Joined: June 2010
Thank you ALL for your responses. I will make my remarks.
You all are observing myself from different angles.
I had neurosurgery several years ago, am disabled and to keep my brain cells somewhat functional, I opted to get into some forum dialogues. I started my first site: http://www.iwalter276.org as an attempt for e-commerce only, having written and published, I attending with my 92-year old father to a Ďscamí Poetry Convention which provided all participants opportunities of publication with what is called, ĎVanity Publishers.í Of course, not to discourage my father, I compiled his poetry and several other poets, whom I met at the convention, and observing how many were actually skilled and had latent potential; however unaware of the undercurrent of the corporation funding the numerous entities; i.e., Writing Courses, Literary Contests, Publishing Firms Ö , I felt that I could provide a service for those with actual potential. Since I was a new e-commerce corporation and Emergency Room visits, resuscitations, ICUís and other surgeries, rather put a delay on my ambition of an ambition. However, after taking the time of designing my own site pages and doing the artwork (a hobby), I would receive from family, YouTube.com videos, which some Ďsoft and cuddlyí and others technical and scientific. Obviously I had nothing but time.
I started to watch a few of the videos on subjects as archeology and religion, science and astronomy, and started immediately seeing some poorly scripted and ugly stuff. Two years ago, hoping to have a healthy intellectual interchange, I produced my own one or two videos (which do not exist anymore). I felt they would give me the Ďtemperature of the waterí and where to swim. Within a day, I was bit in the but, my arm torn off, and someone told everyone on the net, my parents never were married (Bill Cosby), and called every Army colorful noun - but crude - in the book, and some not in the book. Somewhat still weak from all the four hospitals and drugs, I tried to respond politely and explain my brief. I could not get off first base. I found myself spending more time answering more and more questions. Realizing what the game was - I took my site off of YouTube.
I stayed off, then after paying for my surgeonís new car, and understanding the game and the audience which I was addressing, I launched again. This time, I re-wrote my scripts, turned off the ratings and comments, directed my subject matter in a firm yet generic fashion (empirical logic) and simply expatiated my views, countering many posted videos in retort. Therefore, if one was to try to follow a pattern - there is none. YouTube has a 10-minute limit as you all know, and I was not interested in publishing. I have a slow growing cancer in my liver, lupus, grand mal seizures, and frankly I really donĎt care if I write down equations. I am grateful for my belief system. I donít feel brainwashed or duped. I have raised 6 daughters to respect othersí beliefs as well and my daughters have excelled. One attended Reed College in Portland, then the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and graduated from Columbia and teaches near Princeton, NJ. One went to Smith College in Boston and teaches science. One is just as brilliant academically; but chose to be a mother, from which I have my two Jewish granddaughters. One has my issues; but she is a fighter. One went to Japan and majored in Japanese and is teaching and the last is teaching. Do I need to prove anything to anyone. I donít think so. I lost some vision out of one eye and had the other operated on, so I do make spelling errors. I donít know anyone who does any writing who does not. That is why spell check is so great. Sometimes. It does not do great on syntax.
Now, you know a bit about me, before pissing on me, so I will attempt to give one-line answers to your questions. By-the-way, I am very grateful I finally found a forum as this
And I have no qualms with your digging at my stuff. I know some of my babies are ugly.
So, not a biologist then....
ANSWER: Give the man a prize.
Are you sure that the other theories you want students taught are really theories? Are they really supported by scientific evidence? If so, please detail the theory and the evidence that supports it.
It may be a valid theory but it's not a valid scientific theory. If it is in fact a valid scientific theory then please provide the details of exactly what that theory is, and what the evidence supporting it is.
And please provide predictions unique to the "scientific theory of Intelligent Design" that differentiate it from the theory it is trying to displace.
What predictions do your alternate theory's make and how can they be tested?
