BLOWING MORE HOT AIR THAN RUSH LIMBAUGH

[Ed Conrad]

< < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL <
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg
(Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator, talk.origins)
< The United States National Academy of Sciences has made a
number of statements opposing creationism. They state,
"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of
supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species
are not science because they are not testable by the methods
of science." < Supporters of creation science argue that other
theories of origins, including macroevolution, are not
testable by the methods of science either. < The American
Association for the Advancement of Science (the world's
largest general scientific society) contrasts the "scientific
robustness of the contemporary theory of biological
evolution"] with the proposed teaching of intelligent design
that will "confuse students about the nature of science." <
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) supports the
teaching of evolutionary biology in schools, and opposes the
teaching of creationism. They hold that science classes should
teach evolution; that teachers should be "nonjudgmental" of
students' religious views; and that "creation science" and
"intelligent design" should not be taught. < The National
Center for Science Education was founded in 1981 to oppose
creationism and is led by Eugenie Scott. It has 4,000 members
and operates a website. It also runs Project Steve, a list of
772-plus certified Doctorate holding pro-evolution signatories
named Steve (or Stephen or some variant thereof), as a parody
of creationist attempts to collect signature lists of experts
who doubt evolution. < The American Association of Physics
Teachers states that "we do not endorse teaching the 'evidence
against evolution,' because currently no such scientific
evidence exists. Nor can we condone teaching "scientific
creationism," "intelligent design," or other non-scientific
viewpoints as valid scientific theories." <
======================================
< Excuse this interruption: < For some time there was no
opposition To the evolutionists' facetious position. But the
sleazeballs NOW know That bullshit theories don't go. It's
time they said their Act of Contrition <
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullshit < A
little carnival music, Maestro...
http://www.nurple.com/sideshow/ <
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/TightFit.jpg
(Photo, Courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution) <
===========================================
<
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/manasoldemboss.gif
< < TRUTH VS. THE MONUMENTAL LIE OF MAN'S EVOLUTION < (Fossils
-- SOME HUMAN -- Found Between Coal Veins) < http://mysite.ve-
rizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/OldestHumanSkull.JPG
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/ManasOldasCoal.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/Discoveries.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/MoreFossils.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/HumanBrain.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/TestResults.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/MVC-022S.JPG
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/OldestTool.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/Scorpion.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/MVC-013F.JPG <
================
< Now back to the $3 bills... < The American Astronomical
Society supports teaching evolution, noting that many
astronomical observations show changes in the universe over a
long period of time consistent with evolution. They state that
"'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a
scientific idea" and "does not belong in the science
curriculum." < The American Geophysical Union states that
"Earth History and the Evolution of Life Must Be Taught:
Creationism Is Not Science," thus the AGU "opposes all efforts
to require or promote teaching creationism or any other
religious tenets as science." < In addition, the American
Geological Institute, the Association for Women Geoscientists,
the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological
Society, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The
Society for Organic Petrology all have position statements
supporting the teaching of evolution and opposing the teaching
of non-scientific ideas. < The Board of Directors of the
American Chemical Society supports "evolution as the only
scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and
diversity of species." < The American Physical Society's
governing Council has long expressed its opposition to the
inclusion of religious concepts such as intelligent design and
related forms of creationism in science classes. [9] APS is
the world's largest professional body of physicists,
representing over 43,000 physicists in academia and industry
in the US and internationally. < Kansas Citizens for Science
is a group that is trying to fight the revision of science
standards in Kansas. < CSICOP and The Skeptics Society are
anti-pseudoscience organizations with creationism among their
targets. < The Talk.Origins Archive is a large website of
articles critiquing creationary ideas, plus a discussion
forum; there is an extensive set of links to sites of interest
on both sides of the debate - including True. Origins. < Talk
Reason is a take-off of the talk.origins archive that deals
exclusively with debunking intelligent design. < < PEOPLE
WHO'VE MADE A MOCKERY OF SCIENCE < Richard Dawkins, Michael
Ruse, and the late Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould figure
among the well-known scientists who have been outspoken
against creationism. Unlike Dawkins, Ruse takes the position
that it is possible to reconcile the Christian religion with
Evolutionary Theory. < Philip Kitcher is a philosopher of
science who wrote a book, Abusing Science: The Case Against
Creationism (1982), answering creationist arguments and
explaining scientific vs. unscientific methodology. < Simon
Conway Morris is an evolutionary biologist who is also a
Christian, and who has publicly supported the acceptance of
evolutionary biology by moderate Christians. < Arthur Peacocke
was one of the first to have developed a rigorously argued,
complex argument for the compatibility of modern evolutionary
theory with Christianity. He famously refers to evolution as
"the disguised friend" of faith. < Arthur N. Strahler, author
of the 1987 book Science and Earth History: The
Evolution/Creation Controversy. < Wesley R. Elsberry hosts The
Panda's Thumb weblog which sponsors articles and posts by some
of the most active debaters of creationists and Intelligent
Design advocates. < Paul PZ Myers, a biologist at the
University of Minnesota, Morris, an outspoken critic of
creationism online. <
==========================
<
PS: Myers played a key role in the fraudulent testing of one
of Ed Conrad's specimens of petrified bone discovered
between coal veins and of Carboniferous age, a minimum of
280 million years ago. Andrew Macrae also was involved in
the hanky-panky that involved tampering with what the
late, great physical anthropologist Wilton M. Krogman --
author of the book. "The Human Skeleton in Forensic
Medicine: -- had identified as a portion of a tibia. <
==================================
< Ed Conrad http://www.edconrad.com Man as Old as Coal* <
==================
<

