Thread: Why do many teachers in the yogic tradition promote and support the theory of evolution?

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

that one book I glanced at today

Well at least you've done your research.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

So in an ideal society all theories must be embraced equally, taught equally, or not at all.

Why is it that when it comes to matters of the supernatural suddenly doubt becomes a binary thing? Now either something is certain or it's not; apparently in these matters there is no such thing as "likely," "unlikely," "well-supported," or "you just made that shit up just now."

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

Our schools should have scientific books with a Creationist viewpoint, an Intelligent Design viewpoint

Impossible by definition.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

What would we do if an ancient alien ship came into our universe and started orbiting our planet, Rama style? What if that ship refused to respond to any known law of human science? What if that spaceship responded only to spiritual energies, and the manipulation of those? You'd have to go find a guru in India to open the thing. It could happen, the possibility will forever be there, no matter how vehemently you may wish it wasn't.

What if space was actually scrambled eggs? What if green was the purpose of life? What would happen if the answers to your weird imaginary what-if situations couldn't be logically applied to reality?

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

So I will live my intention. I am now open to ALL THEORIES. I will free myself from my Creationist beliefs and bias, which will be very hard for me to do, and I will study the other beliefs out there. For now I am limiting these studies to a sort of scientific refresher course. Since most books in the science section are Evolutionary in nature, at least here, I will have to be open to this theory to read them. But I will adopt as my own belief only that which is the absolute Truth.

Good on you for that, truly, but I don't understand why someone so insistent about how we can never know for sure would have any hope of "absolute Truth."

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

Well if that is true, then how could any Evolutionist be threatened by any Creationist, Intelligent Designist, etc.? If the theory you call scientific fact is indeed fact, then it is also truth (lower case t - you can never know the Truth for certain). Current scientific studies will disprove any insidious, opposing theory, if there is no truth in it, right?

I don't think there are many evolutionary biologists out there worried that ID is about to be proven true. I think Dawkins is most worried about in terms of what the public largely believes. People often prefer to believe reassuring myths -- their minds are what's being threatened. In the scientific community this issue is not at all contentious the way it is in [primarily] the United States' general public.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

As I said earlier, a truly advanced, ideal society would not teach one theory over all others. They would present knowledge as, "such and such is what we currently believe to be true, based on the research of these people. There is an alternative, and it is this..."

Which makes me wonder, how do they go about teaching issues that are actually legitimately contentious in schools?

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

You guys can continue to fight if you like. I put down my weapons and walk away.

You ought to surrender your combative mindset while you're at it.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Most of the time the people accusing others of being in the bottom two are themselves only in the third.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Most of the time the people accusing others of being in the bottom two are themselves only in the third.

I'll try to edge myself up a notch or two, then.

Regardless of whatever else is said, when I see this kind of thing...

Originally Posted by Photolysis

You. Are. So. Fucking. Stupid.

...my natural interpretation is that this person is somewhere along an axis with 'insecure' on one end and 'anti-intellectual' on the other, and it takes a healthy stretch of reasoning for me to entertain that this might not be the case.

The OP has called you out on this and I agree 100%. If you were so confident that what you know is a better description of reality, than you should have no problem explaining it calmly. Or maybe your understanding is solid but the insecurity is in your ability to communicate it effectively.

Now I can't really take seriously the notion that most of the posters in this thread are insecure in their view, but I do wonder about the anti-intellectual part when it seems that they are more interested in swinging at a pinata than having a mutually benificial conversation. Obviously these are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

The OP has called you out on this and I agree 100%. If you were so confident that what you know is a better description of reality, than you should have no problem explaining it calmly. Or maybe your understanding is solid but the insecurity is in your ability to communicate it effectively.

Now I can't really take seriously the notion that most of the posters in this thread are insecure in their view, but I do wonder about the anti-intellectual part when it seems that they are more interested in swinging at a pinata than having a mutually benificial conversation. Obviously these are mutually exclusive.