ANSWER: You first. Has the Theory of Darwinian Selectivity been ídouble-blindí tested and proven the laboratories? Can you duplicate, or anyone else, Darwinian ĎTheories?í
Where did the first self-replicating molecule come from? How did it come to be? So far, all laboratory experimentation has failed to shed even the slightest glimmer of hope on Darwinís Ďunguided mutational selectivity;í whereas, Alfred P. Wallaceís Theory of Evolution - being guided - not random; but determined empirically has fulfilled Scientifically in Einsteinís words, ďThe grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.Ē - Albert Einstein -
I will side by old Albert any day of the week. That is why at this stage of my life, Logical Deduction speaks more powerfully to me than Berkley professors, whose only desire is to be published, claim the singularity is as small as a Neutron. Did that man eat paint chips as a child? That has to be the dumbest statement made by a supposedly intelligent individual. Comprehend logically, 140 Billion Galaxies, with Black Holes and Super Black Holes, the size of our solar system, at the center of these galaxies, with all the light, energy transposed back to matter, being how big? And you think I fell off the turnip truck? With my last video, I became as bold as I have. Here is the link. Enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL83B_BIFRI
Walter, on what basis do you make this claim? (According to the Bill of Rights Atheism and Secularism are legal religions}
ANSWER: Legal affiliation. That is a verifiable means used in the court systems, since the Bill of Right are the first Amendments of our Constitution, which James Madison introduced. The Supreme Court, from time to time passes Bills which amend our rights. This is one.
First there is no real Ďroot wordí in ancient Hebrew for the English word Religion.
The closest word we have is ????, (torah) meaning teachings. Which could be any group of teaching. It is only tradition that places it in the confides of Religiosity.
The Hebrew word ????, (kadosh) is translated into Holy or sacred and would be more akin to Religion; but it is taken on a personification of a trait of an individual or relating to an object.
There are no words in Hebrew for Religion; therefore it is with this I make my claim. It is a way of life and does not necessarily have to deal with God; but with morals. Many Atheists I know are moral people, giving to worthy causes and helping others. Just as adversely many who claim Religiosity, show outward expressions and inwardly are ďÖwhited sepulchers full of dead manís bones.Ē
As to Atheism being a Ďso-calledí Religion. I did not make the ruling. I am only reporting the Supreme Court Decision, and obviously as in all their decision as in Wade vs. Rowe, many have tried to read into that decision what they want and interpret it the decision. So, you will find URLís which are pro and con. Just as in Darwinian Theories and Intelligent Design, or String Universe Theories and Bubble Theories of the Universe. Judges I know look at Wade vs. Rowe as the biggest mistake the courts have ever made, wishing it could somehow be expunged. Here are headers and brief body copy and URL links for your study.
The great thing about America, is as a journalist, we can choose words and fight our personal battles; but we also will fight to the death for others to have the right to speak. Which does not mean slander. Slander is not freedom of speech.
LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
In the early 1960s, Roy Torcaso was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the position of Notary Public. When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God.
Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated:
[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God.
Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for not believing in God.
In a unanimous decision in 1961, the Supreme Court reuled that Maryland's religious test violated Torcaso's religious freedom.
In his majority opinion, Justice Black stated that the need to protect people from taking religious test oaths was what led to the creation of Article 37 of the Constitution:
No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This was soon followed by the First Amendment which further guaranteeed basic religious liberties:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
The state tried to argue that they did not actually force anyone to profess a particular religious belief because no one was compelled to hold a public office - such positions are entirely voluntary. The Court responded that no citizen should be asked to sacrifice constitutional liberties simply to hold a public office.
This decision prohibited the government from using religious faith as one of the criteria for assuming public office. The Court rejected the argument that holding such jobs is a privilege that can be restricted to people of some prescribed religious belief.
One of the reasons this case is important is some of the dicta which were attached to the final opinion. The term dicta is a plural and shortening of "obiter dictum," or "said in passing." Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.
In a dictum footnote attached to this opinion, Justice Black wrote:
Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.
