So what's with all this nonsense about absolute truth?

As far as I can tell, having read this forum for a bit, GoodScience wants absolute proof of evolution, which is impossible. If he really were a scientist like he claims, he'd know this. There are NO absolutes.

He says that he only trusts things that are absolutely proven.

Oi, GoodScience, why is it that when people show you that your definitions of terms you use to justify your statements are ABSOLUTELY incorrect?

Oh, I know that you say that scientists have actively changed the definitions of them, but where is you ABSOLUTE proof of this?
Please, bring your ABSOLUTE evidence of this.

You don't have any? Wha? But you only trust what is ABSOLUTELY true...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's have a look at some words you dispute the meaning of...

Mutation
Determinism
Neutral
Religion
Science
Theory

So, just with these few examples, can you give your members the evidence that these words have been changed to suit the filthy scientists? Remember, it has to be ABSOLUTE proof. Nothing else will do.

I await your response. Should you post ANYTHING except ABSOLUTE proof of the above, I will repeat the question until you do.

Iwannagetfreakywithyou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 10:44am:

So what's with all this nonsense about absolute truth? As far as I can tell, having read this forum for a bit, GoodScience wants absolute proof of evolution, which is impossible. If he really were a scientist like he claims, he'd know this. There are NO absolutes. He says that he only trusts things that are absolutely proven. Oi, GoodScience, why is it that when people show you that your definitions of terms you use to justify your statements are ABSOLUTELY incorrect? Oh, I know that you say that scientists have actively changed the definitions of them, but where is you ABSOLUTE proof of this? Please, bring your ABSOLUTE evidence of this. You don't have any? Wha? But you only trust what is ABSOLUTELY true... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's have a look at some words you dispute the meaning of... Mutation Determinism Neutral Religion Science Theory So, just with these few examples, can you give your members the evidence that these words have been changed to suit the filthy scientists? Remember, it has to be ABSOLUTE proof. Nothing else will do. I await your response. Should you post ANYTHING except ABSOLUTE proof of the above, I will repeat the question until you do.

It would be good if you actually read and also actually understood what I wrote, instead of your dumb ass Straw Man nonsense.

I don't want absolute proof. I want absolute evidence.
That simply means that the "evidence" is absolutely clear and needs no interpretation by "experts" (brainwashed nonsense artists). 

When people are brainwashed in to a religious belief, they don't even understand what evidence is. They just accept what the authority indoctrinates them with, as you, obviously. 

You are obvious evidence of brainwashing, because you don't understand any pure logic and reason, and you interpret my pure logic and reason with your fuked up beliefs.

If you don't understand what absolute evidence is I will explain it to you by example:

Drop a ball it goes down to the earth every time. This never fails.

Go stand on a really tall building. Then jump off to the ground onto a concrete sidewalk and see what gravity does to you.  This is a good demonstration of the real laws of physics and absolute evidence.

Take a cigarette lighter, light it and put it on the bottom of your bare foot, right in the middle.  Hold it there for a couple of minutes. You may need to have help with this, like having your hands tied behind you and strapped on a table. This is absolute evidence of what a gas flame does to flesh. 

You have been taught out of understanding what real evidence is. It is not some fairytale about nonexistent  "random mutations" or violating young people's minds with bovine feculence like that.   All of the mutilation of scientific terms over the years to fit your idiotic belief.

All of the destroyed, manipulated, specimens from brainwashed paleontologists (a pseudo science) who's only goal is to fulfill their brainwashed fantasy. These, pseudo scientists, literally, have destroyed any possibility of finding out what really happened.  When you have brainwashed, delusional believers in charge, it is the same as having the "wolf" in charge of the chicken house.  That is fact.

As soon as you take on forced indoctrination and stop thinking for yourself and believe brainwashed beliefs, you are no longer rational and not to be trusted with anything, especially young children's minds.  You become and "Evotard".  That means a low IQ weak willed, believer in nonsense, whom is incapable of discerning anything about life, because that ability has been taken from you.

You let these delusional people with mass hysteria take your mind from you.

Take a look at this photo and tell me this isn't absolute evidence of the power and destruction of atomic bombs.

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 11:56am:

If you don't understand what absolute evidence is I will explain it to you by example:

Ooh, this aught to be good...


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 11:56am:

Drop a ball it goes down to the earth every time. This never fails.

False. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZLl3XwlAIE

At 0:54 you can see Alan Shepard drop a ball, and it quite clearly goes to the surface of the Moon, not to the Earth.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 11:56am:

Take a look at this photo and tell me this isn't absolute evidence of the power and destruction of atomic bombs.

It's not. There is no evidence in that photo to indicate that an atomic bomb was the cause of the damage to that individual. Additional information is required from other sources to come to the conclusion that the radiation from an atomic bomb causes damage to living tissues.

You have no idea what absolute evidence is, and wouldn't recognize it if it landed on you after being thrown from the roof of a tall building.

Iwannagetfreakywithyou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 10:44am:

So what's with all this nonsense about absolute truth? As far as I can tell, having read this forum for a bit, GoodScience wants absolute evidence of evolution, which is impossible. If he really were a scientist like he claims, he'd know this. There are NO absolutes. He says that he only trusts things that are absolutely proven. Oi, GoodScience, why is it that when people show you that your definitions of terms you use to justify your statements are ABSOLUTELY incorrect? Oh, I know that you say that scientists have actively changed the definitions of them, but where is you ABSOLUTE evidence of this? Please, bring your ABSOLUTE evidence of this. You don't have any? Wha? But you only trust what is ABSOLUTELY true... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's have a look at some words you dispute the meaning of... Mutation Determinism Neutral Religion Science Theory So, just with these few examples, can you give your members the evidence that these words have been changed to suit the filthy scientists? Remember, it has to be ABSOLUTE evidence. Nothing else will do. I await your response. Should you post ANYTHING except ABSOLUTE evidence of the above, I will repeat the question until you do.