I've already wasted my time trying to educate this person. I've already demonstrated how 10 seconds of Google searching would dramatically increase their understanding. I've already explained why they're talking nonsense. I've had my knowledge flippantly questioned by an author who wasn't intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the response. Forgive me if I lose my patience but I only have so much of it.

I have no problem whatsoever in educating people, but it requires a basic level of intellect, a basic level of knowledge, and a willingness to learn. When someone apparently doesn't even know what the fuck a source/reference is and lacks so much basic knowledge, then there's not much I can do to educate such a person. And when I see someone who professes that they want to educate themselves but doesn't even take the most basic steps towards that goal, them I am rightly going to call on their bullshit

Yeah you tried hard. I can tell by your very first post in this thread:

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I wonder if there will ever be a day where stupid, uninformed, and ignorant people keep their stupid, uninformed, and ignorant opinions and thoughts to themselves.



The irony is hilarious given that you're just regurgitating tired and cliche arguments for the hundredth time.

And if you look at the first page you'll see several posters who did more or less the exact same thing, who are otherwise generally helpful (or educate and properly refute points) elsewhere. I won't apologise for such remarks as a response to crap like "The sun can not possibly be millions of years old". That level of ignorance is something one should be ashamed of.

Nevertheless, I did take time out of my day to attempt to educate creationist clone #497262, but when you have nothing to work with then there's not much that can be done.

yes, the majority of first page is pretty disgraceful.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I'll try to edge myself up a notch or two, then.

Regardless of whatever else is said, when I see this kind of thing...



...my natural interpretation is that this person is somewhere along an axis with 'insecure' on one end and 'anti-intellectual' on the other, and it takes a healthy stretch of reasoning for me to entertain that this might not be the case.

The OP has called you out on this and I agree 100%. If you were so confident that what you know is a better description of reality, than you should have no problem explaining it calmly. Or maybe your understanding is solid but the insecurity is in your ability to communicate it effectively.

Now I can't really take seriously the notion that most of the posters in this thread are insecure in their view, but I do wonder about the anti-intellectual part when it seems that they are more interested in swinging at a pinata than having a mutually benificial conversation. Obviously these are mutually exclusive.

Note that in this reply you are doing exactly what <3Mark said. Namely, you're responding to tone.

You have not adressed the primary point of most people responding which is something to the effect of OP has no understanding of evolution and that from a scientific perspective there is absolutely no debate about the usefulness of evolution as a model. You also seem to ignore the fact that specific fallacies in OP's logic have been pointed out, though frankly I question the point of doing so.

Now granted, this is itself an ad hominem point but, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the debate is over. Evolution won out over biblical creationism quite some time ago.

We are in no way obligated to entertain, condone or shelter attempts to spread lies and delusion.

The arguments being presented are not worthy of a rational reply.

If you do not understand this then I advise you to seriously reconsider your evalutation of your own intelligence.

Here goes!

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

I have decided to daily state my intention, and that is to know the truth. Not the subjective truth, not somebody else's truth, but the real, actual Truth. I.E. There is God or there is not. There is only Heaven and Hell or there are several layers/levels. I am one with everyone else, experiencing life in this body, or I am not, etc. Now I will live my intention. In seeking Truth I have to be open to all viewpoints.

Well, an admirable goal, although you left out one option regarding hell. Either there is heaven and hell, OR there are several layers/levels, OR neither exist.

So from now on Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Alien Design, etc. are all THEORIES. Why? Because we can't know for sure. We can never know for sure. We weren't there. We might be able to astrally travel back to the beginning, since we can travel through time astrally, but we still couldn't be sure that we were seeing what we thought we were seeing. We can't even be sure that what we know now, what we call scientific fact now, is in reality the whole story. I've been watching Stargate Universe. Bunch of people with little Ancient Technology experience dumped onto a thousands year old spaceship at the outer edges of the universe. I can use this as an illustration. We are like those people. Sure we could walk up to a door and open it, but we have no idea that this is the way the door was intended to be open, if this is the most efficient way to open the door, or if this is the only way to open the door. That which is called fact now may in the future be disproved and changed as we as a species continue to learn. The battle between string theory and quantum theory, that one book I glanced at today alluded to, is one example of this.

