: Ed Conrad
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:57
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:57
176 lines
8691 bytes
8691 bytes
< < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL < http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins) < The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a number of statements opposing creationism. They state, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." < Supporters of creation science argue that other theories of origins, including macroevolution, are not testable by the methods of science either. < The American Association for the Advancement of Science (the world's largest general scientific society) contrasts the "scientific robustness of the contemporary theory of biological evolution"] with the proposed teaching of intelligent design that will "confuse students about the nature of science." < The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) supports the teaching of evolutionary biology in schools, and opposes the teaching of creationism. They hold that science classes should teach evolution; that teachers should be "nonjudgmental" of students' religious views; and that "creation science" and "intelligent design" should not be taught. < The National Center for Science Education was founded in 1981 to oppose creationism and is led by Eugenie Scott. It has 4,000 members and operates a website. It also runs Project Steve, a list of 772-plus certified Doctorate holding pro-evolution signatories named Steve (or Stephen or some variant thereof), as a parody of creationist attempts to collect signature lists of experts who doubt evolution. < The American Association of Physics Teachers states that "we do not endorse teaching the 'evidence against evolution,' because currently no such scientific evidence exists. Nor can we condone teaching "scientific creationism," "intelligent design," or other non-scientific viewpoints as valid scientific theories." < ====================================== < Excuse this interruption: < For some time there was no opposition To the evolutionists' facetious position. But the sleazeballs NOW know That bullshit theories don't go. It's time they said their Act of Contrition < http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullshit < A little carnival music, Maestro... http://www.nurple.com/sideshow/ < http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/TightFit.jpg (Photo, Courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution) < =========================================== < http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/manasoldemboss.gif < < TRUTH VS. THE MONUMENTAL LIE OF MAN'S EVOLUTION < (Fossils -- SOME HUMAN -- Found Between Coal Veins) < http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/OldestHumanSkull.JPG http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/ManasOldasCoal.jpg http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/Discoveries.jpg http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/MoreFossils.jpg http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/HumanBrain.jpg http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/TestResults.jpg http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/MVC-022S.JPG http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/OldestTool.jpg http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/Scorpion.jpg http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/MVC-013F.JPG < ================ < Now back to the $3 bills... < The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution, noting that many astronomical observations show changes in the universe over a long period of time consistent with evolution. They state that "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea" and "does not belong in the science curriculum." < The American Geophysical Union states that "Earth History and the Evolution of Life Must Be Taught: Creationism Is Not Science," thus the AGU "opposes all efforts to require or promote teaching creationism or any other religious tenets as science." < In addition, the American Geological Institute, the Association for Women Geoscientists, the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The Society for Organic Petrology all have position statements supporting the teaching of evolution and opposing the teaching of non-scientific ideas. < The Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society supports "evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and diversity of species." < The American Physical Society's governing Council has long expressed its opposition to the inclusion of religious concepts such as intelligent design and related forms of creationism in science classes. [9] APS is the world's largest professional body of physicists, representing over 43,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US and internationally. < Kansas Citizens for Science is a group that is trying to fight the revision of science standards in Kansas. < CSICOP and The Skeptics Society are anti-pseudoscience organizations with creationism among their targets. < The Talk.Origins Archive is a large website of articles critiquing creationary ideas, plus a discussion forum; there is an extensive set of links to sites of interest on both sides of the debate - including True. Origins. < Talk Reason is a take-off of the talk.origins archive that deals exclusively with debunking intelligent design. < < PEOPLE WHO'VE MADE A MOCKERY OF SCIENCE < Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, and the late Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould figure among the well-known scientists who have been outspoken against creationism. Unlike Dawkins, Ruse takes the position that it is possible to reconcile the Christian religion with Evolutionary Theory. < Philip Kitcher is a philosopher of science who wrote a book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1982), answering creationist arguments and explaining scientific vs. unscientific methodology. < Simon Conway Morris is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Christian, and who has publicly supported the acceptance of evolutionary biology by moderate Christians. < Arthur Peacocke was one of the first to have developed a rigorously argued, complex argument for the compatibility of modern evolutionary theory with Christianity. He famously refers to evolution as "the disguised friend" of faith. < Arthur N. Strahler, author of the 1987 book Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy. < Wesley R. Elsberry hosts The Panda's Thumb weblog which sponsors articles and posts by some of the most active debaters of creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. < Paul PZ Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, an outspoken critic of creationism online. < ========================== < PS: Myers played a key role in the fraudulent testing of one of Ed Conrad's specimens of petrified bone discovered between coal veins and of Carboniferous age, a minimum of 280 million years ago. Andrew Macrae also was involved in the hanky-panky that involved tampering with what the late, great physical anthropologist Wilton M. Krogman -- author of the book. "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine: -- had identified as a portion of a tibia. < ================================== < Ed Conrad http://www.edconrad.com Man as Old as Coal* < ================== <