Fixed. You can answer the question without any distractions. I don't care about your opinion on evolution in this thread, its purpose is for you to answer a single question. Answer this question without your usual feculence.

Just so it's ABSOLUTELY clear, the question is You say that scientists have actively changed the definitions of these words, but where is you ABSOLUTE evidence of this?

Now, answer this question.

Answer the question, GoodScience.

Also, it's not a strawman argument because the question in the thread is as I've stated in the post above, nothing to do with evolution or your opinions on that subject. You claim that scientists have changed the meaning of these words, show us the absolute evidence of this.

Iwannagetspeakywithyou wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 5:40am:

Also, it's not a strawman argument because the question in the thread is as I've stated in the post above, nothing to do with evolution or your opinions on that subject. You claim that scientists have changed the meaning of these words, show us the absolute evidence of this.

I have been a scientist for over 45 years.  I witnessed this happening.  Why don't you wake up from your delusional trust in these weak humans?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 10:22am:

Iwannagetspeakywithyou wrote on Feb 20th, 2010 at 5:40am: Also, it's not a strawman argument because the question in the thread is as I've stated in the post above, nothing to do with evolution or your opinions on that subject. You claim that scientists have changed the meaning of these words, show us the absolute evidence of this. I have been a scientist for over 45 years.  I witnessed this happening.  Why don't you wake up from your delusional trust in these weak humans?

You claim that scientists have changed the meaning of these words, show us the absolute evidence of this!!!

Try just once!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 10:22am:

Iwannagetspeakywithyou wrote on Feb 20th, 2010 at 5:40am: Also, it's not a strawman argument because the question in the thread is as I've stated in the post above, nothing to do with evolution or your opinions on that subject. You claim that scientists have changed the meaning of these words, show us the absolute evidence of this. I have been a scientist for over 45 years.  I witnessed this happening.  Why don't you wake up from your delusional trust in these weak humans?

Lol so you are one of the people (scientists) who have been changing words in the dictionary? I know that's true...

In all seriousness now, I don't care if you call yourself a scientist nor what you think of any other 'weak humans'. This thread does NOT deal with any of those issues, stick to the topic; I want you to answer the question.

Saying you've witnessed it happening means ABSOLUTELY nothing to me, and as a "scientist" who regards ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE as fundamental, you should have no problems putting this evidence forward. You were, and are, absolutely certain that they have changed these words to suit their 'agenda'; show us the evidence of this.
I, and everyone else, want you to show ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that scientists have changed the definitions of the words above.

The validity of your credibility HINGES on this.

Let's just have a quick peep at some of your statements

"Truth indeed rather alleviates than hurts, and will always bear up against falsehood, as oil does above water."Miguel de Cervantes

"Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is." Sir Winston Churchill

"Truth is the secret of eloquence and of virtue, the basis of moral authority; it is the highest summit of art and of life." Henri Frederic Amiel


"Truthfulness is the main element of character." Brian Tracy

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

"If you want the truth, start with small truths and never lie to anyone. If you can do that and not fail, you will find the truth on everything."  James Arjuna

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."
Anais Nin

"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." The Buddha paraphrase

This is how I live my life.  It is a good way to live. You should try it.

If you never utter a lie, then you must be absolutely sure if what you are saying is truth.

Now, please DO NOT respond to any of the quotes above, they are only here to illustrate your own beliefs with respect to your faith in truth and honesty, and to add focus to the question being asked of you.

Please answer the question and post the evidence you have, because you must be absolutely sure that what you say is the truth if you are to never utter a lie.

You are confused as most Evodelusionist are.

You do not know the difference between opinion and evidence.

You do not understand what real knowledge is.

Real knowledge only goes with what we know as objective fact that cannot be refuted.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 1:13pm:

You are confused as most Evodelusionist are. You do not know the difference between opinion and evidence.

That claim is unsupported by the previous posts. OP is asking for facts to back up your opinion that the definitions of those words have been changed by scientists. Seems that you are the one who has fact and opinion backwards on this one...


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 1:13pm:

Real knowledge only goes with what we know as fact that cannot be refuted.

So show us the irrefutable facts to prove that the definitions of those words have been changed by scientists?

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 1:18pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 21st, 2010 at 1:13pm: You are confuses as most Evodelusionist are. You do not know the difference between opinion and evidence. That claim is unsupported by the previous posts. OP is asking for facts to back up your opinion that the definitions of those words have been changed by scientists. Seems that you are the one who has fact and opinion backwards on this one... GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 21st, 2010 at 1:13pm: Real knowledge only goes with what we know as fact that cannot be refuted. So show us the irrefutable facts to prove that the definitions of those words have been changed by scientists?

You, weak delusional human. You doubt my integrity.  I was there.
How old are you, punk ass Evodelusionist; Evotard?
You insult my integrity you are asking for my evaluation of your condition of mind and showing more how delusional and brainwashed you are.

When I took real math classes, random was only considered in very abstract math and was not considered to be possible to attain in physical matter or even in calculations of energy math as in computers, electronics, gravity, momentum and real science. This is why there is a false "random" used in computers that every computer scientists understands. There is no such thing as "random" in the universe, because it violates "cause and effect" which is THE FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE; the first law of science.