As I previously explained in this thread, since we're speaking in scientific terms, you're utilizing the term "theory" incorrectly. Evolution is a theory, i.e. it explains a phenomenon and has evidence to support the explanation. Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Alien Design are not theories, at least not in scientific terms. Colloquially they may be akin to hunches, conjectures, or unsupported hypotheses, but they are not scientific theories.

Also, I replied to your argument that "since we weren't there, we can't know for sure" previously. I didn't get a reply to that post at all.

My point is that there is never going to be a way to know everything perfectly and for certain. So in an ideal society all theories must be embraced equally, taught equally, or not at all.

Urban Dictionary describes this view as "intellectual laziness," and I think I agree. Perhaps one of the worst ideas in all of human thought is that truth is relative. Your first sentence is true. Your second, however, is not. We may not be able to become omniscient, but we have ways to deduce which is more in line with the truth. I'm sure you would not be in favor of having a biology class where reproduction is taught in terms of "sexual reproduction (or asexual depending on the animal) OR stork-delivery." The same goes for evolution vs. creationism.

Our schools should have scientific books with a Creationist viewpoint, an Intelligent Design viewpoint, and any other alternative right next to Darwin's Origin of the Species and other such texts. There should not be some war between science and religion, because perhaps at some point the two will be found to merge together. What would we do if an ancient alien ship came into our universe and started orbiting our planet, Rama style? What if that ship refused to respond to any known law of human science? What if that spaceship responded only to spiritual energies, and the manipulation of those? You'd have to go find a guru in India to open the thing. It could happen, the possibility will forever be there, no matter how vehemently you may wish it wasn't.

This is impossible, because there is nothing particularly scientific about creationism or intelligent design. Argue about it enough and you're met with hand-waving and special pleading from the creationists. Evolution is well-supported and easy to understand, and the ignorance of those who don't make an effort to understand why and how is not a reason to bring down biology to the level of the Iron Age.

So I will live my intention. I am now open to ALL THEORIES. I will free myself from my Creationist beliefs and bias, which will be very hard for me to do, and I will study the other beliefs out there. For now I am limiting these studies to a sort of scientific refresher course. Since most books in the science section are Evolutionary in nature, at least here, I will have to be open to this theory to read them. But I will adopt as my own belief only that which is the absolute Truth. The rest I will accept as concepts that make sense, that work right now, etc. I have no real interest in science in my life right now. My focus is beyond this world, into the next. Trying to get to the Truth of that will probably take the rest of my life, at least.

If you have no real interest in science then I don't think you'll get very far into a book on evolution before getting bored. So your path to discover the truth will probably be skewed. Also, "be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out."

I do have one final sort of barb for those who believe in the theory of Evolution. I was reading the inside jacket of one of Dawkin's books, and whoever wrote that text had some series insecurities. They kept calling Evolution fact, kept saying that ID was threatening it, calling the actions of those opposing Evolution insidious. Well according to most here Evolution is fact, right? Scientific fact, right? Well if that is true, then how could any Evolutionist be threatened by any Creationist, Intelligent Designist, etc.? If the theory you call scientific fact is indeed fact, then it is also truth (lower case t - you can never know the Truth for certain). Current scientific studies will disprove any insidious, opposing theory, if there is no truth in it, right? These other theories will simply die out if there is no truth, no substance of any kind, in them, correct? The only reason to feel threatened by any other viewpoint is if your faith in your own, in the truth if it, is shaky. If there is in fact something wrong in the theory the scientific community as a majority subscribe to - Evolution. Why are they so insistent that this theory be taught above all others? Why bash into anyone's head who might think differently that Evolution is fact? What is it that makes Evolutionists so afraid, so worried?

