Evolution is a hoax

[zeusbheld]

Are you with me here? Am I making sense in the set up? Or is this too long for you to read?

see above, read it, not impressed or interested, you dont give what i asked for, i'm done.

this is not a conversation. sorry to intrude on your monologue.

[scutfargus]

interesting you started out with the "most people accept evolution wihtout thinking about it". coz those are the only people you have a chance of convincing, i'm barely knowledgeable of the general principles of evolution, and you selectively pick out minor points to address and ignore the main questions completely, and then expect me to respond like a lapdog and go "aha" because you dump more anecdotes, hearsay, sophistry and empty description on me. forget it.

I appreciate that you agree with my point: people in general do not question evolution. They will argue about it and they strongly agree with it, and rarely will they every change their minds concerning evolution; but, having any actual knowledge about it? Nope; they don't have that. And my point was, when you hear something over and over again, you believe it as truth. It is fundamental. It is almost impossible for you to be convinced otherwise, even if you lack any evidence or reason to believe it.

I am ready to present some specific evidence, but I am wasting my time if no one grants my propositions:

1. A bone is a bone is a bone. A qualified evolutionist should be able to pick up a fossil, and, aided with mathematics used today to identify that bone, they should be able to classify that bone as homo habilis, as homo erectus, etc. If they cannot classify a fossil, then why are we listening to them?

2. Independent of identifying what kind of a fossil this is, there are dating methods which evolutionists use and they should give a date which is in agreement with evolutionary thinking.

3. Evolutionists should not be able to just change the classification of a bone because the date comes out wrong, and they should not be able to just change the date of a fossil if they don't like it.

4. A fake should be pretty easy to recognize.

5. If there are no real differences in the bones--that is, if fakes cannot be reocognized for a long, long period of time, if one day a fossil is a homo habilis and the next day it is a homo erectus, then aren't we being sold a load of crap? We are taught that there is this definite progression, this evolution; so the evidence in and of itself should support the theory; the evidence should never be changed in some way in order to support the theory.

Yes, I know I am setting you up, and you know I am setting you up. But, please, if an evolutionist cannot pick up a bone and after a few years of study tell us what it is, then why do we have so much faith in them?

[scutfargus]

state the scientific method in a way we can agree on, propose a meothodlogy, and if we can agree on that, that might be persuasive to me. also do it concisely as i am losing interest, you are not yet moving toward anything that would convince me, and this is, as i said, a coffee shop game.

That is what I have done on two occasions. We obviously cannot replicate evolution in the lab for two reasons:

1. Being unable to replicate evolution in the lab does not verify it (I don't know if many of you realize that).

2. Not being able to replicate evolution in the lab does not falsify it either.

Right now, we are at #2, as we can only verify micro-evolution (adaptation), but not macro evolution (even though we can literally work with thousands of generations of bacteria in a lifetime).

However, I have listed several items that you can agree or not agree with already.

Is there even one person here who has an open mind?

[zeusbheld]

state the scientific method in a way we can agree on, propose a meothodlogy, and if we can agree on that, that might be persuasive to me. also do it concisely as i am losing interest, you are not yet moving toward anything that would convince me, and this is, as i said, a coffee shop game.

That is what I have done on two occasions. We obviously cannot replicate evolution in the lab for two reasons:

1. Being unable to replicate evolution in the lab does not verify it (I don't know if many of you realize that).

2. Not being able to replicate evolution in the lab does not falsify it either.

Right now, we are at #2, as we can only verify micro-evolution (adaptation), but not macro evolution (even though we can literally work with thousands of generations of bacteria in a lifetime).

However, I have listed several items that you can agree or not agree with already.

Is there even one person here who has an open mind?

mensans can't read? willfully ignoring my the a) c) i asked for?

or you dont even know what the scientific method is? why did you quote me here when you didnt address my post? it's insulting.

why should i open my mind to garbage? you cant even answer the most basic question.

no more chances. i gave yoouseveral chancess to answer my questions. you insult me by quoting me and then skipping ahead to the part you like. half-assed bulllshit. game over.

[robbie36]

Here is one place to begin. There is a fairly simple exponential equation which is used for population growth, and most high school students who have taken Algebra II or Pre-Calculus have been exposed to it.

