Beware! Leftists in our schools!!!
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Yes, I know it's off topic...
That's not entirely true. Shiggy gets to the heart of the matter, but I think doesn't explain it well. Let's take the gravity example. Gravity is the mechanism we use to explain why we don't float out of our chairs (as well as numerous other interesting phenomena). It isn't strictly proper to speak of a "theory of gravity"--it's really just a mechanism. But there are a number of theories surrounding gravity (Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and even some weird quantum stuff). The "inverse square law" (gravitational force between two objects is proportial to 1 divided by the square of the distance between them, or F~1/d^2) is, ultimately a theory. But you can set up an experiment to measure the force, and see if it holds true. Any time you do the experiment, you get the same answer, so it appears that the inverse square law is true. But if tomorrow you did the experiment and found F~1/d^1.9, and more importantly any scientist in the world could replicate that experiment, then we'd have to throw out the theories currently surrounding gravity and come up with something new.
That's what science is all about. We explain what we observe in terms of these things called theories. Theories have been backed up by experiment, or mathematical proof, or observation. But as good scientists we realize that future experiments may bring these theories into doubt and we might have to come up with new ones.
It's the common vernacular that has made people misunderstood "theory." People say, "Oh I've got a theory about that," meaning "I've got a good guess why that's so." That usage isn't consistent with a scientist's definition.
Exactly the opposite. SC and the TF are not science. They don't represent theories, because they aren't falsifiable. (OK, in truth they are. You can stay up all night and watch to see if SC or TF arrive. I've never heard anyone claim that Santa uses his magic power to make it appear your parents are leaving toys, but I guess you could make that argument.) SC, TF, the invisible unicorn that Shiggy brings up, and god are all essentially unfalsifiable, since they can't be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as gravity, electromagnetism, quantum physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, etc.
That's not entirely true. Shiggy gets to the heart of the matter, but I think doesn't explain it well. Let's take the gravity example. Gravity is the mechanism we use to explain why we don't float out of our chairs (as well as numerous other interesting phenomena). It isn't strictly proper to speak of a "theory of gravity"--it's really just a mechanism. But there are a number of theories surrounding gravity (Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and even some weird quantum stuff). The "inverse square law" (gravitational force between two objects is proportial to 1 divided by the square of the distance between them, or F~1/d^2) is, ultimately a theory. But you can set up an experiment to measure the force, and see if it holds true. Any time you do the experiment, you get the same answer, so it appears that the inverse square law is true. But if tomorrow you did the experiment and found F~1/d^1.9, and more importantly any scientist in the world could replicate that experiment, then we'd have to throw out the theories currently surrounding gravity and come up with something new.
That's what science is all about. We explain what we observe in terms of these things called theories. Theories have been backed up by experiment, or mathematical proof, or observation. But as good scientists we realize that future experiments may bring these theories into doubt and we might have to come up with new ones.
It's the common vernacular that has made people misunderstood "theory." People say, "Oh I've got a theory about that," meaning "I've got a good guess why that's so." That usage isn't consistent with a scientist's definition.
Exactly the opposite. SC and the TF are not science. They don't represent theories, because they aren't falsifiable. (OK, in truth they are. You can stay up all night and watch to see if SC or TF arrive. I've never heard anyone claim that Santa uses his magic power to make it appear your parents are leaving toys, but I guess you could make that argument.) SC, TF, the invisible unicorn that Shiggy brings up, and god are all essentially unfalsifiable, since they can't be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as gravity, electromagnetism, quantum physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, etc.
SmallTown
Football season!
One thing I read about awhile back is the notion that most americans do not know of, or understand the notion of scientific method.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Of course, you'll find variations of this in many different places, but all have the same basic logic behind it.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Of course, you'll find variations of this in many different places, but all have the same basic logic behind it.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Yes, evolution is an example of natural science.