The original term "Mutation" referred to some screwed up chromosomes. This was the standard in genetics for as long as they studied this subject. When nonsense artists decided they wanted to destroy foundational scientific definitions to match their delusional beliefs they got away with it. 

Anyone who is opposed to the truth about this nonsense is the enemy of science.  That is what you are.

All people who believe in Evolution are the enemies of real science. 

Since there is no irrefutable, absolutely real evidence for evolution, there is no reason to give it any energy or even a fart's worth of you time.

Go back and read the original post, until you understand.

It is a hard one for dumb ass believers to get.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 10:07pm:

Since there is no irrefutable, absolutely real evidence for evolution, there is no reason to give it any energy or even a fart's worth of you time.

Then why are you here fighting so hard against it?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 10:12pm:

It is a hard one for dumb ass believers to get.

What many of us are not getting is that you have so completely deluded yourself that it's really not worth our time arguing against you. Your ideas are so ridiculous that the chances of them gaining any ground in the scientific world or in the legal world are practically nil. Me, I'm sticking around for the entertainment value - you're quite a trip, kinda like watching a train wreck. Too painful to keep watching, and yet I can't wait to see what nonsense is gonna come out of your mouth next!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 10:07pm:

Since there is no irrefutable, absolutely real evidence for evolution, there is no reason to give it any energy or even a fart's worth of you time.

See, this is where you mess up - We're talking about the manipulation of words, not the theory of evolution; that will come later once we've sorted out these FUNDAMENTAL claims.
How can I trust what you say about ToE, when you can't even tell me where your own evidence comes from? Not only that, you don't even attempt to justify your claims despite requiring this of everyone else on this board and resort to dismissing it out of hand as if it doesn't matter. It's vital - If the words have been manipulated, you should be able to show us where and when this was done. If they haven't, all of your theories are suspect.
You claim to be a teacher, but you resort back to the banal statement about no truth in evolution when confronted with a dispute over your own claims. Instead of validating your ideas, you show them to be risible.

What I asked for is simply where you got your information from (why you find this insulting is perplexing, yet telling) and instead of answering and giving the evidence, like you expect the proponents of evolution to do, you resort to more obfuscation. Why is that?

You state that the words in the first post have been manipulated and changed, yet you provide NO evidence whatsoever, in fact you have SPECIFICALLY avoided giving us the evidence of the manipulation, despite your claims to be the one of the *only* honest scientists.
Without this evidence, you have no credibility. Do you see?

I haven't disputed your theories yet, only asked for the data you have pertaining to the changes you claim happened - why won't you answer?

As I see it, there are only two reasons:
1) You have no evidence (irrefutable or otherwise) and you only have an opinion, which destroys many, if not all, of your other claims or
2) The evidence you have would not stand up to even the the lightest of scrutiny, which destroys your claims of said changes and makes you a, if not a liar, an untrustworthy source.


Quote:

Go back and read the original post, until you understand.

My ability to understand seems to greatly exceed your own, so I think YOU need to read the original post and give me some evidence to show that you are not just making this stuff up as you go along.


Quote:

It is a hard one for dumb ass believers to get.

No, it's not - so far you have made claims that are unsubstantiated (something you take great pleasure in accusing others of) and you offer nothing whatsoever to back them up. If you cannot show where and when these words were changed or manipulated, they MUST have ONLY their original definitions, in which case all of your theories are bunk because you've made the concept fundamental to your ideology. It's not my fault you can't think on your feet.

Now, with all that said, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; take some time and collect the evidence you claim exists (without anecdotes from your childhood or any bovine feculence or opinions) and I will review it.

I'm nothing, if not fair.

All of the evidence I have looked at comes from normal science sources.  All of them are based on belief first and nothing they discuss in the papers pertain to the evidence, when they use the word evolution.  It is like they randomly attach the word "evolution" to all biology papers for no reasons, because there is none. Nothing in any of these papers suggests evolution as real.

If you have any irrefutable evidence that has no alternate plausibilities, where is it?


It is up to you to show why you believe in evolution, because I say there is no evidence after 41 years of study on this.  I don't have to produce "non evidence" because none exists.  Understand?

You don't understand logic.

The lack of evidence is the lack of evidence.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2010 at 11:33am:

All of the evidence I have looked at comes from normal science sources.

Lol. What the hell? I want you to SHOW the evidence that ANY of the words in the OP have been manipulated and changed to suit the scientists' agenda - SHOW me the evidence. Just because you've "seen" it doesn't mean I believe it. Why should I take your word for it? You require evidence to back up others' claims, show yours - your credibility depends on this, as your stance REQUIRES that these words have changed meaning over an observable time - show me the absolute evidence of this 

Quote:

All of them are based on belief first and nothing they discuss in the papers pertain to the evidence, when they use the word evolution.

We're not talking about evolution yet, we're discussing the words selected by you. We'll get down to the nitty gritty of evolution after we sort out this fundamental issue. 


Quote:

It is like they randomly attach the word "evolution" to all biology papers for no reasons, because there is none. Nothing in any of these papers suggests evolution as real.

Sigh. Please show the ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that these words have been changed to suit an agenda within our lifetimes like you claim - I'm not going to discuss evolution with you until you back up these claims.


Quote:

If you have any irrefutable evidence that has no alternate plausibilities, where is it?

I'm not inclined to show you anything until you give some evidence for your own claims. You say you're right without giving your evidence, and you claim to be a scientist; you also claim not to be influenced by anything that can't be shown to be true; well, show me how the statement that those words in the OP have been manipulated to suit an agenda. I mean, if you believe this to be true, there must be evidence, right? Show me.


