GarthP2000

Why not post the wedding on YouTube? Again, Muchos Corn-gratulations!

Uhhh, ... how effectively? Now why does that last sentence of yours, "If there are serious problems, I will find them." bear an eerily similar 'look and feel' to when Weirwille made a similar statement in PFAL, along the lines of "Just follow along in the Bible with me, class. If there are any mistakes, I'll tell you"? <_< And apparently you aren't as knowledgable in the genetics field (particularly in relation to evolution) as you seem to claim, as your snide remark, "Anyway, breed an ape with a human, I'll probably start seeing things your way." illustrates. Again, you show no understanding of how evolution works. It wasn't a case where there were generation after generation of apes, and then *POOF* along comes man in the generation after that. And evolutionary scientists never portray it like that. ... Only the ignorant presume that that is how evolution works. Which would make evolution unworkable, ... IF that's the way it works. There's nothing stopping anybody from lying to themselves in such a manner, if what they were faced with contradicts a belief system that they hold near and dear to themselves. That is why Creationists fight so hard, and come up with the pseudo-scientific song-and-dance that they do. Because evolution, like very few (if any) other sciences, directly says, "Hey! The Genesis account isn't valid!" That Kentucky museum comes right out and says it! If you don't believe the Genesis 1-14 account, might as well throw away the Bible as a true and believeable account overall. Which a lot of people are scared to do. Is the Bible really that dependant upon the Genesis account? Is your belief in the Bible really so dependant upon the Genesis account? ..... Sounds kind of fragile to me, ... ya think? :unsure: Now _there's_ some questions to run by those folks for them to seriously consider.

1) Press the Big Green Button. But seriously, I think you know how it works. You just don't accept it as scientifically viable. I do. And I think I have a lot of solid scientific facts and information to back me up. Evidently you don't agree. Ahh well, perhaps you could email federal judge John E. Jones (the one that ruled in that Dover PA Intelligent Design ruling), and get a copy of his ruling to find out why he doesn't share your view likening evolution and creationism as equal alternatives to be taught in science classes. Keep in mind that he, too, is a Christian, and a somewhat fundamentalist one at that. Here is a good portion of his response on Wikipedia. Enjoy! :B) Dmiller, I already gave a clue as to why it wouldn't be blind and random chance, ie.: "... according to a set(s) of biological/geological laws that are continuously in operation, even if some of them are undetecteable to one human's observation?" ... See? Nothing 'blind and random' about it.

Based on the amount of viable, scientifically sound concepts that don't require believing in a presupposed account based on little more than faith, ... uhh yeah. Works for me. And you can infer that the earth, the universe, etc. is likened unto the watch, ..... how? By it's 'complexity'? And how do you know how to determine the level of complexity that requires said 'superior intelligence', or of which kind of intelligence, for that matter. Ie., why is it that the Christian 'superior intelligence' (ie., your God) should be the one who gets the nod here? I bring up what I said before about the Hindu tales of creation, or the Greco-Roman one, or that of the ancient Norse, ... or even the modern Scientologist variety. You do know that they too, have their own unique account of how the earth came about, and the life thereon (Aliens with their thetans tied to nuclear volcanoes, donchaknow. ) ... All of them include various 'superior intelligences' who were supposedly behind nature's beginning, and I'd be willing to bet that they could explain their ((cough)) 'science' just as effectively as your museum in Kentucky could. 'Cept it ain't science. <_< And how do you determine that evolution is indeed a set of 'natural processes acting blindly'? How do you come to the conclusion (scientifically of course ;) ) that evolution isn't acting rather, according to a set(s) of biological/geological laws that are continuously in operation, even if some of them are undetecteable to one human's observation? See, that's one of the creationist's BIG misunderstandings of how evolution works. They presume that it's all by some blind and random chance with no laws to guide what occurs. You show the same unscientific mistake by means of that quote being one of your favorite phrases. Update! Here's a (length is a little over 6 minutes) that I recalled that provides a powerful argument against the 'theory' of irreduceable complexity.Yeah, yeah, I know. ... Pain in the keister I am! :B)

Then I would accept the point of view that is either proven, or has the preponderance of the evidence leaning substantially towards it. I already tried that with Creationism, ... and found it lacking. And mainly for the reason I depicted. A reason which is still in place. I look to evolution, and find the information/evidence/supporting sciences/etc., and I find a much stronger case, ... even with the holes and gaps. (and there's my evidence, Bolshevik. Sorry I couldn't put it into a nice and convenient link-in-a-nutshell for you) Ie., higher score wins.

