GarthP2000

What convinced me that evolution is more than 'just a theory' (ie., a word that many people mistake for just 'guesswork'), is how its a lot more compatible with biological, natural, astronomical, and other laws and sciences; plus the explanations given by the evolutionary biologists just flow a lot smoother and more logically than the biblical account. Whereas those defending the biblical account, (when all is said and done) are doing only that; defending the biblical account, ... even when they try to 'scientize' it up by supporting the well known natural and biological arguments, except when they contradict the biblical account. Then it shifts into a "It's a valid argument, so long as the validity of the Scriptures remain inviolate! That is the line that *cannot* be crossed, --- no matter what!" knee-jerk mode. I've seen that mode practiced in TWI and I've seen it in many mainstream, fundamentalist churches. Yes, there are scientists that play that same kind of *stoopid* mode re: evolution, but they are the isolated individuals whose egos surpass their professionalism. (And they should know better!) When the church/believer does that mode, it is because their Genesis doctrine requires them to. Oh, and the flaw of asking for an experiment of proving evolution is based on the flaw that it (like each and every other scientific premise) can be proved by one experiment. ... Typical short-sighted, American culture based "I want to see it NOW!" thinking. Evolution can't be proved in one sitting, mix all the chemicals into a big beaker, enter the formula into Excel, and hit the Enter key, ... and *POOF* there ya are, complete with HP quality color printout to take with you. Evolution is shown to be true because of the accumulation over the years of related and supporting facts, scientifically determined theories, and other reliable information to the point where it becomes a 'preponderance of the evidence' situation. Ie., the amount of facts gathered lean FAR more towards supporting evolution than it _ever_ could the 6 day, Young Earth, Genesis account. ... By a landslide! The only people who dispute this finding are the ones who have the aforementioned 'mental block' of refusing to challenge the Genesis account (no matter the solidity of the challenging info), and even go to ridiculous extents of ((gag)) 'reasoning', just to protect the reputation of the Genesis account. Thus we have examples like 'Dr.' Kenneth Hovind. I hope this helps clear things up as to the why I see it the way I do.

Ohhh, about as much as the likelyhood of an evolutionary biologist denying creationism keeping his job at that Kentucky museum, ya think? Besides, he wouldn't have the "I'd better mouth the evolutionary party line, lest they fire me." song-and-dance if he actually believes that evolution was true, now would he? ... I think not. <_<

As far as I'm concerned, a museum dedicated to the following would benefit the human race far, FAR more. Just give it a listen, and you'll see what I mean. :)

Ain't blind faith entertaining? <_<

I do know what's going on (as I have read the thread), I do have a clue, and I do have my ducks in a row.Ie., this thread is about Nifong the prosecuting attorney and his misdeeds in that office, ... not Nifong the politician. True, his office is an elected office, but when he is carrying out his duties (or misbehaving re: his duties thereof), it isn't in the context of him being a politician, it is in the context of him as an attorney. Yes, the two fields overlap, but they aren't identical. No, you are making it all about politics. Calling an attorney (even a publically elected one) out on his misdeeds in his office/profession does not make it political, unless the participants make it political, particularly in using it for the next election. ... So far, I have yet to see any of that applied. When it does happen, _then_ it becomes political. Ie,. the man f***ed up badly. He is having his a** hauled before the appropriate authorities and charged. He is being thrown out on his aforementioned a**. ... That's not politics, just accountability. See? Have another cold one. ;)

A few things I have _got_ to point out here: And what authority are YOU to make that prohibition about anyone here? ANYONE of us gets to make that definition. The only question is how accurate that definition is. Uhh actually, no it isn't. It isn't focusing on Republicans or Democrats, but on lawyers/DAs, particularly on this one who prosecuted the Duke lacrosse team unethically. Ie., nothing to do with politics. ... Now, if it were brought up that it was because of Democrats or Republican ideology that this happened or similar connection, THEN it would be political. You sound rather pi**ed. ... Have a beer , and settle down, guy.

:( The link is no longer there. What happened to it? Update: Here is the working link, Belle. Working Link You just happened to paste it in twice by mistake. ;)

Reading those notes, I kept thinking of Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

... until you need to hire an attorney, ..... *then* she/he's your bestest bud, with an untouchable and immaculate reputation. ;)

How about an Advanced Class on that topic, --- such as exercising near Jedi Master-like self control when required to do the near-impossible and horrendous task of accompanying her through the women's underwear department!? :o :ph34r: ((quivering with sweats and fear just thinking about it!)) OMG, ... the humanity! the humanity!!

..... kinda makes you wonder how many choices that test can really give out. :unsure:

Groucho, You mean this Hank? :B) Sudo, "... Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description." One point that is stubbornly continuous throughout creation science is that it never dares to cross the authority of the Scriptures -- never. They won't even consider the possibility of any evidence/proven information successfully challenging the authority of what the Bible says in Genesis, no matter how solid that proof/info might be.

