Ben Stein Expelled

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Vatoreus

STFU GOD MADE ME FROM DUST!

Anyway...

Yes, that's pretty much the gist of how evolution comes about. There isn't any moment where suddenly modern humans just appeared in society back when cavemen were still bouncing about. Evolution is a slow, time consuming process. Sometimes it seems that creationists learned about evolution from Pokemon...

Homo sapiens idaltu is evolving!

No, evolution often happens in huge leaps. Schatze posted some great stuff about it many pages back, do a search. Only atheists that don't really know about evolution throw out the time argument, as though that is all that is needed. The problem with that argument is that even with conservative calculations, there are discrepancies between what is observed and what is predicted. When this happens unscrupulous scientists create new theories to fit their particular dogma and people eat it up as though they were religious nuts or something.

And even if you want to believe that there is no God, then you have to accept that dust made you from nothing.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Kaio

It's been a while since I've had biology (didn't take it in college i'll admit and don't need to or plan on doing it) but I'm pretty sure species evolve in groups/communities. You cannot evolve with one set of a certain species, if there was only one set they'd be pretty close to extinct.

Instead communities of a certain species will mate (since we are talking about mammals) and over time the community/group will change. Genetic mutations are inevitable and occur all the time and there are mutations in every birth. Over time those with better survival traits, and in our case attractiveness continue living on to give birth.

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that but I'm pretty sure thats the basic gist of it and there was no one time that there were exactly two first humans.

Also don't creationists have a problem with being the descendants of inbred freaks? I guess not...looks at rednecks...

This isn't what I am saying. At some point there had to be a first male and female human. Adam and Eve. The possibility exists that yes, they were fucking monkeys at the time.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

And I am sure the Canadian national media is "fair and balanced." Amirite?

I'm sure as an American who's used to media commentators being blatantly, unapologetically partisan you'd have a hard time understanding that the US is fairly unique in it's hyper-partisan media. For example, CBC regularly has an "at issue" panel with 4 commentators. For the most part the panel is made up of the same 6 or 7 people in varying combinations. Some of them are lesbian, pro-sovereignty Montrealers. Some are right wing, social conservatives from Alberta. Some are middle of the road. But all of them get along and debate the issues very civilly and agree with each other more than disagree. There's no shouting. No talking out of place. No blatant mischaracterizations. Maybe we're just more polite, I don't know, but political dialogue tends to be a lot less shrill here.

So while yes, the news media here can be biased (typically against socially conservative policies, military engagements, that kind of thing), I think for the most part they do a good job toeing the line and reflecting what really concerns Canadians.

And yes, Stockwell Day's leadership of the Canadian Alliance was characterized by about a billion missteps along the way. He showed up at the press conference for his leadership win (which was held on a beach in the Okanogan) on a Sea-Doo in a wet-suit, for god's sake. Some of them had to do with his inexperience and making big gaffes. Some had to do with him being quite loud and forward about his evangelical, ultra conservative religious beliefs. Eventually his ass was handed to him and he gave up the leadership.

But he learned his lesson. He's much more reserved now, doesn't make his beliefs part of the public discourse, and merely does a good job as a minister (of what I can't recall offhand, maybe justice or citizenship) in the background. He's considered one of the PM's right hand men. So it's not like he's stigmatized BECAUSE of his beliefs. He was stigmatized because he didn't shut the fuck up about them.

I love this debate. I actually believe that Darwin had it mostly right, but it is little elitist pricks that claim everything has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that get me worked up. Claiming that the debate has ended when there are large gaps in the data is just silly.

No one's claiming we have evolution completely figured out. For example the link I gave above about the salamanders is interesting because speciation was happening even while there was a significant amount of interbreeding between the isolated population and the larger group outside the caves. That wasn't expected. So the mechanisms and details of evolution are still very much an active area for discovery and new information. No one's claiming our understanding of evolution is absolute, and Darwin most certainly got a lot of the details wrong.