[David Hart]

Ed Conrad wrote:
> < < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL <
> http://mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg
> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator,
> talk.origins) < The United States National Academy of
> Sciences has made a number of statements opposing
> creationism. They state, "Creationism, intelligent design,
> and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin
> of life or of species are not science because they are not
> testable by the methods of science."

Which is correct.

The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of science.

Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more "faith" than a
belief in supernatural creation.

[Vrwc Destr]

Ed Conrad <edconrad@verizon.net> wrote in crayon...

>< < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL

Reading the title of your thread I thought for sure it was
Muhammed Al Gore.

----o----

========
WARNING!
========

The text below is a Tagline or Signature File.

def. A pre-written text file appended to the end of a
message that is used as a closing or end to the message. It
may contain any kind of text or boilerplate that is
repetitively sent.

In other words, you are an idiot if you respond to it.

"This VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY that has been conspiring
against my husband since the day he announced for President"
-Hillary Clinton on the Today Show Jan 27, 1998

As Bill Clinton said in a speech last week, referring to a
range of conservative media: "They have a DESTRUCTION
MACHINE. We don't have a DESTRUCTION MACHINE." -Bill Clinton
in a speech addressing the Democratic Leadership Council on
2002 in New York

[Bvallely@A]

> > This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the
> > concept of a divine being creating us in his image.

> And who created this divine being?

Don't know. Don't care. It's called "faith". I have it. Not as
much as I'd like, but trying to build more every day.

But I must admit, my faith has limits.

When one considers that each cell in your body contains a code
which is literally more complicated that the Interent, a code
which has taken decades to map, a code which we've barely
begun to understand, a code which carried along for hundreds
of millions of years without breaking down (indeed,
consistantly improving upon itself) - well, I just don't have
the kind of faith needed to believe that fairy tale.

[ahall]

>>>>> David Hartung writes:

David> Ed Conrad wrote:
>> < < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL <
http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg
>> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator,
>> talk.origins) < The United States National Academy of
>> Sciences has made a number of statements opposing
>> creationism. They state, "Creationism, intelligent
>> design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in
>> the origin of life or of species are not science because
>> they are not testable by the methods of science."

David> Which is correct.

David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of
David> science.

It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that have
been verified.

David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more
David> "faith" than a belief in supernatural creation.

You are delusional.

--
Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)

[David Hart]

ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
>>>>>> David Hartung writes:
>
> David> Ed Conrad wrote:
> >> < < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL <
> http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.j-
> http> pg
> >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator,
> >> talk.origins) < The United States National Academy of
> >> Sciences has made a number of statements opposing
> >> creationism. They state, "Creationism, intelligent
> >> design, and other claims of supernatural intervention
> >> in the origin of life or of species are not science
> >> because they are not testable by the methods of
> >> science."
>
> David> Which is correct.
>
> David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of
> David> science.
>
> It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that
> have been verified.
>
> David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more
> David> "faith" than a belief in supernatural creation.
>
> You are delusional.

Am I?