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: David Hartung
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:06
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:06
20 lines
2346 bytes
2346 bytes
Ed Conrad wrote: > < > < > <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL > < > http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg > (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins) > < > The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a number > of statements opposing creationism. They state, "Creationism, > intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in > the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not > testable by the methods of science." Which is correct. The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of science. Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more "faith" than a belief in supernatural creation.
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: VRWC Destruction Machine
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:41
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:41
33 lines
2150 bytes
2150 bytes
Ed Conrad <edconrad@verizon.net> wrote in crayon... >< >< ><. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL Reading the title of your thread I thought for sure it was Muhammed Al Gore. ----o---- ======== WARNING! ======== The text below is a Tagline or Signature File. def. A pre-written text file appended to the end of a message that is used as a closing or end to the message. It may contain any kind of text or boilerplate that is repetitively sent. In other words, you are an idiot if you respond to it. "This VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President" -Hillary Clinton on the Today Show Jan 27, 1998 As Bill Clinton said in a speech last week, referring to a range of conservative media: "They have a DESTRUCTION MACHINE. We don't have a DESTRUCTION MACHINE." -Bill Clinton in a speech addressing the Democratic Leadership Council on 2002 in New York
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: ahall
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:35
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:35
32 lines
2186 bytes
2186 bytes
>>>>> David Hartung writes: David> Ed Conrad wrote: >> < >> < >> <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL >> < http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins) >> < >> The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a number >> of statements opposing creationism. They state, "Creationism, >> intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in >> the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not >> testable by the methods of science." David> Which is correct. David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of science. It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that have been verified. David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more "faith" than a belief David> in supernatural creation. You are delusional. -- Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: David Hartung
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:22
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:22
40 lines
3070 bytes
3070 bytes
ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote: >>>>>> David Hartung writes: > > David> Ed Conrad wrote: > >> < > >> < > >> <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL > >> < > http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg > >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins) > >> < > >> The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a number > >> of statements opposing creationism. They state, "Creationism, > >> intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in > >> the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not > >> testable by the methods of science." > > David> Which is correct. > > David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of science. > > It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that have been > verified. > > David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more "faith" than a belief > David> in supernatural creation. > > You are delusional. Am I? Please explain. To my knowledge the basic idea of the "big bang" theory is as follows. A mass of primordial matter exploded without any outside force acting on it, and from this explosion came our universe. This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the concept of a divine being creating us in his image.
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: Mitchell Holman
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:20
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:20
46 lines
3081 bytes
3081 bytes
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:Ecydne4ZXsrAHwjbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com: > ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote: >>>>>>> David Hartung writes: >> >> David> Ed Conrad wrote: >> >> < >> >> < >> >> <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL >> >> < >> http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg >> >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins) >> >> < >> >> The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a number >> >> of statements opposing creationism. They state, "Creationism, >> >> intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention >> >> in the origin of life or of species are not science because they >> >> are not testable by the methods of science." >> >> David> Which is correct. >> >> David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of science. >> >> It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that have been >> verified. >> >> David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more "faith" than a >> belief David> in supernatural creation. >> >> You are delusional. > > Am I? > > Please explain. > > To my knowledge the basic idea of the "big bang" theory is as follows. > > A mass of primordial matter exploded without any outside force acting on > it, and from this explosion came our universe. > > This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the concept of a > divine being creating us in his image. And who created this divine being?