Quote:

It is up to you to show why you believe in evolution, because I say there is no evidence after 41 years of study on this.  I don't have to produce "non evidence" because none exists.  Understand?

I never said I believe in evolution, I read your forum and noticed that the claims you make have a shaky foundation, as evidenced by your unwillingness to give evidence for your own ideology. I will discuss your theories on evolution when you've shown at least some evidence that what you say has some basis in fact. If you've studied evolution for 41 years, you should be able to point out some evidence where the words in the OP have changed over this observed time. Where is it? I'm not asking for "non-evidence", nor am I asking you to prove your own theories; I'm asking you to show evidence for your claim that the words in the OP have changed over time, which is fundamental to your theories. Understand?


Quote:

You don't understand logic.

Yes, I do. Logically, if you hold the belief that scientists have changed the definition of the words in the OP, and you have witnessed this happening, you should be able to point out the places where you noticed it and show it to me. I require evidence, just as you do. I don't think it's particularly difficult to do this, why are you obfuscating with every retort?
At this point in time, I'm only interested in the evidence that you say exists where an agenda to change words to suit a particular world view has taken place.


Quote:

The lack of evidence is the lack of evidence.

Well, this seems to be true with respect to this thread; you've shown no evidence about your claims whatsoever. You can't just say "I know it to be true", as this is the very thing you accuse evolutionists of!!!

Please, show the evidence - you should have plenty with 41 years of study on the subject, just point it out and I'll read and make my own judgement. Can you not yet see why it is important to know this before we discuss any of the theories you dispute?


You say you believe in only speaking the truth. Well?

If you were at all objective, and read all the same papers I have, over 20,000 of them. The conclusions have nothing in common with the evidence presented. The word evolution is uses like 'candy" and has no meaning in relation to the evidence.

This is because there is no evidence of any creature ever evolving.  It has never happened on this earth.

If you could get your discrimination back and stand back from this f**king belief, you could actually start to get free of the some of the nonsense that life controls you with.

To be free you have to allow yourself to be free of all nonsense.

There are only two things in life.  nonsense and the Truth.

There is nothing in between or that is acceptable to a free thinker.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:00pm:

This is because there is no evidence of any creature ever evolving.  It has never happened on this earth.

Liar.

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/watching-multicellularity-evolve-before.html

Here's the actual paper:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/

YouCantStopTheTruth wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:07pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23rd, 2010 at 1:00pm: This is because there is no evidence of any creature ever evolving.  It has never happened on this earth. Liar. http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/watching-multicellularity-evolve-before.html Here's the actual paper: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/

In case you didn't notice, there was no evolution in that paper. The algae simply adapted as all life forms do.
It did not become a new genus, or even a new species. 

What have they done to your brain?

If it is still bacteria then no evolution.
If it is still a frog then no evolution.
If it is still a horse, then no evolution.
If it is still a crocodile then no evolution.
If it is still a lizard, then no evolution.

The only thing shown in these experiments is that creatures adapt to survive as the same creatures. The idea that any change is evolution is what morons are made of.

Thank you for producing your "evidence". 

Do you know there have have been bacteria colonies found that were dormant for 40 million years and 60 million years and the same strains still exist today? Bacteria never evolves into a new life form.

Back in the 1960's Evotards believed that all life came from bacteria that some how "magically" evolved into humans.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

In case you didn't notice, there was no evolution in that paper. The algae simply adapted as all life forms do. It did not become a new genus, or even a new species.

I case you didn't notice, there WAS evolution in that paper. It DID become a new genus!


Quote:

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. "

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

What have they done to your brain?

What have you done to yours? Either it is malfunctioning, or you simply aren't using it.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

If it is still bacteria then no evolution. If it is still a frog then no evolution. If it is still a horse, then no evolution. If it is still a crocodile then no evolution. If it is still a lizard, then no evolution.

You are straw-manning the definition of evolution. You are wrong.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

The only thing shown in these experiments is that creatures adapt to survive as the same creatures. The idea that any change is evolution is what morons are made of.

Sorry, wrong. A single-celled creature is not the same as a multicellular creature.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

Thank you for producing your "evidence".

Thanks for proving, yet again, that you are willing to dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't agree with you.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

Do you know there have have been bacteria colonies found that were dormant for 40 million years and 60 million years and the same strains still exist today? Bacteria never evolves into a new life form.

News flash: The Theory of Evolution does not say that we evolved from modern bacteria. It says that life developed from a simple, single-celled form. Bacteria are one branch of a divergent evolutionary path, eukaryotes are another branch.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

Back in the 1960's Evotards believed that all life came from bacteria that some how "magically" evolved into humans.

It's possible that some believed that back then, but that is simply not true of the modern theory of evolution.

IF you take away the predator, it will eventually revert. 
Just like the chickens who don't need teeth any more because of domestication.  Take away the domestication and you will see teeth in a few hundred or less generations.

This is not evolution, but adaptation of the creature to survive as the same creature. The individual cells did not change.

It is the huge pink elephant in the room of delusional believers that says we are going to make this fit our f**king beliefs and rave about it like a bunch of f**king retards. We are the scientists so what we say is true.  f**king morons!

You will not find any papers on the reversal of that, because it destroys these delusional idiots faith and belief.

I only state the truth in the matter, from 41 years of scientific study.

Here is a book I think you need to read.

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

IF you take away the predator, it will eventually revert.

Wrong yet again. It has existed independently of the predator in its multicellular form for over a decade.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

Just like the chickens who don't need teeth any more because of domestication.  Take away the domestication and you will see teeth in a few hundred or less generations.