Pt = Poe^(kt)

As soon as they built the library near my classroom, I taught my students how the mathematically solve this equations using natural logarithms and explained how this equation could go forward and backward in time. That is, we can use it to estimate when the world will reach a population of 10 billion (for instance) and we can also use it to go backwards in time in order to figure out when were there, say, 10 people on this earth.

Scutfargus,

I logged into this thread thinking that it might have some interesting argument only to find that there is some weirdo who is misusing basic equations for his own personal amusement or out of stupidity.

The equation:

Pt = Poe^(kt)

This equation can only be solved or used as a useful estimation over time on the assumption that k is constant where k is the growth rate of that population (birth rate - death rate). If k is greater than zero (more births than deaths) then the population will grow exponentially and if k is less than zero (more deaths than births) the population will decline exponentially. Whoopee!!

What should be evident to anyone is that the growth rate of a population is not a constant over time. For instance, if you took the population growth rate of the Japanese in the 1950s (k>0), you could have extrapolated that growth rate a couple of hundred years to predict that there would be 10 billion Japanese on the earth. Alternatively you could take Japan's current negative population growth rate (k<0) to predict when the Japanese population will decline to 10. And finally you could use Japan's current negative population growth rate to estimate that there were 10 billion Japanese on this earth a couple of thousand years ago. You could do all this.... but it would be a pretty moronic thing to do.

I seem to remember that you said 'you are a card carrying member of mensa'. Now I understand why you feel a need to carry the card.

[scutfargus]

Are you with me here? Am I making sense in the set up? Or is this too long for you to read?

see above, read it, not impressed or interested, you dont give what i asked for, i'm done.

this is not a conversation. sorry to intrude on your monologue.

I thought I was offering up what you wanted. What precisely would falsify evolution for you? Obviously, as I have pointed out, we cannot do this in a lab. So, what do you expect?

[scutfargus]

And my point was, when you hear something over and over again, you believe it as truth. It is fundamental. It is almost impossible for you to be convinced otherwise, even if you lack any evidence or reason to believe it.

The same may be said with just as much validity for evangelical Christians.

Not really my intention to deal with evangelical Christianity here.

But, please, if an evolutionist cannot pick up a bone and after a few years of study tell us what it is, then why do we have so much faith in them?

This is a "straw man" argument, just one example of the logical fallacies that plague your arguments. The credibility of "evolutionists" is not the issue here.

There are a number of evolutionists who do this for a living. It is their job; it is their responsibility. They find fossils, they classify these fossils, and they publish their reports. This stuff, more or less, finds its way into text books, scientific literature and museums. And you are saying that their credibility is irrelevant? Am I reading you right?

The mathematical formula you introduced is based not on a common premise in the discussion, but rather on your own (questionable) premise. BTW, just to satisfy my curiosity, how did your formula manage to take into account a biblical event (in which I presume you believe) such as the great flood? Or a historical event such as the Black Death of the 14th century?

Excellent question, Rob. Now I know I am working with someone who has actually read some of what I have written. I taught primarily honors students and my honors students knew early on that they could disagree with me, they could question me, and that they could approach problems from any direction that they wanted. For instance, Geometry, which procedes Algebra 2, I would praise my students who came up with a different approach to a proof, especially if it was different than any approach I had seen.

In this particular exercise, where the students used their own data points, one pair of students specifically chose data points on both sides of the Dark Ages. At that point in time, these young men knew my point of view (I was one of those teachers who would have older siblings tell their younger siblings about), and they knew that choosing data points on both sides of the Dark Ages would result in an abnormally long period of time. Their result: 25,000 years. Not exactly what they expected. However, they were highly praised because they understood how to play with the data and how to manipulate it. They were simply unable to manipulate it enough (and 25,000 years is a far cry from 1,000,000 years).

You have repeatedly attempted to brand those who accept evolution as not having considered facts, as blindly accepting information that has been repeated to them. I suggest to you that this lemming-like mentality is far more prevalent among evangelical Christians than it is among secular individuals.

May or may not be true. This is the general feeling of most people who read these forums, I will grant you that. Anytime someone disagrees with you (and I don't mean you personally), it just feels better to think that they are closed-minded, haven't really considererd the evidence, and just accept whatever someone else tells them. Maybe that is a human condition which is not confined to evangelicals (as you say) or to liberals (as I say).

Throughout this thread you have attempted to bolster your failed arguments by resorting to misdirection, sophistry, and condescension--certainly not exemplifying (and therefore making people possibly more receptive to) the tenets of the doctrine you espouse.