Some people don't like to pay attention in science class and thus come out having either a very incorrect or very misinformed conception of what evolution is and how it works. Then they fancy themselves intellectuals and start finding all of these "holes" in evolution. Some of these people have political power. Mix in a little zealotry and you have yourself a recipe for a farcical "debate" between science and religion.

So in my opinion, the thing that makes "evolutionists" (a silly word, really. I prefer the term "scientist") worried that evolution will be put at the wayside is that evolution is supported whereas other ideas are not. I don't want to be taught the stork theory of reproduction because it is obviously incorrect and unsupported. I want to know the truth, not be lied to by those who didn't pay attention in science class.

As I said earlier, a truly advanced, ideal society would not teach one theory over all others. They would present knowledge as, "such and such is what we currently believe to be true, based on the research of these people. There is an alternative, and it is this..." The library would be open to any scientific book, based on any scientific viewpoint. If you believe in one thing at the exclusion of all beliefs you close your mind, shut it down, to anything else. But a scientist, to my knowledge anyway, can't discover anything that falls outside his beliefs if he refuses to acknowledge anything outside them. So in an ideal society the minds of every scientist are open to every belief, not judgmental. If something is disproved they simply set it aside with the understanding that maybe it's wrong now, with current knowledge, but something may be learned later that makes it right. You never know, you never can know, so you can't assume you do.

This is sort of how science works. Ideas are floating around constantly. Those that can be supported become more seriously considered.

The thing you're missing here is that the ideas that are NOT supported do not get the same privileges as those ideas that are supported. If we call sexual reproduction a "seriously considered" idea and stork-delivery a "not seriously considered" idea, we do not teach them alongside each other and say they are equally valid ideas. An advanced society does not hold the claim that "truth is relative" at its core.

In our society as it is now Evolutionists should be thrilled. Their theory is the only one taught in schools! As scientists they should be horrified, because our children will go out into the world with no idea how to handle something that falls outside the theories of science they have been collectively taught.

Sure they know how to handle it. Kids say "I don't know" all the time. That's how they handle it: correctly claim ignorance. Unfortunately it's the adults that come up with wacky ideas that aren't actually true.

In other words our society has stagnated itself scientifically in this country. Sooner or later the results of our actions will come back to haunt us. But my children, if I am blessed with any, will be part of the minority that are open-minded and accepting of all theories, so nothing will fall outside their belief system, because they are open to all of it. Discoveries are made when someone is looking, seeking. They are never found if someone is looking with a fixed, clouded, or distracted gaze.

Your children will be diagnosed with severe cases of doublethink.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Note that in this reply you are doing exactly what <3Mark said. Namely, you're responding to tone.

You have not adressed the primary point of most people responding which is something to the effect of OP has no understanding of evolution and that from a scientific perspective there is absolutely no debate about the usefulness of evolution as a model. You also seem to ignore the fact that specific fallacies in OP's logic have been pointed out, though frankly I question the point of doing so.

Now granted, this is itself an ad hominem point but, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the debate is over. Evolution won out over biblical creationism quite some time ago.

We are in no way obligated to entertain, condone or shelter attempts to spread lies and delusion.

The arguments being presented are not worthy of a rational reply.

If you do not understand this then I advise you to seriously reconsider your evalutation of your own intelligence.

I was responding to tone but I was trying to get across why I think such a tone is detrimental to intellectual interests. I have no interest in arguing the central points of the debate, as I'm not a creationist.

I think this thread was doomed form the start, which speaks poorly to the worth of this community. We will never know how the OP would have reacted if the majority of posters on here had treated the situation like Bluelines and a couple others did. As it was, the insults were so immediate and multitudinous that there was no option but to go defensive.

I don't think that this is misunderstood: bad ideas are never smothered by belligerence. I don't have to make a presentation on this, everybody knows it. To misunderstand this would be far more unforgivable than to misunderstand biogenesis or speciation, or punctuated equilibrium, whatever, the age of the earth even. Nobody who lives around people misunderstands human nature so much as to think that bad ideas are smothered by belligerence.