No. Science and philosophy are different. Science explains how the world works, and does so by making predictions that can be tested. The proof is all around you. That computer that you used to type your message? Science, buddy. All science. Folks like Maxwell came up with theories that explained electromagnetic phenomena. Other more technologically advanced folks used those theories to create transistors and capacitors and processors and CRTs and plastic and everything else and create computers. Philosophers, on the other hand, don't produce a product that can be verified.
Sure, whatever.
The rest of that line of reasoning is too stupid to bother with.
Not true at all. See, for example, snopes.
No. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm a physicist. Unifying quantum physics and gravity has not been done yet.
All right. But you probably should stop eating meat. Those animals it came from have been bred through a process of natural selection (this cow gives tastier milk than that one, let's breed her), which is a cornerstone of evolution, in which you don't believe. Oh, and better not eat plants either. Selection at work again there too. Ooops, then there's vaccines and a whole host of other medicines. They came about through an understanding of genetics, which also underlies evolution.
Actually, Shiggy's invisible pink unicorn is 100% consistent too, I'd guess. Who created us? The IPU, five minutes ago. But I have memories from longer than five minutes ago! That's because the IPU put them there. The IPU is always behind you, but you can't see it because it's invisible. Yeah, that sounds 100% consistent too.
It's quite easy to explain the connection between quantum physics and eastern mysticism.
There isn't any.
Quantum physics is science (it can be verified, it makes predictions, it produces actual product). Mysticism isn't.
Please realize that reading a few books by John Gribbin, or that awful "Tao of Physics" does not give one any sort of understanding of quantum physics and its implications.
Thanks for the education, Frank and Doc! I'm not sure how people can argue against evolution, considering it's something we can actually observe happening. I would think of evolution as a "fact" and not a "theory". Creationism would be a hypothesis.
Is that right?
Is that right?
Yeah, in a way it is. It's just a fairly useless one, because you can't prove or disprove it. I mean, you can certainly say that all the evidence we observe today (fossil record, geology, genetics, astronomy, astrophysics) indicates that creationism as presented in Genesis isn't true, but creationism always leaves itself an "out" by being able to appeal to the concept of "god just made it that way to weed out the true believers from the rest." Hard to convince someone of that mindset otherwise.
Good hypotheses should be falsifiable.
Normally I'd hesitate to continue to draw out this off-topic subthread. However, I'm guessing that anyone not interested in hearing about evolution and creationism has already bolted from this thread. There's a lot to respond to here, and I seriously doubt I'm going to change your mind, so I'll try to be as concise as possible.
Your objection to teaching evolution as proselytization secular proselytization seems to me to be misguided. Evolution is science--it explains observations, is supported by evidence, and makes predictions. Creationism is supported only by the words of a thousands-year-old book and the faith of its adherents. We teach evolution and not creationism in schools for the same reason we teach gravitation and not levitation (Maharishi U excepted).
As for the answersingenesis.org document you linked to, it's hard to take it seriously at all when it contains howlers like these (my comments in italics):
"..the whole basis for modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator." || Modern science does not need to appeal to a creator, rational or otherwise (In fact, I'd argue that the creator described in the Bible is singularly irrational. He creates two people from scratch, then gets so mad when they fail to meet his arbitrary expectations, which is his fault anyway since he must have done a bad job when he inserted their moral code. He gets so mad, in fact, that he punishes not only them but the billions of humans that follow. Then he throws another temper tantrum and drowns most of his creation. And then to cap it all off he sacrifices himself to himself in order to change a rule that he himself made. Yeah, real rational. But this is an argument for the religion forum.)
"Even today, many scientists reject particles-to-people evolution" || As if this means anything. Actually out of the hundreds of scientists I've known, only one believed in creationism. And he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
"Mutations are copying errors. As such, they reduce the information content, or at best leave it unchanged." || This was probably the worst. I laughed out loud when I read it. Mutations can increase the information content. We see this in genetic computing algorithms, for example. At this point I began to doubt the author really had a PhD.
"To believe that copying errors can generate new functional information is like believing that new computer programs arise from old computer programs by copying errors. In reality, the resulting program usually jams. " || See above. I've worked with genetic algorithms. The computing equivalent of "copying errors" works just fine, and when coupled with a selection process (again something the author conveniently ignores), can make a better program.