Rob, I have offered very, very few arguments so far. My point was not necessarily to poke holes in evolution; my point was, your mind is made up on this topic. I've given one argument so far, and have offered some anecdotal incidents (debates, university classes, etc.). If you are open minded about this, then certainly you can come up with some ways which would falsify evolution in your mind.

Last but not least, you're not the only Mensan here.

I should have known. You are the first person who actually gave some thought to your answer and dealt with one of my arguments. More thought, in my opinion, than simply saying the population curve is too simlistic to be applied here.

[scutfargus]

Here is one place to begin. There is a fairly simple exponential equation which is used for population growth, and most high school students who have taken Algebra II or Pre-Calculus have been exposed to it.

Pt = Poe^(kt)

As soon as they built the library near my classroom, I taught my students how the mathematically solve this equations using natural logarithms and explained how this equation could go forward and backward in time. That is, we can use it to estimate when the world will reach a population of 10 billion (for instance) and we can also use it to go backwards in time in order to figure out when were there, say, 10 people on this earth.

Scutfargus,

I logged into this thread thinking that it might have some interesting argument only to find that there is some weirdo who is misusing basic equations for his own personal amusement or out of stupidity.

The equation:

Pt = Poe^(kt)

This equation can only be solved or used as a useful estimation over time on the assumption that k is constant where k is the growth rate of that population (birth rate - death rate). If k is greater than zero (more births than deaths) then the population will grow exponentially and if k is less than zero (more deaths than births) the population will decline exponentially. Whoopee!!

What should be evident to anyone is that the growth rate of a population is not a constant over time. For instance, if you took the population growth rate of the Japanese in the 1950s (k>0), you could have extrapolated that growth rate a couple of hundred years to predict that there would be 10 billion Japanese on the earth. Alternatively you could take Japan's current negative population growth rate (k<0) to predict when the Japanese population will decline to 10. And finally you could use Japan's current negative population growth rate to estimate that there were 10 billion Japanese on this earth a couple of thousand years ago. You could do all this.... but it would be a pretty moronic thing to do.

I seem to remember that you said 'you are a card carrying member of mensa'. Now I understand why you feel a need to carry the card.

Robbie, these are all good points and on target. There is a point at which population does tend to decline, and that is when we simply run out of room and/or resources. Japan is an excellent example, because, we are talking about a very limited space; we are talking about coming close to the limits of what humans are comfortable with. So, of course, specific nations will, especially as their populations grows, do whatever they can to reduce that growth.

I am referring to the growth of world population. Only recently have a few countries started to feel overpopulated. Prior to that, there was less reason to limit family size and population growth. Disease played a part at times, of course.

And you are absolutely correct, k, the constant, is not really a constant. It changes from time to time. The population growth constant for one decade will never be exactly the same as it is an another decade. Not the point. The point is, this is an estimation. We use this same equation when looking forward in time to get an approximation of when our population will be thus and so. So, I can probably get within a decade of telling you when we will reach a world population of 10 billion. You would agree with that? Of course, a world war, a vicious disease, a meteor hitting the earth, could change all of that. But, generally speaking, you know I can hit that sweet spot within one decade. You know I am not going to be off by, say, 950,000 years, right? Works both ways, backwards and forewards. I will grant you that my figures could be off by, oh, hell, I don't know, 10,000 years? I'm not off by 950,000 years.

I have no idea where my MENSA card is, but I may need to hold it now for some inner fortitude. I can tell you are a contender.

And I would rather you did not tell everyone I am a weirdo. I have so little credibility as it is, being an evangelical Christian. Maybe we could just keep that a secret?

[CiaranM]

And you are absolutely correct, k, the constant, is not really a constant. It changes from time to time.

could i kind of summarise all this, by saying the equation u have been quoting isn't worth jack **** !!

[robbie36]

I will grant you that my figures could be off by, oh, hell, I don't know, 10,000 years? I'm not off by 950,000 years.

Of course you can be off by millions of years.

Take a population of 2 and grow it 1% per annum for 1000 years and you end up with 42,000 people.

Assume it grows at 1% per annum for the next 1000 years and the population will be 878 million.

Assume it grows at 1% per annum for the next 1000 years and you have one f_ck of a lot of people.

And of course the same happens in reverse.