But that's the great part about science, it's constantly self-evaluating and determining if aspects of our knowledge are still valid and applicable. If they're not, then we can revise them if they're just slightly incorrect, or if they're woefully wrong then we can toss it out entirely and search for something new to explain whatever phenomenon we're investigating. Evolution through natural selection is still a very valid, applicable, and fruitful theory to explain the variety of life we encounter all over our planet. There's certainly nothing that comes ANYWHERE close to it. Some aspects of it have been revised, some have been discarded, some have been added. There's some gaps in our understanding. But none of that means that it's time we simply throw away a theory that up until now has yielded a huge amount of good science, and is the underpinning of nearly all modern biology.

To assume that the theory of evolution as we understand it today is the same as it was 150 years ago is flat out ignorant. But that's what so many people who take issue with it do.

So what do you propose as an alternative to evolution through natural selection as a theory or explanation for the variety of life as we know it?

Unfortunately, many religious leaders cling to dogma and in the past have violently opposed contradictory findings. The Catholic church was the worst offender for a while, but has slowly started coming around.

And that has to do what exactly with how many/few true scientists there are that do not believe in evolution? Eliyahu claimed that "not a few" scientists don't subscibe to evolution. Do you have proof or numbers that back this contention up? Because the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists do indeed think evolution is a valid scientific theory.

[quote=Adam and Eve. At some point there had to be a first male and female human. [/quote]

I don't even know how to respond to such a fucking retarded statement.

People just don't want to admit we haven't seen a speciation event yet.

They are still salamanders. Salamanders with adaptations, yes, but still salamanders.

I'm not well versed enough to say if we've seen a speciation or not yet, I simply don't know. But I would add that speciation events are by their very nature rare and unusual, and take place over very long timescales. But from Tea and Screamfeeder have said, there are indeed numerous examples. I suspect you'll dismiss them, however.

However your second statement demonstrates that you're simply unwilling to see things for what they are: you were given an excellent example of very rapid and impressive changes in a species in only 30 generations. Your comment that they're "still" salamanders is quite ludicrous though. There's probably thousands of different species of salamanders. So are you saying that if a new species of salamander was the end result of that introduction to the isolated island, you wouldn't consider it a speciation event because they're "still salamanders"?

Then I don't know what to say, because nothing will satisfy you until pigs sprout wings and fly. Hell, that probably won't be good enough, because they'll still just be pigs right? They're "just" adapted to flying.

I am relatively well educated on modern molecular biology and genetics, but I still have problems with saying the pool's closed. There are still points under debate and claiming that there is no room for alternate interpretations is unscientific.

Great. So then what's your alternate interpretation then? What does modern genetics tell you? What exactly is your point of contention with evolution? Do you believe that species do not in fact change over time? Do you take umbrage with the perceived mechanisms that cause evolution? Do you believe in Lamarckism?

I'm trying to understand what exactly you're getting at. Evolution sucks, is full of holes, and completely false apparently. What do you offer as an alternative?

Pretty sure his comment was about the scientific method, not evolution in particular.

No, he definitely believes that the Big Bang is part of evolutionary theory. This is a very common aspect of the arguments creationists use. They're poorly educated on science, and don't understand that the Big Bang, origins of the universe, solar system formation, planetary formation, plate tectonics, all that are completely outside of the scope of evolution. Why? Because from their perspective, they cannot fathom that evolution is not a complete belief system for scientists much like creationism and religion is for themselves.

Dawkins can suck my cock. The only reason he got any publicity is because he attacks religion with a vitriol almost unheard of. How someone can hate an institution that most people turn to in times of great need is beyond me. I bet even you card carrying atheists say "Jesus Christ" and "godammit" when you are pissed and yell out "Oh God!" when you are fucking someone. Kind of funny how these things tend to stick around even in people that claim to not believe.

What exactly do the form my curses take have to do with the current discussion? I've been imitating and learning from my dad since I was born, and he happens to use "jesus christ" and "goddammit" as a curse on a fairly regular basis. I picked it up from him. I was essentially an atheist and non-believer since I was 5, because I loved dinosaurs and immediately when I started reading the bible for first communion and then confirmation shit just didn't jive and I was very suspicious about it. But I still use those curses, because they're just hardwired into my brain. It doesn't mean I'm religious, nor does it mean that I'm really calling on god to damn things.

[voodoochile78]

Arrakis, I'm simply dying to know - where did you, or do you go to school?

I know that Fundamentalist Christian Universities were finally getting around to pumping out trojan horse scientists who hate science, but I haven't seen one before. I was wondering if you were one of the first of the new species? (how's that for evolution in action).