His discussion of thermodynamics is just sad. The man clearly has no concept of entropy, and presents a muddled description of the concepts of order, information, and complexity. His statement, "An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way," is particularly baffling and indicates he doesn't even understand energy.
The text is rife with other errors. The author brings up the intellectually bankrupt concepts of "intelligent design" (a vacuous argument based on semantics--"design implies a designer"), shows a stunning ignorance of the fossil record, sticks to the thoroughly discredited notion of a 6,000-year-old earth, points out without realizing the absurdity that Noah's ship would need to have held 16,000 animals (he conveniently avoids the sticky question of whether or not two of each species is really enough genetic diversity to perpetuate the species), and dances around the "anthropic principle." This principle, in very simple and not altogether rigorous terms, basically says that, sure the odds against life existing are pretty bad. Everything has to be just right for life to arise by chance, and it's very unlikely for that to happen. But the important thing is, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be sitting around as disembodied consciousnesses in some cosmic waiting room saying, "Oh look how typical. We don't exist."
Alright, enough thrashing of that site. Check out the talk.origins faq to see all those arguments refuted.
I reiterate what I said about philosophy and science. They're two different things. You can philosophize all you want about whether my dining room coffee table really exists and what it means to exist and it means to know it exists, but the unalterable fact remains that if you close your eyes, and walk straight toward it, no matter what philosophy you follow, no matter how much you pray to whatever god, you will end up with a bruised a knee. It matters not at all to me if I'm really sitting in a vat of goo somewhere and it's my thoughts that are "in the Matrix." Philosophers have never done anything worthwhile. Digital watches, computers, rocket ships, medicines, cars, airplanes, submarines--scientists made those. Science gets results. Philosophy and religion don't. End of story.
Your appeal to Webster's definitions to show that science = divination is silly. Once we graduate from fourth grade, we are forbidden from ever including in an essay the phrase, "Websters defines xxx as..." It proves nothing. Semantics. Pedagogy. Pedantry. Nonsense. Look, I can use language to make stupid "deductions" too: Nothing is better than going to heaven. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than going to heaven. Stupid? Yes, but so is going to a thesaurus to show that A is a word like B and B is a word like C and C is a word like D so A is the same as D.
And then you brought up the mysticism stuff. Oh sure, the ancient Greeks had a concept vaguely related to the modern concept of atoms (that's where we get the term "atom"), and Hindoos had some dopey creation stories that can be corrupted to look something like modern science. But you'll note the important fact that they aren't science. They make no predictions. Greek science ended with "stuff is made out of little things called atoms." Modern atomic physics fills rows and rows of textbooks. It explains quantitatively (science is quantitative, Hindoo gods are not) observations and allows us to build computers and televisions and whatnot. Interesting, isn't it, that these ancient mystic people are supposedly sooooo smart, yet it's only Western science that actually creates useful stuff. Mysticism and science are not even close to being the same thing.
I'd love to see the article by Ed Witten you mention. I'm very familiar with him, and have read some of his papers (I'd be lying if I said I understood them well). I've attended a couple of lectures by him (he has this absurd-sounding squeaky voice, but his talks are absolutely riveting), and talked with him a bit years ago at an American Physical Society meeting. Let's discuss quickly the quantum physics and gravity stuff. Your statement--or rather Witten's--that "gravity does not exist on the quantum level" is true. This doesn't mean that quantum physics denies gravity, which you said in your original post. Actually, there are concepts like the Higgs field (which if it exists would be responsible for giving particles mass) or gravitons which would connect gravity and quantum physics.
So what's my point? I don't know. Science rules. Science provides explanations for things. Science tells us how we got here. So does creationism. The difference is that science makes quantifiable observations. It makes predictions that can be verified. It produces new things. Creationism does none of this. Even when wrapped up in the guise of "Intelligent Design" it fails to be a science. It fails to explain things any better than evolution. It is not testable. It is not science, and it is not useful. The only thing it has going for it is that it's much less of a strain on the intellect to say "god did it" than it is to understand evolution.