Please explain.

To my knowledge the basic idea of the "big bang" theory is
as follows.

A mass of primordial matter exploded without any outside force
acting on it, and from this explosion came our universe.

This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the concept
of a divine being creating us in his image.

[Mitchell H]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:Ecydne4ZXsrAHwjbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com:

> ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
>>>>>>> David Hartung writes:
>>
>> David> Ed Conrad wrote:
>> >> < < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL <
>> http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.-
>> http> jpg
>> >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator,
>> >> talk.origins) < The United States National Academy of
>> >> Sciences has made a number of statements opposing
>> >> creationism. They state, "Creationism, intelligent
>> >> design, and other claims of supernatural intervention
>> >> in the origin of life or of species are not science
>> >> because they are not testable by the methods of
>> >> science."
>>
>> David> Which is correct.
>>
>> David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of
>> David> science.
>>
>> It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that
>> have been verified.
>>
>> David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more
>> David> "faith" than a
>> belief David> in supernatural creation.
>>
>> You are delusional.
>
> Am I?
>
> Please explain.
>
> To my knowledge the basic idea of the "big bang" theory is
> as follows.
>
> A mass of primordial matter exploded without any outside
> force acting on it, and from this explosion came our
> universe.
>
> This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the
> concept of a divine being creating us in his image.

And who created this divine being?

[.]

ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
>>>>>> David Hartung writes:
>
> David> Ed Conrad wrote:
> >> < < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL <
> http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.j-
> http> pg
> >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator,
> >> talk.origins) < The United States National Academy of
> >> Sciences has made a number of statements opposing
> >> creationism. They state, "Creationism, intelligent
> >> design, and other claims of supernatural intervention
> >> in the origin of life or of species are not science
> >> because they are not testable by the methods of
> >> science."
>
> David> Which is correct.
>
> David> The "Big Bang" is also not testable by methods of
> David> science.
>
> It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions that
> have been verified.
>
> David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more
> David> "faith" than a belief in supernatural creation.
>
> You are delusional.
>
>
Poor David Hartung, suffering from being a right wing
dumbass.. He never quite gets reality.

[.]

bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>> This appears to take more "faith" to believe than the
>>> concept of a divine being creating us in his image.
>
>> And who created this divine being?
>
> Don't know. Don't care. It's called "faith". I have it. Not
> as much as I'd like, but trying to build more every day.
>
> But I must admit, my faith has limits.
>
> When one considers that each cell in your body contains a
> code which is literally more complicated that the Interent,
> a code which has taken decades to map, a code which we've
> barely begun to understand, a code which carried along for
> hundreds of millions of years without breaking down (indeed,
> consistantly improving upon itself) - well, I just don't
> have the kind of faith needed to believe that fairy tale.
>

Good thing you don't CARE, Vallely.

Not knowing and not caring to know enables you to be an
ignorant Republican shill.

[ahall]

>>>>> David Hartung writes:

David> ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
>>>>>>> David Hartung writes:
David> Ed Conrad wrote:
>> >> < < <. THE EVOLUTIONISTS -- PHONIER THAN A $3 BILL <
http> mysite.verizon.net/edconrad/FOSSILS/SaveTheWhale.jpg
>> >> (Photo, Courtesy of David Iain Greig, moderator,
>> >> talk.origins) < The United States National Academy of
>> >> Sciences has made a number of statements opposing
>> >> creationism. They state, "Creationism, intelligent
>> >> design, and other claims of supernatural intervention
>> >> in the origin of life or of species are not science
>> >> because they are not testable by the methods of
>> >> science."
David> Which is correct. The "Big Bang" is also not
David> testable by methods of science.
>> It is certainly faslifiable and has made predictions
>> that have been verified.
David> Belief in the "Big Bang" seems to require more
David> "faith"
>> than a belief
David> in supernatural creation.
>> You are delusional.

David> Am I?

David> Please explain.

There is a lot of evidence for the big bang. There is zero
evidence for anything supernatural.

David> To my knowledge the basic idea of the "big bang"
David> theory is as follows.

David> A mass of primordial matter exploded without any
David> outside force acting on it, and from this explosion
David> came our universe.

Read up on it a bit. This is a pretty shallow understanding.

David> This appears to take more "faith" to believe than
David> the concept of a divine being creating us in his
David> image.

Why?

--
Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)