Again, so much for not believing anything for which there is no absolute proof... if this were true, why wouldn't all non-domesticated birds have teeth? What about populations of wild chickens, why don't they have teeth?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

This is not evolution, but adaptation of the creature to survive as the same creature. The individual cells did not change.

Wrong again. The individual cells did change, both to allow themselves to colonize, and to require that colonization for continued survival. If they had not changed, then you would be correct that the population would revert to single-celled. The population did not revert. You are wrong.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

It is the huge pink elephant in the room of delusional believers that says we are going to make this fit our f**king beliefs and rave about it like a bunch of f**king retards. We are the scientists so what we say is true.  f**king morons!

There is no pink elephant. You are the one claiming that there is.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

You will not find any papers on the reversal of that, because it destroys these delusional idiots faith and belief.

You won't find any papers on it because it hasn't happened.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

I only state the truth in the matter, from 41 years of scientific study.

You are stating non-truths, no matter how much study you've done.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

Here is a book I think you need to read.

Again with the personal insults... I thought you were trying to discourage those? Shouldn't you ban yourself now?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Today at 8:40pm:
This is not evolution, but adaptation of the creature to survive as the same creature. The individual cells did not change.

Evotard wrote:
Wrong again. The individual cells did change, both to allow themselves to colonize, and to require that colonization for continued survival. If they had not changed, then you would be correct that the population would revert to single-celled. The population did not revert. You are wrong.

=====================================

GoodScienceForYou response:

You will never find out and it will not be published in your f**ked up journals, because no pseudo scientist will ever perform that experiment.

I'll be you are too much of a coward to do the work necessary to prove your dumb ass beliefs or to disprove them.  Weak and stupid people will not surrender up religious, Evodelusionism, beliefs that are Human Emotional Mental Garbage.

And in human DNA ancient and not used gene expression has adapted away from the need to express because of the environment.  If you return to the same environment those genes will express.

There is no such thing as one way evolution nonsense.  Creatures only adapt to SURVIVE as the same creatures.

Now in the alga, experiment, what was the intelligence programming that was in action to cause them to want to survive?  What is the cause of the need to survive?

In all creatures the need to survive circumvents everything.
There is no way this is random, nor is it magical, nor is it mystical.  It is the programming in all creatures.

When we look at the DNA of smokers, it is clear that the DNA shows adaptation and struggle for survival.  Eventually the cigarette smoke and the poisons in it, will overcome even the strongest human genetic structure and cause early death. The point is there is only SURVIVAL and intelligent programming for creatures to survive. There is nothing else shown IN ALL THE EVIDENCE.  If you can't see it, you are an Evotard.

Wake the f**k up!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 2:57pm:

You will never find out and it will not be published in your f**ked up journals, because no pseudo scientist will ever perform that experiment.

WRONG AGAIN! Read the article! It even says, in the article that samples were removed from the presence of the predator, and persisted as multicellular forms for over a decade!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 2:57pm:

I'll be you are too much of a coward to do the work necessary to prove your dumb ass beliefs or to disprove them.

Coward? Not at all. Personally equipped to perform the work? No. Provide me with the financial backing to perform the experiments, and I'll be glad to do them.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Now in the alga, experiment, what was the intelligence programming that was in action to cause them to want to survive?  What is the cause of the need to survive?

Now you're assuming that there was some intelligence involved? There is no programming, there is no need to survive. Life is simply an ongoing chemical chain reaction that continues until it is deprived of a source of raw materials and/or energy.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 2:57pm:

In all creatures the need to survive circumvents everything. There is no way this is random, nor is it magical, nor is it mystical.  It is the programming in all creatures.

Prove that such programming exists. It doesn't. The method by which organisms reproduce is coded into DNA, and some organisms have developed the desire to continue to exist... but there is no programming, there is no inherent need to survive.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 2:57pm:

The point is there is only SURVIVAL and intelligent programming for creatures to survive. There is nothing else shown IN ALL THE EVIDENCE.  If you can't see it, you are an Evotard.

Your creationist colors are showing...


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Wake the f**k up!

I did, when I left religion behind on my way to rationalism and evidence-based reasoning.  You should do the same.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:00pm:

If you were at all objective, and read all the same papers I have, over 20,000 of them.

What? You expect me to acquiesce to your authority based on what? My experience with you? So far you've avoided each and every question I've put forward.


Quote:

The conclusions have nothing in common with the evidence presented.

So you say. I'm not ready to debate that infinitely more complex issue with you until you can show me the evidence that words used in the scientific community have been changed to suit  an agenda. You say you have witnessed it, show me where and when.


Quote:

The word evolution is uses like 'candy" and has no meaning in relation to the evidence.

So you say, but how can I trust your definition of evolution is accurate when you can't even show me where your own definitions come from (because they're not the same as ANYONE else's).


Quote:

This is because there is no evidence of any creature ever evolving.  It has never happened on this earth.

So YOU say, but you've built up no trust at all - you've obfuscated and dithered and gone off topic giving me the impression that you really don't know what you're talking about. Show me to be incorrect, show me the evidence of tampering.


Quote:

If you could get your discrimination back

Lol! I'm TRYING TO GET YOU TO BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY SO I CAN SCRUTINISE IT MYSELF!


Quote:

and stand back from this f**king belief, you could actually start to get free of the some of the nonsense that life controls you with.

And again, always with the constant repetition... I haven't said whether I'm pro or anti evolution - don't make assumptions unless you have absolute evidence.


Quote:

To be free you have to allow yourself to be free of all nonsense.

Blah blah. Show me the evidence of tampering, GSFY.


