• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What PBS doesn't want you to see

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PottedMeat said:
the school lunch calendar fucking lied, this is what they're actually serving for breakfast:

2l9pi1i.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know if I should eat it or fuck it...😕
 
Last edited:
PhineasJWhoopee said:
If you are seriously interested in the topic, there's a ton of information available.

Would you like me to point you to some resources?
Click to expand...

I could point you to the evidence that was brought up during Kitzmiller v. DASB that proves Intelligent Design changed every single mention of Creationism/Creator to Intelligent Design/Designer after the Creationism movement was dealt a fatal blow in Edwards v. Aguillard. Would that tickle your fancy?

Serious. Barbara Forest got a hold of draft versions of Of Pandas and People (This 'textbook' sparked the Kitzmiller case) and in every single instance, Creationism was conveniently substituted with ID.

Now, back to reading the rest of the thread. In a way, this thread served as a motivator to start typing up my senior thesis that I wrote on this very subject. Thanks PJW!!
 
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
 
PhineasJWhoopee said:
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Click to expand...
You still haven't found a single useful result of applying creationist principles in the conduct of science? Pathetic. Here we face massive resource issues that science can partially address and you're busy masturbating with your sock puppet and encouraging others to do the same instead of doing the hard thinking required to solve real world problems.
 
IronWing said:
You still haven't found a single useful result of applying creationist principles in the conduct of science? Pathetic. Here we face massive resource issues that science can partially address and you're busy masturbating with your sock puppet and encouraging others to do the same instead of doing the hard thinking required to solve real world problems.
Click to expand...

1Pl1a.jpg
 
PhineasJWhoopee said:
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Click to expand...

I watched it and I'm not shocked. His explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What is your explanation? Sky fairies created it? Oh yeah, that sounds plausible. 🙄

And Naturalism is not a religion; never has been...never will be.

Best rap I've ever seen on religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
 
Last edited:
PhineasJWhoopee said:
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Click to expand...

Why do you need a savior?

You still haven't presented any real evidence for there even being a creator or why one needs to exist.
 
PhineasJWhoopee said:
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Click to expand...

Bow before Gilligan!


(you're still posting in the wrong thread)
 
PhineasJWhoopee said:
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Click to expand...

That's precisely what Loki wants you to believe....
 
PhineasJWhoopee said:
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Click to expand...

The entire scientific community has been engaged in the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind for the last 200 years.

YOU ARE SO SMART FOR FIGURING IT OUT.
 
PhineasJWhoopee said:
The resaon for the harsh reaction is that naturalism is a religious belief and no one like to have their relgious beliefs challenged, The "savior" for the naturalist is time, as if time could make the impossible possible. It curious how they've double and redoubled the age of the universe as their beliefs become more and more improbable as scientific knowledge grows.

It's clear why the naturalists don't want to debate. Dawkins can't even answer a simple, staright forward question related to his belief system! If you watch this and aren't shocked at how pathetic and intellectually bankrupt Dawkins' beliefs are, I don't know what to say to you. And he is one of the leading spokemouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Here are some ID/Creation links:

http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4&feature=related
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top