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

This isn't what I am saying. At some point there had to be a first male and female human. Adam and Eve. The possibility exists that yes, they were fucking monkeys at the time.

Did you even read what I wrote... Evolution happens within a group of a certain species most certainly larger then a single set unless we at one point were very close to extinction (as close as you can get) and miraculously bounced back.

There was no one time that in a group of humanoid apes two white babies plopped out and were like the first humans.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

It didn't take me very long to find this article from 1979 that is still linking Seymouria and Diadectes. Read the last sentence of the abstract if nothing else. This is well after radioisotope dating and is published in a peer reviewed journal. I will look for the other example if you want me to.

Now you are switching up the argument and it is getting really fucking old.
I need you to be very blunt in your asking of the question.

The original article on Dawinisdead.com was making a false claim that Seymouria and Diadectes were being used as transitional fossils.

Duane Gish correctly states that both Seymouria and Diadectes are not transitional. No one ever said they were.

That article you just linked me doesn't mention a think about either Seymouria and Diadectes being transitional to other samples like Hylonomus, Paleothyris and some weird reference to Discosauriscus.

The Journal of Paleontology article only says that Seymouria and Diadectes may be related to eachother.

So what was the point of linking me that Journal of Paleontology article? I honestly think you are just googling fossil names and pasting what you find here without applying any real critical thought to the articles themselves.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Disregarded? What if conclusions have been made from a sample? Does someone write a paper saying, "well, Dr. Smith's proposals were revolutionary for their time but THEY WERE ALL LIES!!!!" Or does the fact stay in the textbook and give creationists targets to pick apart?

Also, what is an acceptable amount of error? I have read that deviations of hundreds of millions of years are acceptable. Is this true? If it is that is a hell of error bar.

I'll go over it again and I will be quite honest, for someone claiming to have a strong scientific background, you sure need a hell of a lot of nudging to understand how basic experimentation works. I don't really mean to be insulting but explaining to someone that results can be changed without calling them lies seems a little pointless if you have experience in genetics and biology.

To answer your question, if Dr. Smith's sample is dated using K/Ar and Rb/Sr and is given a specific date, then that date is the date of the sample.

If a similar sample is taken from the exact location with very similar characteristics but is given a different date using both K/Ar and Rb/Sr then BOTH samples are retested using other methods. Depending on what is found the samples may force a re-writing of the geological time scale at a very small level, or they may be found to both or either be contaminated by outside sources.

As for samples being dated by millions of years apart, yes that happens but it does not mean that the samples are then judged to be exactly the same but with different dates. Most of the time that signifies that a specific geological event took place that either moved those samples apart or closer together. Maybe a new lava flow causes a breakdown of the chemical components and the Parent element was lost.

Like I said, the geological time scale is in constant flux on a very small scale.

Give me a specific examples of two samples being millions of years apart and I can probably explain why.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Again, great link, but why hasn't information that would put this debate to bed been prominently displayed on every anti-creationist site there is? I submit it is because there is still room for debate.

It has and no, there is no room for debate. People keep using age old arguments and flatly denying evidence There is one group of people with evidence, and another group that does nothing but poke virtual made up holes in the evidence without providing any credibly evidence of their own.

There is no debate at all. There are no scientific claims made on any creationist website and as is demonstrating here in this thread, even well educated people have a difficult time with all of the data.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

This article has documentation from the University of Arizona dating an Allosaurus sample to ~16,000 years. Yes that is 16 THOUSAND. Now don't give me a bunch of shit about the crazy shit that is on the page with the documentation. I often have to go to crazy YE creationists to get info that rebuts scientific claims because scientists themselves won't do it. This is why I argue so vehemently against people totally accepting all things related to evolutionary theory, because it has become like a dogma to folks that should know better.

Like I said before, I dare you to link me something similar to the "Jurassic Wood" test that Creationists use. You did. You sure use a ton of really bad and really old Creationist arguments.

YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Now I will walk you through why that link is also full of shit.

Carbon-14 is only good for objects around 40,000-60,000 years ago. We are both in total agreement on that issue. What happens when you date something that is older than that?

It will give unreliable results.