Quote:

There are only two things in life.  nonsense and the Truth.

And you seem to confuse the two. Nevertheless, I'd like you to back up your claims before I discuss anything deeper with you.


Quote:

There is nothing in between or that is acceptable to a free thinker.

Then put your money where your mouth is and show me where scientists have changed the definitions of words within your lifetime to suit the agenda of the evolutionists. Go on. Do it.

You f**knig nitwit.

I don't need any evidence.  I am not the one promoting nonsense.

YOU ARE!

You f**king moron.

Now where is your f**king PHYSICAL evidence that is irrefutable for evolution?  Only a f**king moron would not answer this question.

Answer this question or you are banned again, and again and again.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 1:19pm:

I don't need any evidence.  I am not the one promoting nonsense.

Yes, you f**king moron, you are promoting nonsense when you claim that evolution is a religion, that there is no evidence, that evolution promotes racism, that diamonds aren't carbon, that all bacteria are the same species, that humans mated with chimpanzees, that falsification isn't scientific, that evolution violates natural laws, that true random can't exist - or that evolution requires true random in the first place, which it doesn't - etc, etc, etc.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 1:19pm:

Now where is your f**king PHYSICAL evidence that is irrefutable for evolution?  Only a f**king moron would not answer this question.

I HAVE answered it, you f**king nitwit! Can't you read or remember anything more than 2 minutes ago?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 1:19pm:

Answer this question or you are banned again, and again and again.

So f**king what? Big f**king deal.

YouCantStopTheTruth wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 1:35pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 1:19pm: I don't need any evidence.  I am not the one promoting nonsense. Yes, you f**king moron, you are promoting nonsense when you claim that evolution is a religion, that there is no evidence, that evolution promotes racism, that diamonds aren't carbon, that all bacteria are the same species, that humans mated with chimpanzees, that falsification isn't scientific, that evolution violates natural laws, that true random can't exist - or that evolution requires true random in the first place, which it doesn't - etc, etc, etc. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 1:19pm: Now where is your f**king PHYSICAL evidence that is irrefutable for evolution?  Only a f**king moron would not answer this question. I HAVE answered it, you f**king nitwit! Can't you read or remember anything more than 2 minutes ago? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 1:19pm: Answer this question or you are banned again, and again and again. So f**king what? Big f**king deal.

You are a brainwashed idot.  I am banning you again.

You do not underestand even the first premise is scientific laws. 

Go away and don't come back.  I only want serious students , seeking to understand real science.

You obviously are closed minded and stupid.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 4:59pm:

You are a brainwashed idot.  I am banning you again.

ROFLMAO Like that'll really stop me!



GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 4:59pm:

You do not underestand even the first premise is scientific laws.

Backwards yet again... you are the one that clearly doesn't understand what a scientific Law even is.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 4:59pm:

Go away and don't come back.  I only want serious students , seeking to understand real science.

No you don't, you want idiots that can't think for themselves who are willing to be brainwashed by your nonsense.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 4:59pm:

You obviously are closed minded and stupid.

You're projecting your own flaws on everyone else. Try directing that comment a little closer to home.

YouCantHandleTruth wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 5:49pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 4:59pm: You are a brainwashed idot.  I am banning you again. ROFLMAO Like that'll really stop me! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 4:59pm: You do not underestand even the first premise is scientific laws.  Backwards yet again... you are the one that clearly doesn't understand what a scientific Law even is. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 4:59pm: Go away and don't come back.  I only want serious students , seeking to understand real science. No you don't, you want idiots that can't think for themselves who are willing to be brainwashed by your nonsense. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 4:59pm: You obviously are closed minded and stupid. You're projecting your own flaws on everyone else. Try directing that comment a little closer to home.

Who is your authority on what constitutes a law of science?
Who owns your mind?  I own my mind and I never allow any logical fallacies to get near it.

Why do you believe them?  Do you ever think for yourself or are you just a pawn of other stupid humans with extremely low IQ's?  I highly recommend this book.

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 1:19pm:

You f**knig nitwit. I don't need any evidence.  I am not the one promoting nonsense.

YES YOU ARE. You say that words have changed their meaning over time, observed by you, and done with an agenda. THIS IS AN UNVERIED CLAIM!
Why the hell should anyone listen to a word you say when you won't/can't back up THE VERY REASONS YOU GIVE FOR NOT BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION?

Why won't you answer the question?


Quote:

YOU ARE!

When are you going to get this into your skull: I'VE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A PROPONENT OF EVOLUTION!


Quote:

You f**king moron.

I think you're the one who has no control over their temper and cannot connect one thought to another - You've studies for either 41 or 45 years, read 200,000 or 20,000 papers on the subject, use definitions of words no scientist has OBSERVABLY EVER USED, and can't back up a simple claim... Who is the one with a flawed argument?
Now, WHERE IS YOUR ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE. NO nonsense OR OPINION, NO ANECDOTES OR FAIRY TALES?


Quote:

Now where is your f**king PHYSICAL evidence that is irrefutable for evolution?

I'm not providing anything until you provide some proof that you HAVEN'T JUST MADE ALL THIS feculence UP. 


Quote:

Only a f**king moron would not answer this question.

Aren't you in your sixties or something? Why do you act like a f**king baby?



Quote:

Answer this question or you are banned again, and again and again.