And that, folks, is the main part of the crux of which I speak; ie., the maintainance of the reputation of the Scriptures, upon which Creationism, even the 'brand' which this museum shows, rests. That is why I posed the question to give him, thusly: "Ask him what would he do (as a fellow scientist, and all) if he found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the Genesis account? How would he handle that? ... Would he even consider the possiblity of that happening?" And now I have my answer: No, they won't even think about crossing that line. Their faith forbids it. ... And that is (one of the main things) that keeps it from being presented as 'an altenative point of view'. And sorry to bust your bubble, but such a mind block isn't the same in the evolutionary field as a whole. It _is_ in certain evolutionary biologists, sure. But not in the field as a whole. (And trying to equivocate evolution and religion in this context is but an empty and poorly thought out attempt.) For one thing, Darwin did not concoct the idea of evolution, then go around the world looking for evidence to prop the theory up. No, he didn't. Also, look at some of the responses here to the idea/theory of evolution. "Its ridiculous! ... It just can't happen. ... We don't have the evidence of the actual process, therefore it cannot be true. ..." and so forth. Look at the presumption in reactions like that. It presumes that the evolutionary process just can't be true, and a lot of that presumption comes about because of the challenges to the Genesis account (this museum clearly illustrates this mentality). During Darwin's time, religious critics were open and honest about where they were coming from in their opposition: it contradicts the Bible, therefore it must be rejected. Nowadays, since that tactic is no longer effective, they try to portray their side from a 'science' angle, but that 'It shalt not contradict the Bible' crux is still there.

For all his crap and arrogance, I just dont see Dubya being the Anti-Christ. He's w-a-y too dumb.

... anymore than complicated = not true, particularly since it is not simple. You see, I too, have heard the argument and the logic behind "Keep it Simple, Stupid". Ie., it gives the (flawed) premise that "Truth is simple, its only the lies that are complicated". And I used to believe it too. ... Used to. Quantum physics is NOT simple, yet more and more facts are being learned that supports it as a certifiable science. E = mc2 might be 'simple', as its stated, but the science behind it is NOT simple. (Nice try, by the way) There are many simple things in life that are indeed true. ... As there are many complicated and complex things in life that are equally true. Frankly, nowadays I'm beginning to think that the people who hammer on "Keep it Simple, Stupid" are basically those who prefer their (over)simplified and pithy sayings/beliefs, as then they don't have to burden themselves with facing the possibility that something in their simple beliefs ... might have a flaw. And by and large, people do not like admitting that what they believe in has flaws. So I offer an alternative. Instaed of "Keep it Simple, Stupid", why not "Keep it Real!", be it simple or complicated.

Perhaps "IT" will prefer Big Macs. ..... OMG!! Then that means that "IT" MUST be ........ Bill Clinton!!! MWUHAhahahahahahaha........

And when did we (or they) say (or indicate) that the other doesn't? Ya know, I don't entirely agree. Sure, sure, its a 'nice and polite' thing to carry on with 'agreeable' conversation; never criticizing and all, all peaches n' cream, our minds renewed to 'edifying' talk and all. ...... YA GADS! Shades of twigs, W.O.W. meetings and Christian Etiquette Classes by Dorethea Wierwille! :blink: :ph34r: But seriously, (as long as folks don't get too seriously ad hominum here, intelligent and scrutinizing criticism is all a part of an open society (something that TWI was NOT, not by a l-o-n-g shot <_< ). As far as I'm concerned, you have a problem with my POV or opinion, and the content thereof, then bring on the contrary and opposite point of view. (You guys almost always do so in any event, ehh? ;) ) I might not care for the POV, and I might even get emotional in my response (Ok, so I actually do several times). But never will I say "Hey! You cannot voice that here! You cannot criticize me!" And also, as far as I'm concerned, religious POVs should not be exempt from said criticism either, and if one can't maintain their faith, belief, trust, and certainty on a point of view when its challenged, well then, ... what does it say about their faith to begin with, hmmmm?

:o :o ... Well, if that isn't one helluva indictment of Creationism, I don't know what is.