So any population anywhere can quickly be reduced to a few by assuming a constant growth/decline rate. One basic starting point you need to understand in evolution is that 'a near miss is as good as a mile.... to the power of.. ..quite a lot...'

It isnt April 1st is it?

[scutfargus]

And you are absolutely correct, k, the constant, is not really a constant. It changes from time to time.

could i kind of summarise all this, by saying the equation u have been quoting isn't worth jack sh*t !!

Yes, it is only found in every college algebra and every pre-calculus book there is. It is the equation found in any science and history book which deal with population growth. Every time you see this curve that is sort of flat and then suddenly rises fast as a description of the world population, it is this equation which you treat with contempt. A simple exponential equation has become the bane of your existance. It is interesting that such a simple intellectual discussion could bring out a little anger.

You don't like it because it disagrees with something that you believe. You prove my original point, C. Your belief in evolution is so fundamental, as to exclude any bit of evidence which contradicts it, no matter how well-established that evidence is. And your best argument is to disparage it by swearing.

I appreciate you proving my point. Maybe I should take it one step further...for many people, evolution is a religion (it is a fundamental tenant of humanism, which is a religion/philosphy/way of thinking).

You know, I could tell you that new scientific studies have come out, and have shown that Pluto is 500,000 miles closer than we thought; or that there is another moon on Jupiter that we did not know about before. These sorts of things would not make anyone angry. Astronomers would report the evidence honestly and with clear explanations as to why there is a change in what we thought. No one would lash out and say, "Bull crap!! You're using over simplistic equations!! You can't be right!!!!"

On the other hand, people tend to get quite emotional when it comes to evolution. That is because there is more of an emotional investment in evolution for the many who believe it; there is a much great emotinal investment in evolution than in any other scientific discipline.

[scutfargus]

I will grant you that my figures could be off by, oh, hell, I don't know, 10,000 years? I'm not off by 950,000 years.

Of course you can be off by millions of years.

Take a population of 2 and grow it 1% per annum for 1000 years and you end up with 42,000 people.

Assume it grows at 1% per annum for the next 1000 years and the population will be 878 million.

Assume it grows at 1% per annum for the next 1000 years and you have one f_ck of a lot of people.

And of course the same happens in reverse.

So any population anywhere can quickly be reduced to a few by assuming a constant growth/decline rate. One basic starting point you need to understand in evolution is that 'a near miss is as good as a mile.... to the power of.. ..quite a lot...'

It isnt April 1st is it?

Sorry, not going to be off by that far. If we were dealing in a time frame of 50 million years, then sure, percnetage wise I could be off by a few million. But, with the figures we have, I'm not.

And there is a much more subtle point that I am not sure anyone is going to grasp, but let me throw it out there: evolution is not as much dependent upon time as it is upon numbers of generations and large populations. That is, even though evolutionists always say, "Given enough time, anything can happen" it is really, "Given a large enough population and enough generations, and anything can happen." So, when you want to reduce human population growth to a standstill for 99% of the time we are on this earth, then you win one battle but concede another. All of a sudden, we are not dealing with billions upon billions of people so that we can evolve; we are reducing the numbers considerably and we are reducing the population growth considerably. How should I put it? You just don't get to have it both ways. These undemonstrated good mutations depend upon a large number of people having been on this earth. So far, everyone's argument has been, in effect, there aren't that many people on this earth and it's been that way for a heck of a long time.

[FizZ]

Having read through every single post on this thread (though not participated) I'd just like to express the views of an average, fairly young, rather open-minded individual ....

Reading this thread, to me, it's clear that the Evolutionist side is winning. I'm not a card-carrying member of MENSA, I haven't even graduated Uni yet, but even I can see Scutfargus super-population formula is insulting to my intelligence :shock:

Scut, every time you challenge the evolutionist supporters to come up with proof that their theory is the one more likely to be correct, I must question myself, where is YOUR proof that creationism is the way to go.... except a book written thousands of years ago by simple people who needed a method of control over their populations (or so I see it). Who knows, that guy might've just come across a Ganja plant and started thinking he was god.... it was just a different mentality back then and much simpler people, if a person was to float down to the earth now and claim he was Jesus we'd lock him up....