Your objection to teaching evolution as proselytization secular proselytization seems to me to be misguided. Evolution is science--it explains observations, is supported by evidence, and makes predictions. Creationism is supported only by the words of a thousands-year-old book and the faith of its adherents. We teach evolution and not creationism in schools for the same reason we teach gravitation and not levitation (Maharishi U excepted).
As for the answersingenesis.org document you linked to, it's hard to take it seriously at all when it contains howlers like these (my comments in italics):
"..the whole basis for modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator." || Modern science does not need to appeal to a creator, rational or otherwise (In fact, I'd argue that the creator described in the Bible is singularly irrational. He creates two people from scratch, then gets so mad when they fail to meet his arbitrary expectations, which is his fault anyway since he must have done a bad job when he inserted their moral code. He gets so mad, in fact, that he punishes not only them but the billions of humans that follow. Then he throws another temper tantrum and drowns most of his creation. And then to cap it all off he sacrifices himself to himself in order to change a rule that he himself made. Yeah, real rational. But this is an argument for the religion forum.)
"Even today, many scientists reject particles-to-people evolution" || As if this means anything. Actually out of the hundreds of scientists I've known, only one believed in creationism. And he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
"Mutations are copying errors. As such, they reduce the information content, or at best leave it unchanged." || This was probably the worst. I laughed out loud when I read it. Mutations can increase the information content. We see this in genetic computing algorithms, for example. At this point I began to doubt the author really had a PhD.
"To believe that copying errors can generate new functional information is like believing that new computer programs arise from old computer programs by copying errors. In reality, the resulting program usually jams. " || See above. I've worked with genetic algorithms. The computing equivalent of "copying errors" works just fine, and when coupled with a selection process (again something the author conveniently ignores), can make a better program.
His discussion of thermodynamics is just sad. The man clearly has no concept of entropy, and presents a muddled description of the concepts of order, information, and complexity. His statement, "An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way," is particularly baffling and indicates he doesn't even understand energy.
The text is rife with other errors. The author brings up the intellectually bankrupt concepts of "intelligent design" (a vacuous argument based on semantics--"design implies a designer"), shows a stunning ignorance of the fossil record, sticks to the thoroughly discredited notion of a 6,000-year-old earth, points out without realizing the absurdity that Noah's ship would need to have held 16,000 animals (he conveniently avoids the sticky question of whether or not two of each species is really enough genetic diversity to perpetuate the species), and dances around the "anthropic principle." This principle, in very simple and not altogether rigorous terms, basically says that, sure the odds against life existing are pretty bad. Everything has to be just right for life to arise by chance, and it's very unlikely for that to happen. But the important thing is, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be sitting around as disembodied consciousnesses in some cosmic waiting room saying, "Oh look how typical. We don't exist."
Alright, enough thrashing of that site. Check out the talk.origins faq to see all those arguments refuted.
I reiterate what I said about philosophy and science. They're two different things. You can philosophize all you want about whether my dining room coffee table really exists and what it means to exist and it means to know it exists, but the unalterable fact remains that if you close your eyes, and walk straight toward it, no matter what philosophy you follow, no matter how much you pray to whatever god, you will end up with a bruised a knee. It matters not at all to me if I'm really sitting in a vat of goo somewhere and it's my thoughts that are "in the Matrix." Philosophers have never done anything worthwhile. Digital watches, computers, rocket ships, medicines, cars, airplanes, submarines--scientists made those. Science gets results. Philosophy and religion don't. End of story.
Your appeal to Webster's definitions to show that science = divination is silly. Once we graduate from fourth grade, we are forbidden from ever including in an essay the phrase, "Websters defines xxx as..." It proves nothing. Semantics. Pedagogy. Pedantry. Nonsense. Look, I can use language to make stupid "deductions" too: Nothing is better than going to heaven. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than going to heaven. Stupid? Yes, but so is going to a thesaurus to show that A is a word like B and B is a word like C and C is a word like D so A is the same as D.