So, if people know this than why do they react to bad ideas with belligerence? Insecurity, anti-intellectualism, or a combination of the two.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I think this thread was doomed form the start, which speaks poorly to the worth of this community. We will never know how the OP would have reacted if the majority of posters on here had treated the situation like Bluelines and a couple others did. As it was, the insults were so immediate and multitudinous that there was no option but to go defensive.

There's always an option other than to go defensive. When you say something and every angry nerd in sight gets upset, you're probably incredibly wrong as OP unquestionably is. I see no reason to molly-coddle people who's egos are so large as to necessitate delicate handling of the statement "You're wrong". The more wrong a statement is, the more readily available its negations are and the less work towards a resolution of the problem the person has displayed, the more justified one is in responding with ridicule.

OP mentioned a poorly thought out reading list, cliched arguments and a willingness to accept the word of any fool stating that some piece of psuedo-scientific flotsam was fact.

This is standard and there's nothing that's changed about it. We've seen this lots of times before. While it's true that DreamBliss may change her mind about any of this, I don't think that that's at all likely so long as one is trapped below level three of the indicated pyramid. If the tone is belligerent then someone that can be reasoned with will be able to overlook it and rise to the higher levels.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Here's the deal. I don't think that this is misunderstood: bad ideas are never smothered by belligerence. I don't have to make a presentation on this, everybody knows it. To misunderstand this would be far more unforgivable than to misunderstand biogenesis or speciation, or punctuated equilibrium, whatever, the age of the earth even. Nobody who lives around people misunderstands human nature so much as to think that bad ideas are smothered by belligerence.

So, if people know this than why do they react to bad ideas with belligerence? Insecurity, anti-intellectualism, or a combination of the two.

The same can be said of rationality. How often have you seen somebody that doesn't understand rational thought have their mind changed by rational argument? My guess is zero. If you happen to think otherwise then I would assert, based purely on definitions, that at best the conclusion was either shiny and attractive or rang with the glow of divine truth.

You cannot reason with somebody that doesn't understand rational thought.

The point of replying with belligerence is for other people's sake. That is the correct response. It shows other people that may not care enough to have jumped off the fence that the idea is stupid. If somebody wanted to physically molest children, this would be a no brainer. Almost nobody would disagree with it and people would respond with verbal and physical violence. Why do these same people then suddenly want to assert that it's acceptable to intellectually molest children by spreading this intellectually, spiritually and culturally corrosive trash in public? Children read this. And then one of them gets pissed over somebody saying "fuck"?

Creationists are a lost cause. Like drug addicts only they can decide to change and what we do is going to have jack all to do with it. If you fall, you fall alone and I am far more concerned with the people that aren't already creationists than the ones that are. Sorry if that sounds callous but that's life.

I want creationism off my planet. The myth of the magic monkey has been fucking with my species for too long. The idea that creationism is socially acceptable is the number one supporting meme behind the myth at this point and I would like to see it gone.

I can't wait for the day when the president would sooner masturbate in public than confess to thinking that creationism is a good idea.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I was responding to tone but I was trying to get across why I think such a tone is detrimental to intellectual interests.

It isn't really. If the idea had any intellectual merit behind it, that tone wouldn't have been used in the first place. This thread is on a par with claiming that the Earth is flat, or the geocentric model. Those ideas lost years ago - rightly so - and bringing them back up adds nothing of value. Being belligerent takes nothing away because it never had any value.

Speaking of tone, if someone is going to make statements like "Evolution is at best a scientific theory and at worst a religion" with such certainty then it helps greatly if the statements are at least accurate as opposed to being laughably wrong.

I think this thread was doomed form the start, which speaks poorly to the worth of this community.

This thread was doomed to begin with, but not because of the community, but because of the original content.