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: bvallely
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:45
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:45
17 lines
2367 bytes
2367 bytes
> > This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the concept of a > > divine being creating us in his image. > And who created this divine being? Don't know. Don't care. It's called "faith". I have it. Not as much as I'd like, but trying to build more every day. But I must admit, my faith has limits. When one considers that each cell in your body contains a code which is literally more complicated that the Interent, a code which has taken decades to map, a code which we've barely begun to understand, a code which carried along for hundreds of millions of years without breaking down (indeed, consistantly improving upon itself) - well, I just don't have the kind of faith needed to believe that fairy tale.
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: .
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:12
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:12
32 lines
2304 bytes
2304 bytes
ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote: >>>>>> David Hartung writes: > > David> Ed Conrad wrote: > >> < > >> < > >> <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL > >> < > http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg > >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins) > >> < > >> The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a number > >> of statements opposing creationism. They state, "Creationism, > >> intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in > >> the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not > >> testable by the methods of science." > > David> Which is correct. > > David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of science. > > It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that have been > verified. > > David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more "faith" than a belief > David> in supernatural creation. > > You are delusional. > > Poor David Hartung, suffering from being a right wing dumbass.. He never quite gets reality.
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: .
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:20
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:20
23 lines
2266 bytes
2266 bytes
bvallely@aol.com wrote: >>> This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the concept of a >>> divine being creating us in his image. > >> And who created this divine being? > > Don't know. Don't care. It's called "faith". I have it. Not as much > as I'd like, but trying to build more every day. > > But I must admit, my faith has limits. > > When one considers that each cell in your body contains a code which > is literally more complicated that the Interent, a code which has > taken decades to map, a code which we've barely begun to understand, a > code which carried along for hundreds of millions of years without > breaking down (indeed, consistantly improving upon itself) - well, I > just don't have the kind of faith needed to believe that fairy tale. > Good thing you don't CARE, Vallely. Not knowing and not caring to know enables you to be an ignorant Republican shill.
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: ahall
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:01
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:01
49 lines
3088 bytes
3088 bytes
>>>>> David Hartung writes: David> ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote: >>>>>>> David Hartung writes: David> Ed Conrad wrote: >> >> < >> >> < >> >> <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL >> >> < http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg >> >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins) >> >> < >> >> The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a number >> >> of statements opposing creationism. They state, "Creationism, >> >> intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in >> >> the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not >> >> testable by the methods of science." David> Which is correct. David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of science. >> It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that have been >> verified. David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more "faith" >> than a belief David> in supernatural creation. >> You are delusional. David> Am I? David> Please explain. There is a lot of evidence for the big bang. There is zero evidence for anything supernatural. David> To my knowledge the basic idea of the "big bang" theory is as follows. David> A mass of primordial matter exploded without any outside force acting David> on it, and from this explosion came our universe. Read up on it a bit. This is a pretty shallow understanding. David> This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the concept of a David> divine being creating us in his image. Why? -- Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Re: BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH
Author: Rich Travsky
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:23
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:23
22 lines
2184 bytes
2184 bytes
"bvallely@aol.com" wrote: > > > > This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the concept of a > > > divine being creating us in his image. > > > And who created this divine being? > > Don't know. Don't care. It's called "faith". I have it. Not as much > as I'd like, but trying to build more every day. > > But I must admit, my faith has limits. > > When one considers that each cell in your body contains a code which > is literally more complicated that the Interent, a code which has > taken decades to map, a code which we've barely begun to understand, a > code which carried along for hundreds of millions of years without > breaking down (indeed, consistantly improving upon itself) - well, I > just don't have the kind of faith needed to believe that fairy tale. It's not a fairy tale. Years of research and fact finding behind it. Not superstition.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads