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


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.

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


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.

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



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:


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 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.

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


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:


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

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:


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:


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:


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.