Why should I answer the question when you won't answer mine? You want people to believe what you say, yes? I cannot believe you until you show proof, the same as you require of others. Get it?
YOU ASKED PEOPLE TO QUESTION EVERYTHING! So when I question you you flip out like a mental patient. What the hell? Why can't you answer?
I can register at least one more time than you can ban me and I also have a large collection of your posts on file. You will not win this one. Just answer the question and we can move back to rational debate, or is that too much for you to handle?
Come on, give it a go. Show me the truth of your statements. Remember, start with small truths and try to never lie - this is how you live your life, right? The evidence must be PHYSICAL,  irrefutable, have no other plausibilities and contain no OPINIONS. 
Show me the truth, GSFY.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 11:41pm:

Who is your authority on what constitutes a law of science?

Not you. But that's a good question... I guess the definition is based on it's accepted usage by the scientific community in general.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 11:41pm:

Who owns your mind?  I own my mind and I never allow any logical fallacies to get near it.

Your mind IS a logical fallacy!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 11:41pm:

Why do you believe them?  Do you ever think for yourself or are you just a pawn of other stupid humans with extremely low IQ's?  I highly recommend this book.

I believe that which is observably true, or can be confirmed through other means. If someone makes a claim that is questionable, I investigate their basis for making such a claime, and I evaluate what I find against what I already know to be true.

I've evaluated what you post, and it's highly questionable at best.

Iwannagetcheekywithyou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 2:55am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 24th, 2010 at 1:19pm: You weak stupid nitwit. I don't need any evidence.  I am not the one promoting nonsense. YES YOU ARE. You say that words have changed their meaning over time, observed by you, and done with an agenda. THIS IS AN UNVERIED CLAIM! Why the hell should anyone listen to a word you say when you won't/can't back up THE VERY REASONS YOU GIVE FOR NOT BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION? Why won't you answer the question? Quote: YOU ARE! When are you going to get this into your skull: I'VE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A PROPONENT OF EVOLUTION! [quote]You f**king moron.

I think you're the one who has no control over their temper and cannot connect one thought to another - You've studies for either 41 or 45 years, read 200,000 or 20,000 papers on the subject, use definitions of words no scientist has OBSERVABLY EVER USED, and can't back up a simple claim... Who is the one with a flawed argument?
Now, WHERE IS YOUR ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE. NO nonsense OR OPINION, NO ANECDOTES OR FAIRY TALES?


Quote:

Now where is your f**king PHYSICAL evidence that is irrefutable for evolution?

I'm not providing anything until you provide some proof that you HAVEN'T JUST MADE ALL THIS feculence UP. 


Quote:

Only a f**king moron would not answer this question.

Aren't you in your sixties or something? Why do you act like a f**king baby?



Quote:

Answer this question or you are banned again, and again and again.

Why should I answer the question when you won't answer mine? You want people to believe what you say, yes? I cannot believe you until you show proof, the same as you require of others. Get it?
YOU ASKED PEOPLE TO QUESTION EVERYTHING! So when I question you you flip out like a mental patient. What the hell? Why can't you answer?
I can register at least one more time than you can ban me and I also have a large collection of your posts on file. You will not win this one. Just answer the question and we can move back to rational debate, or is that too much for you to handle?
Come on, give it a go. Show me the truth of your statements. Remember, start with small truths and try to never lie - this is how you live your life, right? The evidence must be PHYSICAL,  irrefutable, have no other plausibilities and contain no OPINIONS. 
Show me the truth, GSFY.[/quote]

You are a closed minded nitwit, like most Evotards.  You talk in circles, like most Evotards, because you have been taught out of logic and reason.

I am done with closed minded retards who can't even understand simple scientific terms.  This is because yoru religious nonsense is coveing your "mind's eyes". I wish you well but until you answer my question you are banned.

I am not going to deal with talking in circles with nitwits any longer.
If you want to get free of this nonsense and find what is really going on, I have given you the evidence. It is clear and easy for anyone who is not brainwashed to see.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

You are a closed minded nitwit, like most Evotards.  You talk in circles, like most Evotards, because you have been taught out of logic and reason.

No, you moron, he's not talking in circles. He's asking ONE question, and repeating it asking you over and over to answer it... and you are avoiding it.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

I am done with closed minded retards who can't even understand simple scientific terms.

So... you're closing the board down, then? Good choice.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

This is because yoru religious nonsense is coveing your "mind's eyes". I wish you well but until you answer my question you are banned.

And how is he supposed to answer it if he's banned?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

I am not going to deal with talking in circles with nitwits any longer.

Good idea.. talking to yourself is a sign of insanity.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

If you want to get free of this nonsense and find what is really going on, I have given you the evidence.

You haven't given garbage! You've told a story, with absolutely no supporting evidence!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

It is clear and easy for anyone who is not brainwashed to see.

The only one here who's brainwashed is you - brainwashed into believing your own nonsense.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

You are a closed minded nitwit, like most Evotards.  You talk in circles, like most Evotards, because you have been taught out of logic and reason.

And how exactly is asking the 'teacher' of this site a question, a SINGLE QUESTION, being closed-minded? Is this yet another example of a term you use but seem to have an entirely different definition to the rest of the English-speaking world? Come on, stop being silly.


Quote:

I am done with closed minded retards who can't even understand simple scientific terms.

You mean you can't show the evidence but I should just trust that what you say is correct? I think not.


Quote:

This is because yoru religious nonsense is coveing your "mind's eyes". I wish you well but until you answer my question you are banned.

Lol. You banned me for all of what, 3 minutes? I told you I can register more times than you can ban - you'll have to close the forum down, bud. Alternatively, you could show the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists. Come on.



Quote:

I am not going to deal with talking in circles with nitwits any longer.

It's not circular, it's direct; show me the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists. Perhaps your mind isn't as free as you suggest.