Well what if you are not sure how old something is? Then you test it using a variety of methods until you can narrow it down. If you cannot narrow a date down and all of the data is all over the place, you DON'T just pick a date (which is what they did in the case that link you posted) and run with it. You test further for contamination and human error. You seem to be under the impression this happens every time when in fact it almost never happens.

Radiocarbon dating is very good and it has been tested and verified on everything from ancient Sumerian wood, Dead Sea Scrolls and even thousands of tree-ring samples. When a creationist misuses a technique and it gives strange results, the fault is with the creationist and not the technique. I told you that earlier and yet you still posted something exactly the way a YE Creationist would.

Whats next are you going to link me the recently dead seal that was dated to 2,000 years ago even though the biological contamination of the specimen was never even factored in?

Why do you keep linking me to Creationist websites with horrible data that can be proved wrong with a simple application of critical thought? You are obviously not even reading the links you are posting because you confused a relationship between Seymouria and Diadectes with a relationship between Seymouria, Diadectes and Hylonomus, Paleothyris.

I am going to ask again, why do you keep linking me to Creationist websites that have incorrect information that is easily fact-checked? Someone with your claimed expertise in a field like genetics does not get there by reading stuff and running with it. They read it, then read what someone else said about it, then read some more. You obviously didn't bother doing step 1 with any of the sites you have linked me.

[Arakkis]

OK, it is starting to take HOURS to type out statements to just one person, now that several people have jumped into the debate I have to claim defeat by zerging. I stated at the start that I believe in evolution, I just can't stand how people immediately claim that religion, with books that date back MILLENNIA, can be completely and totally wrong. No, I am not saying that the creation story was written first hand and should be believe absolutely. Almost everything in the Bible is poetic and can have many interpretations. What many folks that are evolutionists do is try and completely discredit religion because of their own personal beliefs. I would challenge you atheists to try and find some truth in the great historical documents that we have, because to completely ignore data is unscientific.

Eomer: you started off cordially enough but you degenerated quickly into personal attacks. If you really want some answers to your questions, ask them a little more civilly.

Screamfeeder: Multiple times you have responded with good information, but you post no links to back it up. I have posted references for my claims that I feel have basis in scientific fact. Let me walk you through our exchange again so that you can see why.

-You posted examples of transitional fossils
-I read your link and pointed out some problems I saw with it along with some writing from a creationist site that I found while looking up more info and posted it so you could tell me what you thought of it.
-You claimed that an example they use has never been used as a transitional fossil.
-I linked a paper where they explicitly say in the abstract that it is indeed a transitional fossil between amphibians and reptiles.

You seem to be well educated in paleontology and I wanted to pick your brain a bit on some issues that I have never gotten a satisfactory answer for. That is why I linked some creationist articles. That and unfortunately, creationists are the only people challenging the scientific dogma that has shadowed biology. If someone pipes up with anything that doesn't fit the dogma, they are attacked mercilessly and in many cases have repercussions with their professional careers. There are all sorts of crackpots spouting all sorts of bullshit into the scientific community, but in no other science but biology are the attacks so personal and so devastating. It is like the dark ages in reverse and I will take a stand against it when I see it.

You have not "won" this debate, but you have given me a bit of interesting reading. I would suggest yo read back over your last few posts and see how you degenerated into personal attacks when I started saying things you didn't like and notice that you took less and less time to prove your points.

[Chrisb3]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

I just can't stand how people immediately claim that religion, with books that date back MILLENNIA, can be completely and totally wrong. No, I am not saying that the creation story was written first hand and should be believe absolutely. Almost everything in the Bible is poetic and can have many interpretations. What many folks that are evolutionists do is try and completely discredit religion because of their own personal beliefs. I would challenge you atheists to try and find some truth in the great historical documents that we have, because to completely ignore data is unscientific.

Hey guys there's this old book called "Naturalis Historia" by Pliny the Elder, ignoring the 2000 year old data in this book is unscientific so I'm going to do this:
Next time i'm ill I will rub a dead pidgeon dipped in honey on my balls instead of seeing a doctor.