Simply put, your proof of creationism is to challenge the science used by Evolutionists to try to disprove them correct? While I'm not well-researched in the science, I've read your posts and my simple-minded view is that you have no support.You try to bolster the creationism argument by stating that there are not enough fossils and evolutionists arent able to immediately date a fossil just by picking it up and taking a look, which immediately leads one to question just how far your knowledge in science actually extends (not much). Again, where is the creationism evidence? I might just as well believe Atlantis exists and is around here somewhere.... I certainly have more trust in Plato than I do the people who wrote the bible, at least he uses figures...

Finally, evolution isn't shoved down most of our throats.... at least not where I am... we were taught evolution as a possibility in Science class, whilst at the same time being taught about creationism as a theory. Both were presented equally and the students can choose what to believe. Every single one, except those from conservative religious families, either said evolution was most probable or just didn't really care or know (this was high school after all) ... but at least the Evolutionists had some support to base their arguments on. However, those from the religious families were firm in their creationism stance because their families had shoved it down their throats....

The way I see it, the conservative religious kids have always been more "brainwashed" than anyone else.

Just my 2 cents....

[CiaranM]

And you are absolutely correct, k, the constant, is not really a constant. It changes from time to time.

could i kind of summarise all this, by saying the equation u have been quoting isn't worth jack sh*t !!

You don't like it because it disagrees with something that you believe. You prove my original point, C. Your belief in evolution is so fundamental, as to exclude any bit of evidence which contradicts it, no matter how well-established that evidence is. And your best argument is to disparage it by swearing.

which of my beliefs does it disagree with ?? i don't see where i have said i believe in evolution. i don't see how anything i have said proves anything that u have said.

u remind me so much of those sad born again bible bashers back home. spouting the same crap and nobody listened to them either. except for 1 of my mates who was off his head on acid, but that's a whole different story !!

[robbie36]

Evolution is still a big unknown.No one has a clue where that first planktonic form of life came from(though the White House is as good enough theory as any )It could just as easily be the result of some deity as from some freak of nature.No one knows for SURE.Thats it.

Really?

Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote:

"A man didn?t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren?t there?""

[scutfargus]

Having read through every single post on this thread (though not participated) I'd just like to express the views of an average, fairly young, rather open-minded individual ....

Reading this thread, to me, it's clear that the Evolutionist side is winning. I'm not a card-carrying member of MENSA, I haven't even graduated Uni yet, but even I can see Scutfargus super-population formula is insulting to my intelligence :shock:

It is quite interesting that I have heard so many insulting things said about this formula, as if I made it up or as if it is some obscure, rarely used formula I just pulled out of my hat. When books are written about overcrowdiing of this world, this is the formula which is used. The biggest problem with this formula is, it disagrees with that which you believe to be fundamental. At some point, even if you can't admit that to me, you ought to admit that to yourself.

Scut, every time you challenge the evolutionist supporters to come up with proof that their theory is the one more likely to be correct, I must question myself, where is YOUR proof that creationism is the way to go.... except a book written thousands of years ago by simple people who needed a method of control over their populations (or so I see it). Who knows, that guy might've just come across a Ganja plant and started thinking he was god.... it was just a different mentality back then and much simpler people, if a person was to float down to the earth now and claim he was Jesus we'd lock him up....

Have you been reading these posts or skimming? I haven't used the Bible to support anything. I mentioned it once, if memory serves, because someone said that Christians are backward and historically insisted that the world is flat; however, the Bible speaks of the world being hung upon nothing and that the earth is round. I only mentioned those things from the Bible because I was provoked. Most people have noted that I have kept God and the Bible out of this thread as best as I could.

I am sure the Jews will appreciate you calling their ancestors primitive people. I guess history hasn't been a part of your educational curriculum? A mention of Ganja makes me suspect what at least a portion of your curriculum has consisted of so far.

Simply put, your proof of creationism is to challenge the science used by Evolutionists to try to disprove them correct? While I'm not well-researched in the science, I've read your posts and my simple-minded view is that you have no support.You try to bolster the creationism argument by stating that there are not enough fossils and evolutionists arent able to immediately date a fossil just by picking it up and taking a look, which immediately leads one to question just how far your knowledge in science actually extends (not much). Again, where is the creationism evidence? I might just as well believe Atlantis exists and is around here somewhere.... I certainly have more trust in Plato than I do the people who wrote the bible, at least he uses figures...

Simply put, I have not yet begun to offer much by way of proofs yet. My original intention was to show how biased people are about one particular thing which has a limited amount of evidence (if any).