Quote:

If you want to get free of this nonsense and find what is really going on, I have given you the evidence.

You've given nothing. Literally. Now would be a good time to show the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists.


Quote:

It is clear and easy for anyone who is not brainwashed to see.

See what? The 'clarity' that you have? That's a bit too opaque for me.

Iwannagetgeekywithyou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 6:13pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 4:43pm: You are a closed minded nitwit, like most Evotards.  You talk in circles, like most Evotards, because you have been taught out of logic and reason. And how exactly is asking the 'teacher' of this site a question, a SINGLE QUESTION, being closed-minded? Is this yet another example of a term you use but seem to have an entirely different definition to the rest of the English-speaking world? Come on, stop being silly. Quote: I am done with closed minded retards who can't even understand simple scientific terms. You mean you can't show the evidence but I should just trust that what you say is correct? I think not. [quote]This is because yoru religious nonsense is coveing your "mind's eyes". I wish you well but until you answer my question you are banned.

Lol. You banned me for all of what, 3 minutes? I told you I can register more times than you can ban - you'll have to close the forum down, bud. Alternatively, you could show the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists. Come on.



Quote:

I am not going to deal with talking in circles with nitwits any longer.

It's not circular, it's direct; show me the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists. Perhaps your mind isn't as free as you suggest.


Quote:

If you want to get free of this nonsense and find what is really going on, I have given you the evidence.

You've given nothing. Literally. Now would be a good time to show the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists.


Quote:

It is clear and easy for anyone who is not brainwashed to see.

See what? The 'clarity' that you have? That's a bit too opaque for me.[/quote]

I have answered your questions at least 10 times over and over.  You are not capable of understanding the answers.
I am not kidding you on this.

You have been brainwashed into some stupid belief system that does not allow you to think for yourself any longer.
That is a sad condition to be in, so much so, that you can't understand what real science is.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 6:16pm:

Iwannagetgeekywithyou wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 6:13pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 4:43pm: You are a closed minded nitwit, like most Evotards.  You talk in circles, like most Evotards, because you have been taught out of logic and reason. And how exactly is asking the 'teacher' of this site a question, a SINGLE QUESTION, being closed-minded? Is this yet another example of a term you use but seem to have an entirely different definition to the rest of the English-speaking world? Come on, stop being silly. Quote: I am done with closed minded retards who can't even understand simple scientific terms. You mean you can't show the evidence but I should just trust that what you say is correct? I think not. [quote]This is because yoru religious nonsense is coveing your "mind's eyes". I wish you well but until you answer my question you are banned. Lol. You banned me for all of what, 3 minutes? I told you I can register more times than you can ban - you'll have to close the forum down, bud. Alternatively, you could show the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists. Come on. [quote]I am not going to deal with talking in circles with nitwits any longer.

It's not circular, it's direct; show me the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists. Perhaps your mind isn't as free as you suggest.


Quote:

If you want to get free of this nonsense and find what is really going on, I have given you the evidence.

You've given nothing. Literally. Now would be a good time to show the evidence that the words in the other thread have been changed to suit the agenda of scientists.


Quote:

It is clear and easy for anyone who is not brainwashed to see.

See what? The 'clarity' that you have? That's a bit too opaque for me.[/quote]

I have answered your questions at least 10 times over and over.  You are not capable of understanding the answers.
I am not kidding you on this.[/quote]

What? You have not given ANY evidence whatsoever and have NOT answered the question. I thought you didn't lie?
I have it on file...



Quote:

You have been brainwashed into some stupid belief system that does not allow you to think for yourself any longer.

And how would you know that without some empirical evidence?


Quote:

That is a sad condition to be in, so much so, that you can't understand what real science is.

I think it is you who is confused. Now, the question was:

Where and when did you witness the changes to the words in the OP, and where is the evidence of this? Anecdote is not evidence.

Having a bunch of delusional Evotards as your back up, is not a sign of intelligence, nor is it a sign of a person who can think for themselves.

I have studied this for now, 41 years.  I have read more "scientific papers" than most of the people on earth that I have ever met.

I take in the evidence and make clean and pure logical conclusions that are not based on "peer pressure" the need to f**king "belong" or some need for a fucikng degree in nonsense. 

You are completely controlled by group think and sideways logic  Sideways logic:  belief first and foremost and all evidence is forced to fit the dumb ass belief.  And all evidence that is contrary or conflicts with the f**king belief is held away from the students.  No person who is brainwashed, is allowed to see any evidence that would destroy their faith and belief.

The high priests teach you that you should not ever listen to anyone but them as to what the truth is. This is a f**king cult.

They teach you to accept "assumptions" as if it was the truth on things that have nothing to base even the f**king assumption on.

It amazes me that people are this stupid, but with an IQ of over 180, you can see why that is such a difficult concept to think that people are that stupid.

I often say to myself, "how can this person actually believe this feculence?  It is so easy to refute and to show all the logical fallacies in."

Yet, brainwashing and ego with pride and the need to belong and to be a member of this cult is stronger than their logic, reason, ethics, or any normal thoughts that would stop any sane person from believing this horseshit. Emotional control by society, peers, parents, teachers, preachers, voodoo doctors and what ever the f**k you think (and allow them to f**k your mind) has control over your mind is far more important than guarding your mind from nonsense.

All of my life people have seemed to be somewhat stupid, and I have only found a couple hundred people who live even 3/4 the way into clear logic.

You need to try Yoga or something to get your "center" back from the weak humans you gave it too.

I was there. I am the witness to this crap happening in science. Don't you ever question my integrity, you ignorant, nitwits. ;D :D ::)