steve wrote:

toomanyhelicopters wrote:Steve... STEVE... You just asserted that there is inescapable evidence that God is not responsible for the creation of life on Earth and the existence of evolution and science and such.

No, I assert that there is evidence that he didn't do all of it. I know because I did some of it, like that dump I took earlier. I know I did it, not Big Ernie in the Sky.

I didn't read the rest of your post, so I don't know if you said anything else.

Etienne, you hurt my heart! These long post from the Biznono or the Brett Eugene Ralph, you will read entire post! From me, you only read 10 or 20 words and then say "mah, the rest is garbage!" WTF, guy!?!

PS - God asked me to tell you that he made you take that dump, and he also made you think you chose to do it. PSYCH!

I've been seeing a poll kicked around on teevee the past couple weeks that said something like

Americans who think God created Man in current form (non-evolutionary) : 50-something percent

Americans who think this happened in the past 20,000 years : 40-something percent.

Almost half of Americans don't give a shit about science. That's kinda creepy.

...

solum wrote:ps. TMH, its because YOU FAIL TO BREAK UP YOUR PARAGRAPHS. I see your posts and go, , another long post. I'm interested in what you have to say. But in a conversation how long would you listen to someonetalkinglikethiswithoutanypunctuationbetweentheirwordsoranywaytodigestwhattheyaresaying?

Not long I'd guess.

FWIW, I've been using proper punctuation (for the most part) for a long time. And you'll notice I've also been using proper capitalization for weeks now, in an effort to increase my readability.

I'll see what I can do about limiting my paragraphs to a few sentences. But if you're having trouble digesting, I apologize. The way my brain works, I talk just like I write... I don't stop for two seconds after every couple sentences and then start back up.

...

matthew wrote:

Mandroid2.0 wrote:

matthew wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

LAD wrote:
...Phrenology?....

What's your point, sirrah?

Your original point that Phrenology is somehow linked to modern Psychology is deluded and wrong because Phrenology was not based upon a system of scientific inquiry and is therefore a completely different matter. I realize that you pointed out the differences in "research and analysis," but the research and analysis are what science is founded on. Conjoining the two fields in any way is dangerous.

However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless.-from here

What angers me the most about I.D. "theorists" is that they also ignore the rules of science. There is no method available to prove their hypothesis because the experimental variable, God, is absent. That doesn't mean that God does not exist. There's no way to prove that either. Go to the Philosophy department if you're looking for God.

If you want to start an entirely new branch of thought where everything is based simply upon your observations, be my guest. But that is not Science.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:PS - God asked me to tell you that he made you take that dump, and he also made you think you chose to do it. PSYCH!

I made God say that. Prove me wrong.

steve wrote:

toomanyhelicopters wrote:PS - God asked me to tell you that he made you take that dump, and he also made you think you chose to do it. PSYCH!

I made God say that. Prove me wrong.

You made God say the word "that"? Well now, that seems like an odd endeavor. But if you say so.

Martin Luther was supposedly taking a dump when he conceived of the 95 Theses.

Flaneur wrote:Martin Luther was supposedly taking a dump when he conceived of the 95 Theses.

No no, that was the '95 feces.

I'm reviving this poor, sickly thread because I don't wanna start yet another one...

I've been really bothered lately by something... Bush speaking about the potential pandemic bird flu outbreak we need to spend $7billion to prevent.

How can he talk about this fear of a new strain of the virus that jumps human to human? How can that concept be brought into the national dialogue with NOBODY paying attention to the fact that he is unequivocally stating that he believes in evolution?!?! What is one strain of a virus versus another? It's fucking evolution!! Why is nobody talking about this??

Grrr?