Not as common as the gaping flaws in accepting the Genesis account as scientifically/historically factual. And I mean f'ing GAPING. As well as the lame, desperate theories/explanations that get 'doctored' up to look scientific to make young earth creationism look credible. For one thing, consider 'Dr.' Hovind's explanation that light 'slows down' over the years, thus making stars that look like they're millions of light years away only in fact 6000 light years away. (And that's just one of many of laughable explanations that support Creationism) Or how about some of the not-so-scientific ones, like how fossils are 'the Devil's handiwork'? (Or God's handiwork, if you buy into the "He did it to test our faith" denomination. ) You seem to give the Creationists more leeway in overlooking their 'foo pahh' (fax paux misspelled deliberately to match pronounciation). Can't do that, particularly if they want to be included in the science classrooms.

And yet you have no problem following the Genesis biblical account, an account that is presented based on nothing more than on the premise of faith (like the rest of the Bible) seeing as the premise of faith is central to the book.But actually, the reasoning that you are apparently having trouble with is more involved than the oversimplified Updated due to finding said description of known mechanism: Interesting, ... since nowhere have you shown any evidence that such an extrapolation been actually explained by evolutionary biologists as to why it's evolution. Explain please. :huh: The whole process of discovery involved in the theory of evolution is, ... evolution. Ie., it evolves in the amount of information that paints the picture, the rendering of the theory of evolution. Also keep in mind that, while neither rendering (evolution or creationism) is totally complete and lacking of 'holes in the argument', the theory of evolution has far more solidity to it than some 6 day young earth creationist theory. And in far more ways than I can count. And ya know, I still have yet to get an answer to my question that I posted earlier in this thread: Or what would _you_ do in such a case? How would you handle it?

It could also be possible that, while its possible to do intra- or inter-species breeding, once the species/genus differences become too great, the inter-breeding then becomes impossible. Also keep in mind that Mendel's Law was authored/compiled over 100-150 years ago (about the same time as Darwin, I believe), and that, like Darwin's theories, predates many of the biological/zoological discoveries made since then.

Guess what? Anytime judges, lawyers, etc., give their rendering on what the Constitution says, it's always 'private interpretation' on the Constitution, a practice that isn't forbidden in that document. What it needs to be however, is an accurate interpretation, as much as possible.

... and then he 'took the Class' as it were, and while he didn't undergo 'chilling sensations' (it was more like 'dulling sensations'), I would be willing to bet that more 'pneumata direct access' was given, and I ain't talking about the good kind either. (using Crowley's terms, that is) ;)

Looks like one of Jerry Falwell's fanatics has escaped to England. <_<

What's next, Johniam, officially declare Christian white men as an oppressed, protected minority? Pal, you wouldn't know what being oppressed would be if oppression smacked you upside the head with a baseball bat. Besides, something else to keep in mind is that Conservatives also have their own version of 'political correctness'. Yes Virginia, they do.

Googlism sez of me, "Garth Patterson is relieved the rates aren't higher" Yup!

Now THAT is cruel.

Oh, and make sure you visit, and get us pictures of, the flat earth exhibit. :B)

Actually Dave, I once saw a Canadian documentary where Sammy Davis Jr. went up and talked to quite a few draft dodgers, and even had them on a TVC interview as to why they left the country, why they didn't want to go back, etc. None of them (as far as I know) were shipped back by the Canadian authorities, or if there were, they weren't very many. Update: Here is the link to said documentary. The dodgers are introduced about 2:40 into the video. Also, look under the 'Did You Know' tab (pages 4 and 5) for further information about them.

I got a question you can ask the proprietor of said museum. Ask him what would he do (as a fellow scientist, and all) if he found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the Genesis account? How would he handle that? ... Would he even consider the possiblity of that happening? Pain in the keister I am, ... I know. :B)

Well, from one GSpotter to another, Happy Wedding Day!! and may all your days together be filled with bliss! ... (and joint tax returns, ... and kids who misbehave and go "But D-a-a-d! She started it!!", ... and 'marital disagreements' where you wind up outside in the doghouse :D, ... and more joint tax returns, ... and ..... :P ) P.S., I take it honeymoon pics are out too? ;) ... ((running and ducking)) P.P.S., is Smikeol gonna be yer best man?? ... ((more running and ducking))

Also, has there been Americans who just moved up there, and went 'undocumented'? And how strict are the Canadian authorities at enforcing Americans to moving back south? Besides, all the draft-dodgers who moved to Canada to avoid Vietnam. How many of them moved or were forced back to the States? Just curious. :D