Apparently Rottiegrrl thinks that the 3 Stooges are the high school runaways, ... altho' they do look quite a bit older than your usual high schooler. But seriously, its one thing to want to make public 'an alternative viewpoint', of creation or anything else. But when you try to pawn that 'alternative viewpoint' as science, you will get the critical and challenging remarks and demands that you prove your point of view _as_ science, ... and apparently that causes some people to liken said tactics to that of 'high school runaways', and other 'you have offended my faith'-like comments. Here's something to think about while stewing over all this. If we're going to bring up 'alternative explanations as to the origins of the universe' as having equal time with the evolutionary theory, ... then we ought to also include explanations such as the Hindu myths as to the creation of the heavens and the earth by Brahma, the Hindu God of Creation. Or the Greco-Roman creation tales of their gods and titans, along with why Atlas is carrying the world on his shoulders. Or the ancient Egyptian versions of the beginning, or .... You can readily see the problem here of trying to include all these into a science class, whose job it is is NOT to give a democratic forum to all the differing opinions/beliefs/drug-induced trips/etc. as to how the earth came about. A philosophy or world religion class would be more suited for that approach. Not a science class. And totally _lame_ (and desperate) arguments trying to make the evolution theory as one 'based on faith' isn't going to do it either. That's just an attempt to downplay evolution by going the "See? They aren't any different than a religion! They are taking it on nothing more than faith too!" equivocation approach. People who buy into that line of crap have _no_ idea as to what constitutes evolution, the scientific meaning of the word 'theory', or the scientific approach.

"I would like to believe that it (the creation) took place in 7 days but, ... I have thoughts. And that can really **** up the faith thing." Thanks for the laugh, Sushi!

Nice thing about the science behind evolution is that, as new evidence comes into play, and things are proven/disproven, evolutionists (by and large) adust their views and adapt their findings to match the more solid evidence. (It kinda _evolves_ that way. ) I have *yet* to see _any_ Creationist or ID proponent change their views to match substantial and consistant evidence, particularly if it challenges Scripture! Especially if it challenges Scripture. ... Ie., they will go _no farther_ than the bounderies set by the Bible, no matter what. I know of what I speak in this regard, as I had that very same "It's what the Bible *says*, therefore its true" mindset before I dared to think _outside_ that box. Amazing what you can learn when you do. ;)

Well, I still get dandruff on my shoulders, so I guess I haven't been brainwashed enuff.

Only if these guys are .....

Dave, Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!! (anyone for the Three Stooges ads?)

Catholic ... Catholic ... Catholic ..... It's those web search spiders, I tell ya. They are crawling everywhere!

I don't think he could. Ever wonder how *hard* that gum winds up being after a few weeks? ... It's like granite, I tell ya. :lol:

Larry, who are you, Smikeol's evil twin?

... only at lunch, my dear. Only at lunch.

Howard, Ok, now I get a better read of what you were communicating in your post that I responded to, ... sort of. I say 'sort of' because that particular post seemed to read like a kind of "All right all ready! So he committed plagiarism. So big deal! ... Hey, it was still legal, and TWI made damn sure that they were diligent (from an ethical standpoint? :unsure: ) in keeping it that way." Ie., I saw a white washing where there wasn't so much of one. However (you knew it was coming, didncha? ;) ) while we're not talking mass murder here, plagiarism still is a bigger thing than you realize, even if you 'don't give a damn' about the issue. Particularly when it comes from a man who claimed that he was getting his stuff straight from God, and his research organization's 'research' amounted to little more than them playing copying machine, and expecting those involved to submit totally to this kraut's authority and abuse regardless. Ie., as Raf states succinctly, VPW lied, and it effected people's lives horribly. ... Just ask Excathedera. Waste of time 'hating' (your term, not ours, so keep that in mind, ok?) the man? As Waysider accurately pointed out, it isn't hate. It's calling VPW for what he was, and his reputation for what it should be. Them's the breaks for someone/their rep who behaved like VPW did, and if that's going over the top for you, then _you_ just don't see it. Hey, nobody's making you join in on the 'piling on', so what's it to ya? :huh: All that said, I do apologize for reading into what you said, that which you didn't say. ... Chief. ;)

... this practice coming from a research and teaching organization??? And a biblical one at that??? :o I'm sorry, but something just doesn't sit quite right here. :unsure: Talk about a poor excuse! I notice that you keep focusing on the word 'legal' a lot in your post. Well, there is a difference between being 'legal', and being original. One can be j-u-s-t this side of the law, technically speaking, and yet still be as dishonest and slippery as hell. ... "D-a-a-s right, keeds." Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. You "can't copyright an idea", yadayadayada. ... Is that theme the best you can do to defend what VPW did? Keep in mind that I used to be in the "VPW didn't really commit plagarism 'cuz he mentioned all the people he learned from" camp. Until Raf (who knows quite a bit about what copyrights and plagarism is) 'fully instructed' me otherwise. The man (VPW) kept watch on making sure his tracks were on the legal side (see my differentiation between legal and original above) cuz he didn't want to get nailed, NOT because he was so focused on the integrity of his ((cough)) 'research'. Sorry to splash the cold water of reality on ya, chief, but when you read his works, and they look like a bad cut-n-paste job done on an out-of-date Xerox machine, from works authored from Bullinger, Leonard, and other authors, there is no WAY you can even possibly convince anybody with a serious mind that that was bonafide and heart-felt research, ... in academia OR out. Piling on? Uhh, ... well yeah, sure. Particularly since there are those (drug induced) in-DUH-viduals posting here who still believe that he put in good research and didn't steal a thing in his life. You do that in _this_ forum, then you'd better put on the asbestos , ... or go somewhere else! © 2007, by someone who, even tho' he never majored in English in college, took journalism classes, nor wrote any books, has enough command of the English grammar and language to be the full author of his writings. ... Hell, VPW couldn't even do *that* in his PFAL material! ((snort)) <_< Surely you can make a better argument than that, Howard.

Since What the Hurl graces us with a source of 'honest research', let's peruse that resource for other 'honest research' gems, shall we? Hitler's War Race and the American Prospect Last Days of the Romanovs (I never knew that Noontide Press had such romantic views of the Russin Czars) and of course, this list wouldn't be complete without our old friends, the Illuminati: Pawns in the Game (where's James French when ya need him? ) And here I was thnking that nobody can beat ol' Wierwille when it came to 'true research'!