Yeah the bible can be used as a vague history book (I don't think much of the history is backed up by real evidence, but i'm no expert on that), just like the roman encylopedias have sensible historical facts in them, but the rest of it is just fairy tales. No way am I going to use roman medicine, i'm going to use stuff that's been scientifically proven to work.
Why would I belive in this, but not belive in Xenu, Merlin, Quetzalcoatl or Dumbledore? There is absolutly no reason to accept it as truth.
If we are going to accept it because it is old, well there are plenty of older and crazier texts i'm sure.

Seems like your just pretending to not be a creationist to gain some kind of credibility.

Creationists will mostly be totally fine accepting the cure for cancer if it's invented because of reasearch into evolution, but yet people are trying to kill off the entire field of genetics and similar because they think it's been solved with "god did it"? If you have any problem with it, become a biologist or geologist and pick real holes into evolution, noone is stopping you.
This is the same kind of thinking that said "Earth is the middle of the universe, end of story", if that train of though wasn't killed off we wouldn't have satalites beaming down your TV and News.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

I just can't stand how people immediately claim that religion, with books that date back MILLENNIA, can be completely and totally wrong.

That's an appeal to tradition and thus an invalid argument. Even so I don't think any atheist here, save Kolle, will argue nothing in the bible is true or compelling. Certain historical events probably played out in much the way the Bible portrays them. Likewise I think the golden rule and much of the ethical philosophy of the bible stands just fine.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

What many folks that are evolutionists do is try and completely discredit religion because of their own personal beliefs.

Yes, we do. I believe in logic and reason, and following those to their ultimate conclusion leads to a disbelief in the likelyhood of God. Though it's a meaningless point unrelated to evolution.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

because to completely ignore data is unscientific.

To rely on data that is not empirical would be unscientific.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Eomer: you started off cordially enough but you degenerated quickly into personal attacks. If you really want some answers to your questions, ask them a little more civilly.

Your definition of a personal attack is rather loose. He vehemently attacked the idea you presented because they are easily checked as fallacious. An attack on the ideas you express is not a personal attack.

Likewise, you said I was using ad hominems, which I most certainly didn't. I attacked your statement that you were knowledgeable about genetics. It goes thusly:

1) You claim that you are knowledgeable in genetics.
2) You claim that there has never been observed speciation.
3) Eomer linked an article about speciation.
4) Your retort was to say they're still salamanders.

In order for step 4 to happen then you must either not know what speciation is or be unfamiliar with how organisms are classified. To expand: Salamanders are an order of animals. Speciation is at it's very root a species level change.

Case 1) Speciation is covered in high school biology.
Case 2) Scientific classification is covered in elementary biology.

In either case it can be reasonably expected that someone knowledgeable in molecular genetics, a higher specialization of biology dependent on commensurate knowledge of basic biology, would be knowledgeable of of case 1 and case 2.

In summary I dispute your claim that you are knowledgeable about genetics. That is not a personal attack. It's an attack on a claim you made.

You might argue that my remark, and Eomer's remarks and screamfeeder's remarks were unnecessarily caustic to which I would respond "Welcome to the internet."

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Multiple times you have responded with good information, but you post no links to back it up.

A modicum of research on your part would be all that's needed to see why many of things you posted were asinine.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

That and unfortunately, creationists are the only people challenging the scientific dogma that has shadowed biology. If someone pipes up with anything that doesn't fit the dogma, they are attacked mercilessly and in many cases have repercussions with their professional careers.

Yes, BIG SCIENCE is my favorite. The reality is that paradigm shifting ideas in science are usually met with great interest. I think often somewhere here someone will talk about Galileo or some other scientific pioneer. Ignoring the impact of the church, heliocentrism wasn't rejected at first not because it was a paradigm shift, but because his theory had real flaws. The parallax that he predicted couldn't be observed, and the classical geocentric model was more accurate at predicting the movement of the planets.

People are attacked when they do shit science.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

There are all sorts of crackpots spouting all sorts of bullshit into the scientific community, but in no other science but biology are the attacks so personal and so devastating. It is like the dark ages in reverse and I will take a stand against it when I see it.

No. Scientific review is a real bitch no matter what your field is. I've listened to hours upon hours of criticism and debate on the most trivial of points in my field.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

I would suggest yo read back over your last few posts and see how you degenerated into personal attacks when I started saying things you didn't like and notice that you took less and less time to prove your points.