So, if people know this than why do they react to bad ideas with belligerence? Insecurity, anti-intellectualism, or a combination of the two.

It's always depressing when people automatically equate hostility with insecurity, even when it has already been explained for them. Though I do find it funny that intellectuals criticising anti-intellectual ideas and people is itself labelled as being anti-intellectual.

I made no secret of my reasons: it's irritating to have exactly the same tired arguments brought up yet again (despite the amusing demand by the OP to stop regurgitating), it's irritating to see someone so lazy that they can't find answers right under their nose when they have access to so much knowledge at the touch of a few buttons, and it's irritating to see someone attack something they clearly know nothing about.

On another day I might have taken the time to detail how we know radiometric dating works, and the large body of knowledge behind it and how it's applied elsewhere (including my own experiences with the techniques as they are applied in chemistry; mass spectroscopy is an integral part of organic chem for instance). In fact, if the OP had asked a question like "I'm interested in learning about carbon dating, could someone please explain it to me" then I imagine I might well have done that.

However, when someone arrogantly and ignorantly dismisses the technique, then I'm much less compelled to educate them. The other day was one of the days where I decided not to do so.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

It's always depressing when people automatically equate hostility with insecurity, even when it has already been explained for them. Though I do find it funny that intellectuals criticising anti-intellectual ideas and people is itself labelled as being anti-intellectual.

I'll drop my tone of insistence, then, I'm just trying to suggest a point of view. You don't seem insecure to me, so if my continued use of the word sounds like an accusation, I'm handling this badly somehow.

I do still completely disagree that belligerence is in any way productive. All you end up doing is driving people into cults. Just a little group support is all a person needs to maintain those mental firewalls, and only by undermining the division into groups can you get someone to consider your words. The virtue of discourse is that it is not warfare.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The point of replying with belligerence is for other people's sake. That is the correct response. It shows other people that may not care enough to have jumped off the fence that the idea is stupid. If somebody wanted to physically molest children, this would be a no brainer. Almost nobody would disagree with it and people would respond with verbal and physical violence. Why do these same people then suddenly want to assert that it's acceptable to intellectually molest children by spreading this intellectually, spiritually and culturally corrosive trash in public? Children read this. And then one of them gets pissed over somebody saying "fuck"?

That essentially says that truth is in the words spoken most emphatically, that people on the fence will see you are right because you said 'fuck' the loudest. People already tend to believe this, do you really want to encourage it?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Hi Ne-Yo. The Bible is scripture but not all scripture is The Bible. Just like all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.

Hi PS. What other religion besides Christianity was I speaking of then? Because I refuse to believe that you and anyone else here thinks I was making the assertion that all sacred text are biblical.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is a lot like the venn diagram I described for you one time. Do you remember that?

No

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

More importantly, you need to watch your inferences.

I don't curse at you, so don't curse at me that's the point I'm making. I don't see why you even responded to that portion of my text. Oh yea that's right, you're an atheist, almost forgot. :p

There aren't enough big words in this thread.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

There aren't enough big words in this thread.

Stereoscopic diagrammatically obfuscatory insubordination.

true, but it's necessary.
your ava is odd, even for my taste. good job.
later

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

That essentially says that truth is in the words spoken most emphatically, that people on the fence will see you are right because you said 'fuck' the loudest. People already tend to believe this, do you really want to encourage it?

It essentially says that people behave as if truth is in the words spoken most emphatically. Taking advantage of it is not necessarily encouraging it. If people wanted to change the situation then they could begin by approaching situations in a rational way. Since they don't want to do this, I can only conclude that they want to be led around from one "belief" to another like cows beings transferred with cattle prods from one pasture to a greener one.

Don't get mad at us. We inherited the situation the same as you did.

I'm sorry Ne-Yo. I really just wanted to point out the stupid thing you said for effect. I don't actually have any interest in conversing with you.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I don't actually have any interest in conversing with you.

