It's really simple if you actually think about it. (or read the topic with any degree of reading comprehension) I was agreeing with everyone else in their views about "creation science". Brady already pointed that out. Yet because I did not meet their standard of persecuting or leaving the creationists alone to pursue their agenda, I was instantly met with animosity. This being no different when it comes to the reception that skepticism regarding current scientific issues like global warming are met with. Despite the pre-existing scientific evidence to the contrary.

I'll spell it out. Since the inception of public education and continuing well into this day.... the overall agenda is;

Uniformity. -and when someone dares challenge that uniformity- Animosity.

It's even easier to tell what's not being taught in public schools. Reading comprehension and critical thought. Though I do not know if that's intentional, or just a byproduct of so many simple minded people.

If you would've taken biology when in high school, (it was a requirement for both my middle and high school) when you got to the subject
of natural selection it would've stressed three important values; freedom, competition, and the struggle for survival. The cornerstones of capitalism as far as I'm concerned. Which I have no problem with.

But I'm not a Marxist. Surely they could complain about a bias in the way Natural Selection was portrayed.

Science is not inherently bias or dogmatic. It just depends on how it's portrayed. (bold for emphasis)


It's funny that you mention that. Eugenics was big particularly in the United States and Canada until Nazi Germany took it upon itself to prove it's wrong. Sterilization programs continued past the Holocaust. We just did it to the mentally impaired instead of people who weren't racially pure.

I'm sure there was people who were skeptical about eugenics at the time. That's half the problem, because if you did you would not only just be met with animosity. You probably would've died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

The other problem of course is that the majority of people bought into the eugenics theory (that eventually led to the Holocaust) in the first place. The minority of skeptical people who were smart just kept their mouths shut or were marginalized.

I'm not so sure about that either. Most of the eugenicists and organizations pushing eugenics were forced into the scientific underground. They changed over into genetics or other areas of biology. This doesn't mean their
underlining ideology has been stamped out. The degree of manipulation at work depends on the positions of influence former eugenicists hold in current
scientific research. Like say, the Human Genome Project.

Wow, and you use this as comparison with your skepticism with evolutionary theory?

really?

where are you confused? Where do you think the science doesn't add up?

Also I like how you're hopping on the train ride of "I don't agree with forcefully sterilizing people against their will" like this is a badge of honor. welcome to the rest of the world, numbnuts.

I have no problem with evolutionary theory, outside of the Soviet example I used earlier and the Marxist take on natural selection.

How many times do I have to say I'm not for creationism, "creation science", or intelligent design? Nevermind, I'm just going to stop.

Simple minded insults from a simple minded person.

Playground retorts from an appropriately minded child.

Keep the change, kid.

You've missed the point, Lurker. His argument basically boils down to: "You hate me because I'm different, while I hate you because you're all the same."

For someone who was screaming about a lack of critical thought, he's pretty quick to wave his arms around and scream AGENDA with no proof beyond his own petty paranoia. But he's right, you know. We're taught to think in a uniform fashion. Which is why anthropology always agrees with sociology, who always agrees with psychology, who always agrees with religious studies, etc.

It's a pity. Smart enough to read Farenheit 451, not smart enough to apply the metaphor properly. Ah well, maybe the next one, eh Watts?

Oh, and as a P.S.

There is no big vast conspiracy pushing a scientific agenda. And even if there were, it would get overturned anyway. You see why your logic is burying you?

How very sophisticated.

The historical example you presented takes a leap of logic here that does not exactly constitute evidence for your hypothesis when it comes to hidden agenda in my opinion.

You compared yourself, apropos of nothing, to the people who opposed nazi germany. You don't know a god-damn thing about me but I know you're full of yourself and you don't have the brains to back it up.

Why do you keep whining about how victimized your opinion is when the only argument people have with you is that you're trite and stupid?

Why should political or social sciences be held to a higher standard of exactness then regular science? It is after all only a hypothesis.

Yeah, granted I missed that because reading his posts was similar to the legendary fudgy shits LeHah always talks about taking. I have no interest in spending much time with either.

Our school system was imported from Prussia. It was the intent of the social planners behind the reform to make kids uniform, it's just that nobody's really caught on or cares about it.

I think you mentioned that before. I just forgot the link you posted. Something to do with the "Underground History of American Education" right?

search function yo

To coin Auden - "I smell an era of blood and prominent banning"

When you can measure personality traits in the same exactness that you can measure the composition of molecules, then maybe this won't be the dumbest statement out of your smartest-in-the-junior-year-at-school mouth.

Maybe in your facist, lol wuts universal suffrage¿, nation it was. :p

Rab your country kidnapped children until like the 1970s, don't act like your shit don't stink.

Finally, I get a word with you. I have a sence of humor too. I love our conversations in my time away from here and I suppose you have graced us with your presence because many folks dont understand your plan. Many of your servants have come here and like the old testament days these guys don't listen.
Please break it down for us as to why you keep sending folks like me to repeat the same message for this unbelieving croud.



Of course but I know that even without a bible in hand you have been equiped well enough to come to the same conclusions as the book. Many here are already "christians" by the fact that they seem to know how the religion should be practiced. I'm just helping folks find their way.

Yes. A six day creation too. I also believe in a God that can make 10 million year old rocks in a fraction of the time. Scientists can tell me what they observe but they don't run anything and they dont have a blueprint of the laws of the universe. They may act like it & expect me to fall in line but I'm not game for that.

This is good. We need more people here like you. Please give this a look. I have yet to get a reply about this book http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/index.asp
Because of your experience your opinion weighs heavily on this issue.

The abortion industry and specifically planned parenthood is rooted in eugenics. Any science heads here support eugenics?

is it eugenics when a woman wants it?

And why would God create 10 million (and older) year old rocks, exactly?

I support eugenics, but I worry that the people controlling it would probably just make things worse.

I also imagine abortion has been around ever since people figured out women are the gender that give birth to babies.

I'm not really sure what you want me to say about the book, but looking at just one testimonial makes me kinda feel I know how all of it will be.

So he doesn't say it presented him a rational argument that made him change his mind, it doesn't say what he read overturned all of the evidence that he had seen no problems with before, all it did was just make him have some gut feeling that there's a wrong with the theory. Personally, I have no problem with people believing in things for this reason. I mean, that's why one form of quantum mechanics is more popular than another. There's multiple forms that correctly explain what's going on, but certain ones are more popular for describing what's physically happening because they just have a stronger gut appeal to more people. It's just when you say that everyone else is wrong and all of their physical evidence is completely wrong because you've got a gut feeling, then it's hard to agree your ideas are scientific.

I think Cro-Magnons preferred infanticide to abortion.

But the great sky bully who dictates all things. That you're game for. Please tell me you see the irony. But this entry isn't about your faith, it's about your idiotic belief in a non-science.

And Brady, that's only because the cro-mags hadn't figured out wire hangers yet.

And as someone who has papers published, albeit in the social sciences and not the hard ones, I figured I'd give you my take on the link you gave to RR. My reaction is basically the same. As I noted here http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/jo...&entryid=32467, a man who loathes religion might turn to it under duress (I have every expectation you'll completely miss the point of that entry and skew what happened, but so be it. Be a zealot if you want.) so what would a religious man do when faced with a crisis of faith? As RR said, following a gut feeling is fine. Following a gut feeling in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is probably going to make you look like an idiot.

Well, if he can figure out how to smack her on the head with a club so he can bag her, I imagine one of them would figure out if you punch her stomach enough the baby won't pop out.

Ug keep clean cave. Ug not Neanderthal, we eat Neanderthal.