Quote from energytraderus:
Media corporation officers who decide content are overwhelmingly Jewish, and Jews have repeatedly attacked Fundamentalist Christians in the past. Clearly, Jews gain at the expense of Christians through both the federal judgement and the media coverage. As Jews in the media clearly decided to provulgate this particular federal court decision, and as Jews clearly gained thereby at the expense of Christians; any reasonable person must conclude that this all aspects of this court decision comprise an attack by Jews on Christians.
Quote from energytraderus:
Federal court is not the venue for this kind of case. School boards decide curriculum, and clearly most parents in this school district support this district's school board. The Constitution does not anywhere dictate that a minority opinion holder, in this case a Jew, gets to stop the majority from deciding the curriculum. If the Jew finds his idea of ID--whatever that may be--insulting, he can withdraw his child from the school. Many parents find public school curriculums insulting and school their kids at home.
The tens of hours of media coverage is sinister. Media corporation officers who decide content are overwhelmingly Jewish, and Jews have repeatedly attacked Fundamentalist Christians in the past. Clearly, Jews gain at the expense of Christians through both the federal judgement and the media coverage. As Jews in the media clearly decided to provulgate this particular federal court decision, and as Jews clearly gained thereby at the expense of Christians; any reasonable person must conclude that this all aspects of this court decision comprise an attack by Jews on Christians.
Quote from kjkent1:
Define species and we can talk. Until you do, there's no way to discuss whether Lenski's tests prove what you describe as macro evolution.
There is no demonstrated biological threshold to how far, or in what direction, mutation of DNA can carry an original germ line. The concept of intra species evolution is contrived in order to permit ID proponents to acknowledge evolutionary processes while maintaining the supremacy of humans as "special" creations of an all powerful deity.
This is one of the big issues of ID. ID proponent, Dembski, proposes that information gain is mathematically impossible, yet, neither he nor any of his followers/colleagues can successfully demonstrate why Thomas Schneider's little "EV" program creates information gain by modeling evolutionary processes.
Until a biologist can demonstrate that macro evolution, as you refer to it, is inherently different than micro evolution, the concepts are fundamentally indistinguishable -- in other words, they are the same thing, separated only by sufficient time and environmental stress.
Quote from kjkent1:
Define species and we can talk. Until you do, there's no way to discuss whether Lenski's tests prove what you describe as macro evolution.
There is no demonstrated biological threshold to how far, or in what direction, mutation of DNA can carry an original germ line. The concept of intra species evolution is contrived in order to permit ID proponents to acknowledge evolutionary processes while maintaining the supremacy of humans as "special" creations of an all powerful deity.
This is one of the big issues of ID. ID proponent, Dembski, proposes that information gain is mathematically impossible, yet, neither he nor any of his followers/colleagues can successfully demonstrate why Thomas Schneider's little "EV" program creates information gain by modeling evolutionary processes.
Until a biologist can demonstrate that macro evolution, as you refer to it, is inherently different than micro evolution, the concepts are fundamentally indistinguishable -- in other words, they are the same thing, separated only by sufficient time and environmental stress.
Quote from kjkent1:
your obsequious devotion to science is quite charming.
every thing you state in the above quote can be said in its reverse while maintaining congruency.
surfer
Quote from traderNik:
Interesting, surfer.
Could you go ahead and give us the statement you have in mind; that is, could you take the quote from kjkent and 'say it in reverse'? I read through it but I wasn't quite sure exactly how it would look.
thanks
Quote from energytraderus:
I've never invoked kjkent1's name, arguments, or "facts" in my main argument: this case constitutes a direct attack by Jews against Fundamentalist Christians. I only cited his admission that ID's constitutionality is open to debate. Nothing I posted could even remotely be contrued by a reasonable person as libel.
Quote from marketsurfer:
hey nik,
ofcourse i did not mean that literally. sorry for any confusion..... what i tried to say is that most pro macro evolution arguments have a flip side that seems to mysteriously point to some type of prime mover when you break them down enough.
i am 100% for science and progress, despising the damage religion has done to science over the millenium. however, it seems now, that the roles have been reversed with science taking the role of fundamentalist religion in the USA.
best,
surfer
Quote from energytraderus:
I find it laughable that quants, many of whom cannot make a clear argument or write clearly,
Oh yeah, that's made perfectly clear. You said it, so it's true, right? Perfectly clear. A clearly made argument. No, no, it's not pure assertion, it's a clearly made argument! Look at the way he has backed up his claims!quote from energytraderus
Media corporation officers who decide content are overwhelmingly Jewish, and Jews have repeatedly attacked Fundamentalist Christians in the past. Clearly, Jews gain at the expense of Christians through both the federal judgement and the media coverage.
yes, clearly... yes, any reasonable person must conclude....another clearly made argument. An assertion, followed by the phrase 'any reasonable person must conclude'...what nonsense.quote from our latest crackpot
As Jews in the media clearly decided to provulgate this particular federal court decision, and as Jews clearly gained thereby at the expense of Christians; any reasonable person must conclude that this all aspects of this court decision comprise an attack by Jews on Christians.