And then you brought up the mysticism stuff. Oh sure, the ancient Greeks had a concept vaguely related to the modern concept of atoms (that's where we get the term "atom"), and Hindoos had some dopey creation stories that can be corrupted to look something like modern science. But you'll note the important fact that they aren't science. They make no predictions. Greek science ended with "stuff is made out of little things called atoms." Modern atomic physics fills rows and rows of textbooks. It explains quantitatively (science is quantitative, Hindoo gods are not) observations and allows us to build computers and televisions and whatnot. Interesting, isn't it, that these ancient mystic people are supposedly sooooo smart, yet it's only Western science that actually creates useful stuff. Mysticism and science are not even close to being the same thing.
I'd love to see the article by Ed Witten you mention. I'm very familiar with him, and have read some of his papers (I'd be lying if I said I understood them well). I've attended a couple of lectures by him (he has this absurd-sounding squeaky voice, but his talks are absolutely riveting), and talked with him a bit years ago at an American Physical Society meeting. Let's discuss quickly the quantum physics and gravity stuff. Your statement--or rather Witten's--that "gravity does not exist on the quantum level" is true. This doesn't mean that quantum physics denies gravity, which you said in your original post. Actually, there are concepts like the Higgs field (which if it exists would be responsible for giving particles mass) or gravitons which would connect gravity and quantum physics.
So what's my point? I don't know. Science rules. Science provides explanations for things. Science tells us how we got here. So does creationism. The difference is that science makes quantifiable observations. It makes predictions that can be verified. It produces new things. Creationism does none of this. Even when wrapped up in the guise of "Intelligent Design" it fails to be a science. It fails to explain things any better than evolution. It is not testable. It is not science, and it is not useful. The only thing it has going for it is that it's much less of a strain on the intellect to say "god did it" than it is to understand evolution.
Talk about a thread hijacking!!! 
Christy
b*tch rocket
Brilliant retort ST.
Did you pull that one from a fortune cookie? Do tell how my preparedness for the future even remotely is effected by being "created" or "evolved". Not that it matters, but I believe it's both, we were created and have evolved. Humans constantly evolve to survive their environment.
Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Citizen, I'd love to be able to say I follow you...but I can't. But you and Doc feel free to hijack the thread. I find this stuff interesting even though I'm not sure I understand it.
Citizen, I'd love to be able to say I follow you...but I can't. But you and Doc feel free to hijack the thread. I find this stuff interesting even though I'm not sure I understand it.
I'm wary whenever someone says "You'll never change my mind because I've done all the research, blah blah blah."
To Christy, I'd have to see the reason it matters--I think--is when it comes to what is taught in our schools. I don't think children should be taught incorrect things (creationism as science). Also I suscribe to Thomas Jefferson's outlook that "Ignorance is preferable to error. He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." I'm happier when schools teach evolution and point out that not all (most, though) of the mechanisms are understood yet, than saying "god done it" and leave it at that.
Vrai is right about the "you'll never change my mind" approach. As a scientist, I am more than willing to change to mind. If solid evidence came along that humans and animals and plants attained their current forms by divine will as opposed to evolution, I'd change my "beliefs" instantly.
The problem is that all the evidence is on the side of evolution. Genetics shows we've evolved. The fossil record shows we've evolved. Geology and physics and astronomy all thoroughly discredit a 6000-year-old earth. Also I think the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" applies here. Evolution is not an extraordinary claim. Fact: DNA contains the structure for living things. Fact: DNA can mutate. Fact: When it mutates, changes in the oranism occur. Fact: changes either help or hurt. Fact: if they help, it's more likely you survive, and thus can have more offspring and pass on the genes. Result: species evolve due to random mutation and natural selection. But the idea that some guy plunked his magic wand and created everything from scratch is an extraordinary claim--particularly given the fact that apart from the Bible, which is wrong about many things, is the only source of "proof." Creationism simply has yet to provide the extraordinary proof. The burden is on creationists to prove they're right, rather than scientists to prove that evolution is correct.
