The name for their mythical opponents in some imagined debate. The people whose theories they invent so that they can argue against them. Just another narrative device in their greater mythical narrative. The people who fulfill prophecy by their thoughts and viewpoints. That conspire against their scientists to suppress the truth of christ..etc etc etc. See, they were tired of waiting for this prophecy to be fulfilled and so they have manufactured it's fulfillment and the backdrop of the event along with it.

(October 30, 2011 at 5:43 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: It's someone who looks most like Darwin.

'he looks the most darwinist'

Ah, so James Randi is behind all that stuff then. Also a bloke who lives near me named Stan, I swear he could pass for Randi apart from the accent.

(October 30, 2011 at 5:40 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Erm - excuse me, I don't wish to offend anyone or cause any sort of trouble, but there is a question I think is pertinent to this point in the discussion. It's a little something that I have a real problem trying to understand when topics of this nature are debated and I would really appreciate an answer if anybody can supply one. Just a silly little thing, really:

---

WHAT THE FUCK IS A "DARWINIST"?

---

Thank you.

The terms darwinism and darwinist were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860, himself a darwinist, to refer to people who believed in darwinian evolution. It has been used for over 100 years by darwinists like stephan j gould to refer to themselves, and that in a positive or neutral sense.

---

(October 30, 2011 at 5:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The name for their mythical opponents in some imagined debate. The people whose theories they invent so that they can argue against them. Just another narrative device in their greater mythical narrative. The people who fulfill prophecy by their thoughts and viewpoints. That conspire against their scientists to suppress the truth of christ..etc etc etc. See, they were tired of waiting for this prophecy to be fulfilled and so they have manufactured it's fulfillment and the backdrop of the event along with it.

Who is going off the cuff?

(October 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 30, 2011 at 1:28 am)Minimalist Wrote: Mexican farm workers cross our border at will....and we are looking for them.

I was of the opinion that was typically carried out on foot. I could be wrong, though.

At any rate, the chances of any South American country going to war with us are slim. The better bet would be to get it overseas, which would require a delivery system. Also, a homemade nuke in the back of a truck is not likely to make it anywhere, in my opinion. Chances are, the thing will become unstable and blow early or never blow at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Quote:Suitcase nuclear weapons

There has been no official information released on the existence of true suitcase or briefcase-sized nuclear weapons in either the U.S. or Russian arsenals. However, the Washington, D.C.–based intelligence-firm, Center For Defense Information (CDI), states that the US government produced a class of nuclear devices in the late 1970s which were small enough to fit into an actual suitcase or briefcase.[citation needed] Likewise, CDI claims that a detailed training replica—with dummy explosives and no fissionable material—was routinely concealed inside a briefcase and hand-carried on domestic airline flights in the early 1980s.[6][non-primary source needed]

While the explosive power of the W54—up to an equivalent of 6 kiloton[7] of TNT—is not much by the normal standards of a nuclear weapon (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were around 16 to 21 kilotons each), their value lies in their ability to be easily smuggled across borders, transported by means widely available, and placed as close to the target as possible.

This was the American program - you know, the "xtian soldiers." The Russians developed similar devices.

I wonder if they know where all of them are?

Have I misread you Lucent? Are you not a conspiracy theorist that has invented their own oppressor due to a lack of a suitable candidate in the real world? Why then do you resort to apologetics as science? Why do you present apologetics as explanations of evolution, or physics, or cosmology in order to argue against them with yet more apologetics?

That the word has a real world use is in no way indicative of your using it in that manner. You clearly cannot.

Thanks for the elucidation, Luce. It just irks me that almost the only time the term shows up it's used in the sense of 'someone who worships Darwin, or follows Darwin as an authority figure'. I have heard the term used by evolution proponents and it's always seemed to me to be in reaction to vociferous opponents using the term in a perjorative sense. I am unaware of anyone who "believes" in Darwin, or Darwinian evolution, in the same manner that you "believe" in Yahweh; i.e. there aren't many evolution churches, perhaps with huge marble statues of Charles Darwin, around.

That's creepy, Min.

Very creepy Shell.

You should've been a historical researcher Min, your skills are gold.

(October 30, 2011 at 4:08 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: 'The opinion of atheist physicists is not science.'

They are atheist because of what they learn. It's no shock that more higher educated people are atheists.

'Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. Every society has demonstrated an innate knowledge of morality for this reason.'

That is not the reason. That too is a terrible cop out. 1) you can't prove god. 2) people learn from reflection and experience.

'"We're working on it" is not an answer. '

True, but God is not an answer either as you too have no proof, the difference is scientists look for proof, your content that you way, the bible way is correct, despite the obvious flaws and LIES.

---

Fact of the matter is science looks outward to find things. You fundies look with a blindfold on, you hold us back as a species just because of your beliefs that have NO substance. Your great country is falling behind in science because of this.

What flaws/lies?

I'll let John Lennox refute the rest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxxFh0Kn5Tk

'What flaws/lies?'

Come on, haven't you ever noticed? Do you even read your bible?

Giving the impression that the world is flat

That pi is 3

Mustard has unique properties.
“God's Perfect World is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches” [Matthew 13:31-32]. Fact one: there are many smaller seeds — for example, orchid seeds. Fact two: mustard grows into a bush, not a tree.

Flying insects walk on all fours.
“All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you [Lev. 11:20-23].” In fact, no insect walks on all fours. Insects have six legs, three on each side. (Spiders have eight legs. Centipedes and millipedes are not insects — in fact, they eat insects.)

---

There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.