Because you offered nothing worthwhile to the "debate". You made false claims. Claims that you could have easily verified as false with just a little bit of legwork. You continuously posted useless replies that did nothing to address the issues presented to you except to share similar names, and meanwhile made no novel claims that any of us haven't seen a hundred times before.

I suspect screamfeeder's initial zeal for debate quickly and inevitably faded as he realized you would never stop posting replies that you could see for yourself were incorrect if you had bothered to look into them yourself.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Multiple times you have responded with good information, but you post no links to back it up. I have posted references for my claims that I feel have basis in scientific fact. Let me walk you through our exchange again so that you can see why.

Science doesn't work based on what you feel has a basis in scientific fact. It works based off what can be observed and tested. Everything I have said can be verified from many different sources while everything that you have posted can be debunked from just as many different sources.

So please, walk me through the conversation we had again...

Originally Posted by Arakkis

-You posted examples of transitional fossils
-I read your link and pointed out some problems I saw with it along with some writing from a creationist site that I found while looking up more info and posted it so you could tell me what you thought of it.
-You claimed that an example they use has never been used as a transitional fossil.
-I linked a paper where they explicitly say in the abstract that it is indeed a transitional fossil between amphibians and reptiles.

Really? Lets see this abstract and the last sentence you wanted me to read so badly.

Originally Posted by Journal of Paleontology Article abstract

It shows distinct resemblances to the brain case of Diadectes and strongly supports the presumed relationship of seymouriamorphs and diadectomorphs.

HOLY SHIT! Seymouriamorphs and diadectomorphs have a strongly supported and presumed relationship?

I sure hope so because they are both considered reptiles or very reptile-like. Diadectomorphs are closer to mammals than they are to amphibians for fucks sake. There is NOTHING in that entire article or abstract that comes close to even thinking about making claims to transitional fossils between reptiles and amphibians. Go ahead and wikipedia those terms. I think you are safe this one time.

Let me just put it this way, both seymouriamorphs and diadectomorphs are animotes and fall under the superorder Reptiliomorph.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

That and unfortunately, creationists are the only people challenging the scientific dogma that has shadowed biology.

What a load of pompous bullshit. Every single time a rock is tested it is "challenging the scientific dogma". Every time Tea on tuesday or his peers do some weird climate shit having to do with the peplosphere or whatever the fuck it's called, that is "challenging the scientific dogma".

Creationists fabricate entire falsehoods out of whole cloth and then proceed to mis-apply techniques to fuck up their false assumptions even more. Then people repeat this crap over and over and over thinking they are somehow shielding the poor little forward thinker from the Giant Monster Science.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

When this happens unscrupulous scientists create new theories to fit their particular dogma and people eat it up as though they were religious nuts or something.

Can't believe I missed this one...

This is why science, unlike religion, thrives on peer criticism. Scientists publish their work in journals and other scientists try to knock down their arguments.

Are you even trying anymore?

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

HOLY SHIT! Seymouriamorphs and diadectomorphs have a strongly supported and presumed relationship?

I sure hope so because they are both considered reptiles or reptile-like. There is NOTHING in that entire article or abstract that comes close to even thinking about making claims to transitional fossils between reptiles and amphibians. Go ahead and wikipedia those terms. I think you are safe this one time.

I think that's actually a legitimate misunderstanding. Because while the abstract does primarily talk about the relationship between two primitive reptiles it also mentions significant differences and some similarities between an amphibian from the same time period.

I could see how that would be considered a transitional fossil to a layperson, even if that's not how a paleontologist would use the term (as I understand it). Biology isn't really my strong point though, but I do love historical geology. I still go to the roadcut by my house every month or so to sort through some Ordovician goodness.

[Arbitrary]

Scientists create theories to fit their dogma.

I think we can go ahead and wrap this up. Everyone hit the library and meet back here in one week.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

Scientists create theories to fit their dogma.

I think we can go ahead and wrap this up. Everyone hit the library and meet back here in one week.

You're right. The Geology Cabal in unholy concert with the 4th Paleontology Reich got together back in 1896 and created radioactive isotope decay.

[Eomer]

Eomer: you started off cordially enough but you degenerated quickly into personal attacks. If you really want some answers to your questions, ask them a little more civilly.

My last post had one personal attack in it. One. And technically I said the statement was retarded, not you.