I think you skimmed over most of what I have written (and I wrote a lot). I NEVER said there weren't many fossils. Many evolutionists and magazines which support evolution have said that. I stated that the number of hominid fossils is around 4000-6500 (and that is a conservative estimate).

Let me correct once again: I never said an evolutionist should be able to pick up a fossil and put a date to it. I said, they should be able to pick up a fossil and put a name to it; they should be able to classify it. An arm today which is from a homo erectus should not be an arm from a homo habilis tomorrow.

Now, after that, I said, they should be able to put a date on a fossil (there are limitations here) and make it stick.

Here's the deal: human evolution is supposedly based upon evidence. It is based upon the evidence of scientists, many of whom dedicate their life to the discovery and study of fossils. Am I asking too much for them to be honest about their discoveries? Do I expect too much when I expect a homo sapien skull today not to become a homo habilis skull tomorrow. And, if they cannot date these fossils, why do they pretend that they can? If they can date the fossils, then these dates should not change. I would expect these few things from this "science." DOES ANYONE AGREE WITH ME HERE? Is evolution so deeply embedded that you do not have any expectations of the scientists who tells us what is what when it comes to evolution? They have to be right, no matter what. And if they change their minds tomorrow, well, they are still right, but they are now even more right?

Finally, evolution isn't shoved down most of our throats.... at least not where I am... we were taught evolution as a possibility in Science class, whilst at the same time being taught about creationism as a theory. Both were presented equally and the students can choose what to believe. Every single one, except those from conservative religious families, either said evolution was most probable or just didn't really care or know (this was high school after all) ... but at least the Evolutionists had some support to base their arguments on. However, those from the religious families were firm in their creationism stance because their families had shoved it down their throats....

Excellent, you have seen both sides of the coin. Now, assuming that you really have, give me just one argument in favor of creationism. You opened the door, you've taken the class, you've seen both sides (so you say); so you can therefore give me one good argument for creationism or one good argument against evolution. Now, if you can't do that off the top of your head, then you really did not get both sides.

One year in college, I learned evolution in a child development course, a history of math course, and some other course (not science). It has been awhile, so I forgot that other course.

The way I see it, the conservative religious kids have always been more "brainwashed" than anyone else.

Just my 2 cents....

Well, I know if my poll was, who is the most brainwashed, then the religious kids would win every time in the estimation of everyone here. Again, it is just impossible for a person who believes in evolution to be brainwashed, right? Impossible.

I appreciate the tip. First coinage in my tip jar.

[scutfargus]

And you are absolutely correct, k, the constant, is not really a constant. It changes from time to time.

could i kind of summarise all this, by saying the equation u have been quoting isn't worth jack sh*t !!

You don't like it because it disagrees with something that you believe. You prove my original point, C. Your belief in evolution is so fundamental, as to exclude any bit of evidence which contradicts it, no matter how well-established that evidence is. And your best argument is to disparage it by swearing.

which of my beliefs does it disagree with ?? i don't see where i have said i believe in evolution. i don't see how anything i have said proves anything that u have said.

u remind me so much of those sad born again bible bashers back home. spouting the same crap and nobody listened to them either. except for 1 of my mates who was off his head on acid, but that's a whole different story !!

Oh, come on, C, you aren't the other person who believes that God created man relatively recently, are you? My guess, and it is an educated guess based upon what you have written, is that you went with option #1, evolution without God being involved. Am I right or wrong?

[scutfargus]

Evolution is still a big unknown.No one has a clue where that first planktonic form of life came from(though the White House is as good enough theory as any )It could just as easily be the result of some deity as from some freak of nature.No one knows for SURE.Thats it.

Really?

Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote:

"A man didn?t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren?t there?""

My TV is mostly transistors, so I think there are only 4 guys in there. Can't be more than that, right? Maybe I'll take off the back of my TV and make a head count.

[Loburt]

Because I am a conservative and a Christian, I have had several people accuse me of being brainwashed, unable to think for myself, and one who simply spouts whatever I am told (like there is some guy standing over my shoulder telling me what religious or conservative things to say).

I think it is quite the opposite. I think that many of those with liberal leanings are the ones who are the ones who are, in many cases (not all), brainwashed. It has already been shown that the majority of the televised news media has a liberal slant, so, it would make sense that is how many people would lean in their thinking. It is more of a matter of, they hear a point of view so often, that they just believe it, without questioning it.