As for citizen, I don't know what else to say. He/she is evidently enamoured with philosophy, particularly goofy eastern mysticism. That's fine. Philosophy, sprituality, religion all shape people's lives by affecting how they feel. Apart from that, they have no other effect on the world. The embarassing unavoidable truth for those who put too much stock in the forces of the unseen, the mystical, the spritual, is that it's science that gets things done. The computer citizen writes on was created by scientists and engineers. Philosophers can say or believe whatever they like, but the fact will continue to remain that for them to distribute their ideas, they need the products that science produces.
If it pleases citizen to believe in creationism, that's fine. But the moment someone tries to force a school to teach creationism, or attempts to suppress evolution, I will stand up and complain.
Vrai is right about the "you'll never change my mind" approach. As a scientist, I am more than willing to change to mind. If solid evidence came along that humans and animals and plants attained their current forms by divine will as opposed to evolution, I'd change my "beliefs" instantly.
The problem is that all the evidence is on the side of evolution. Genetics shows we've evolved. The fossil record shows we've evolved. Geology and physics and astronomy all thoroughly discredit a 6000-year-old earth. Also I think the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" applies here. Evolution is not an extraordinary claim. Fact: DNA contains the structure for living things. Fact: DNA can mutate. Fact: When it mutates, changes in the oranism occur. Fact: changes either help or hurt. Fact: if they help, it's more likely you survive, and thus can have more offspring and pass on the genes. Result: species evolve due to random mutation and natural selection. But the idea that some guy plunked his magic wand and created everything from scratch is an extraordinary claim--particularly given the fact that apart from the Bible, which is wrong about many things, is the only source of "proof." Creationism simply has yet to provide the extraordinary proof. The burden is on creationists to prove they're right, rather than scientists to prove that evolution is correct.
As for citizen, I don't know what else to say. He/she is evidently enamoured with philosophy, particularly goofy eastern mysticism. That's fine. Philosophy, sprituality, religion all shape people's lives by affecting how they feel. Apart from that, they have no other effect on the world. The embarassing unavoidable truth for those who put too much stock in the forces of the unseen, the mystical, the spritual, is that it's science that gets things done. The computer citizen writes on was created by scientists and engineers. Philosophers can say or believe whatever they like, but the fact will continue to remain that for them to distribute their ideas, they need the products that science produces.
If it pleases citizen to believe in creationism, that's fine. But the moment someone tries to force a school to teach creationism, or attempts to suppress evolution, I will stand up and complain.
K
Kain99
Guest
What is wrong with people??? Who ever said, that Adam and Eve weren't hairy Cro-Magnum Neanderthals? Get over it already!
SxyPrincess
New Member
ConcrndCitizen2,
Care to re-type that in English?
Care to re-type that in English?
Christy
b*tch rocket
Concrnd, it's not that I don't understand it, it's that I don't care. Maybe if you and Doc would have started the dialogue in your very own thread (like in the religion forum) I'd find both of your long winded "brain competitions" an interesting read. As it is now, I just find it rude, and you both have over inflated perceptions of your own intellect.
Now, lemme get back to blumping my hot dog.
SmallTown
Football season!
Originally posted by SxyPrincess
ConcrndCitizen2,
Care to re-type that in English?
Christ, I enjoy reading insults thrown my way than to read the crap this guy/girl is spouting off about. Nice quotes there, Citizen. Ever had an original thought of your own in the past 10 years?
Citizen, do you honestly believe that you are the only person that is intelligent and sophisticated enough to understand science or religion?
Christy
b*tch rocket
Like I said before Concerned, I'd have probably shown more interest if you hadn't hijacked this particular thread. Maybe I'm a retard, but I just don't see the relevence of your posts in this thread to the subject at hand, other than it has to do with "liberals".
There's nothing more annoying than someone going
There's nothing more annoying than someone going