For one to not have any interest in conversing with me, you love replying to my text any chance you get.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

For one to not have any interest in conversing with me, you love replying to my text any chance you get.

Oh man. I wasn't going to reply. But now I'm going to.

I think what you meant to say is "For one that has no interest in conversing with me,..."

As you phrased it, it sounds as if one could demonstrate a lack of interest in conversing with you precisely by replying to your text any chance one got. But this is not the case.

Granted, I find that reading your posts holds much the same guilty thrill that looking at a trainwreck surely must and occasionally I poke at one of them with the same lurid fascination as a child thrusting a stick at a dead animal. Don't infer too much from that though other than that I have a sick sense of humor.

Also note that I have not once credited you with advancing an intelligent opinion and draw from that whatever your atrophied brain can.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Oh man. I wasn't going to reply. But now I'm going to.

I think what you meant to say is "For one that has no interest in conversing with me,..."

As you phrased it, it sounds as if one could demonstrate a lack of interest in conversing with you precisely by replying to your text any chance one got. But this is not the case.

Oh I see, I made it appear as though your statement was a complete contradiction. My bad, I guessed I should have conveniently thrown in some sort of euphemism in that sentence because I forgotten how extremely sensitive you were. Sick sense of humor; with the way you cry? Dude com'n, give me a break.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Also note that I have not once credited you with advancing an intelligent opinion and draw from that whatever your atrophied brain can.

This coming from the guy that was once banned form this site for trolling and in-turn groveled, beseech cried and pleaded to staff to allow him back on. Yea, your so -called credit goes a long way with me and you can draw from that whatever your putrescence brain can.

Ah Ne-Yo, you are amusing. Euphemism to keep me from being offended? lmao. Why would I be offended by your inability to correctly formulate a basic english sentence? I was incredibly amused and thought I'd point it out so that other people that missed it could join with me in laughing at you.

Also, I don't think that suggesting that the mod that instigated the problem for which I was banned either study remedial english or be removed from his/her duty counts as grovelling. Can you read threads on 'The Island' or did the one mod that might be a creationist leak that information? That would of course be a violation of duty but I would have no problem with having the whole thread made public. It's nothing like you described. That's what you get for trusting creationists to understand reality.

I just wish people who do not understand biological evolution would stop talking about it until they do some research.

I just wish people who do not understand ____________ would stop talking about it until they do some research.

p.s. I want to answer the actual topic of the thread but I think I have to wait until this current bout of cynical hopelessness passes.

Well I am, slowly, doing my research.

I now know, according to the book, "13 Things That Don't Make Sense" that we have determined the age of universe based on spectrographic measurements of light to determine distance, direction, and velocity of movement of objects in space. This has, as far as I can determine, developed into Hubble's Constant (the current expansion rate of the universe), which may be based on the research done by someone named Slipher. Add matter density and how much the expansion is slowing down and you can work out how long it has been since the expansion started. An Omega (density of gravitating matter) of 1 the universe is not older than 8 billion years, which doesn't match the age of the universe's oldest stars, as calculated by astronomers, at 15 billion years old, and this means that it must be an an Omega of 0.3.

My apologies if this was not very clear. Feel free to correct me where I may be wrong here. I am mostly paraphrasing information from scattered pages of the book.

Something else I picked up o is Biogenesis. A high-school science teacher who teaches at a Christian school teaches in a unique way. He lets the students decide. He explained this following a skit that demonstrated a flaw with Biogenesis. According to the skit, the cell would decompose before it could change due to the presence of harmful and lethal chemicals.

I don't present any of this to argue with anyone, merely to show I am researching this and updating my, admitably, out of date and Creationist-biased education.
- DreamBliss

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Can you read threads on 'The Island' or did the one mod that might be a creationist leak that information?

That's new news to me I wasn't aware of any mods 'ever' being creationist. Anyway, arguing with you is getting old real fast. So I'm calling it quits because I'm obviously the bigger man here. Carry on with the topic everyone.