It has been shown by whom that the media has a liberal bias?

The majority of "the media" does not have a liberal slant. The majority of "the media" in America consists of local newspapers, television and radio stations in small towns and cities across the heartleand of the country - hardly a bastion of liberalism.

But let's go to what many people in Texas regard as the great satanic home of liberalism: New York City.

The Big Apple has three newspapers:

The New York Times - often described as liberal, but publishes columns by Safire, Brooks and other conservatives.

The Daily News - Conservative leaning, completely supportive of the Bush administration on most issues including Iraq.

The New York Post - conservative, sensationalist rag owned by conservative media barron Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News, a network where news that doesn't fit a conservative agenda is censored or suppressed.

Next you will be telling us that "the media" is controlled by the Jews, won't you now?

So, "it has been shown" by whom that the media has a liberal bias?

By the same lying, truth-twisting, distortionist, ultaconservative pundits who have obviously brainwashed you to the point where you just believe what you are told.

Otherwise, you would have examined the facts for yourself and realized what you are spouting is conservative dogma with little or no basis in reality.

Sort of like creationism.

[eagle]

Because I am a conservative and a Christian, I have had several people accuse me of being brainwashed, unable to think for myself, and one who simply spouts whatever I am told (like there is some guy standing over my shoulder telling me what religious or conservative things to say).

I think it is quite the opposite. I think that many of those with liberal leanings are the ones who are the ones who are, in many cases (not all), brainwashed. It has already been shown that the majority of the televised news media has a liberal slant, so, it would make sense that is how many people would lean in their thinking. It is more of a matter of, they hear a point of view so often, that they just believe it, without questioning it.

It has been shown by whom that the media has a liberal bias?

The majority of "the media" does not have a liberal slant. The majority of "the media" in America consists of local newspapers, television and radio stations in small towns and cities across the heartleand of the country - hardly a bastion of liberalism.

But let's go to what many people in Texas regard as the great satanic home of liberalism: New York City.

The Big Apple has three newspapers:

The New York Times - often described as liberal, but publishes columns by Safire, Brooks and other conservatives.

The Daily News - Conservative leaning, completely supportive of the Bush administration on most issues including Iraq.

The New York Post - conservative, sensationalist rag owned by conservative media barron Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News, a network where news that doesn't fit a conservative agenda is censored or suppressed.

Next you will be telling us that "the media" is controlled by the Jews, won't you now?

So, "it has been shown" by whom that the media has a liberal bias?

By the same lying, truth-twisting, distortionist, ultaconservative pundits who have obviously brainwashed you to the point where you just believe what you are told.

Otherwise, you would have examined the facts for yourself and realized what you are spouting is conservative dogma with little or no basis in reality.

Sort of like creationism.

Touche' Loburt . But of course you are brainedwashed by the master Satan himself, as I am.. Satan is a woman by the way

[zeusbheld]

Satan is a woman by the way

no i'm not. not all the time anyway.

[eagle]

Satan is a woman by the way

no i'm not. not all the time anyway.

you are always write satan, of course Satan is bi

[Japhrodisiac]

This thread makes me wanna barf. What is the appropriate medical term for removing one's head from one's own anus?

[eagle]

This thread makes me wanna barf. What is the appropriate medical term for removing one's head from one's own anus?

that would be a medical procedure !! Now the medical term for one of the diseases is cornea-rectitus thats when the nerves in your anus(not to be mitaken for uranus) get twisted in the nerves from your eyes

[eagle]

Satan is a woman by the way

no i'm not. not all the time anyway.

who is koyo hatta btw?

Lobs, in terms of Creationism, Disraelis fears live on. The fear that Darwins theory of evolution threatened to put mankind on the side of the apes rather than the side of the angels horrified him and his thinking has been passed down through generation and dogmatic religous teachings, some of it displayed here on this thread.

Interestingly, the belief in the literal truth of the book of Genisis is strongest in the US, despite the mass of extremely convincing evidence that supports all aspects of Darwins theory of evolution. How can the countless experiements in population genetics, computer simulations of natural selection, carbon dating to the fossil records suggest wrongly that the first few chapters of Genisis be taken as literal truth?

give him a moment he is formulating his response. I Must say we have a good battle going with some pretty good rightwingers TFs rules I mean with the love and power of ...........aww never mind