This is frequently cited by people on the religious right as that the Supreme Court has declared Secular Humanism to be a religion, but such people are simply unaware of the fact that dicta have no legal force. Ignoring this uncomfortable fact, however, allows them to argue that any hint of Secular Humanism in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state - an ironic argument, since they would be happy to dispense with separation anyway.
Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court
Atheist Groups in Prison Court Made Good and Bad Decisions, says Atheist Blogger Another Court, Another Time Historical Precedence and Jefferson
Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court
For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y.
Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend
religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own
"The district court agreed with Mr. Warner's argument that these meetings involved
a substantial religious element. Participants were told to "believe that a Power
greater than ourselves could restore us," and that they must "turn our will and
our lives over to the care of God as we understand him." In addition, the "Step"
program ordered those participating to "Admit to God ... the exact nature of our
wrongs," be "entirely ready to have God remove all these defects ... (and) ask Him
to remove our shortcomings," and to seek "through prayer and meditation to improve
our conscious contact with God, as we (understand) Him. The meetings were also
punctuated with frequent prayers of a Christian nature."
Four months into the program Mr. Warner complained that, as an Atheist, he found
the meetings objectionable due to their religious nature. It was then that his
probation officer determined that Warner lacked sufficient commitment to the idea
of learning the techniques of remaining sober, even though he apparently had not
been found in violation of his probation orders to remain sober!
"Attorneys for Mr. Warner relied on a number of legal precedents, including:"
[refer to link] http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon1.htm
Atheist Groups in Prison
But two years earlier, in the case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals declared atheism a religion for purposes of protection under the
Establishment Clause. The court said prison officials violated an inmate's rights
because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"James Kaufman filed suit while incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional
Institution after submitting an official document titled "Request for New
Religious Practices." He asked permission to form an inmate group "to stimulate
and promote Freedom of Thought, and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds,
dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices, (and to) educate and provide information
concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices."
Court Made Good and Bad Decisions, says Atheist Blogger
An atheist blogger saw a good side and a bad side to this ruling. "What the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got right:" said Matt Dillahunty, was that
"atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different
question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular
devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."
What court got wrong, Dillahunty said, is that "Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics."
The Court in this case recognized that unless the prison system had prevented all
gatherings of religion, preventing a group of atheists to gather was a violation
of the Establishment Clause.
"They didn't declare that atheism was a religion, they declared that atheism was
afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause." [italics
Think carefully, what is religious liberty? If you can decide for yourself if, when, and where you pray according to whatever religion and god you prefer, or if the government prescribes the place, time, and modalities of your prayer?
ANSWER: In the 13th and 15th Centuries, Religionists and Scientists alike, were sequestered as to their progressive thinking. Tyndale was killed because of proximity to the Ruling Church. Martin Luther and Guttenberg, although despised by the Church escaped with their lives, living in Germany. Galileo and Newton had to beg forgiveness from the pope. That is NOT Religious liberty. The Pilgrims with all their human failings, came here to form a Free Government away from tyranny. Some who wish to demote the ideals of the Founding Fathers call them Theists. I would be as well, if my background, historically was as suppressed as theirs was. The framed the Constitution. They did the best they could. As citizens were given freedoms abundantly, as a poor child becoming a parent may overindulge their children. It is unfortunate these self-same freedoms of speech are used by the slanderous to degrade those in political office, change good laws, using our soft shoulders to cry on and having an agenda to enslave.
How would you like school-sponsored prayers if the mayority religion were different from yours?
ANSWER: If I chose to life Jericho (a beautiful place. If I were to choose a place to die - it would be there). Now being occupied by Islamic or Palestinians, I would respect them and their religion with utmost respect and live my outward life in accordance to their Religious practices - closing shops - praying 5-times a day, etc. And I would gain their friendship and love. I would not in my wildest dreams ever consider pushing my beliefs on them, although I would treat them honestly as the Koran also teaches. (I have a Royal Edition of the Koran given to me by leadership at the University of Bahrain. It is a cherished addition to my library).
Nice random capitalizations. Inspiring. (Thank you. Literary license).
You don't really believe that scientific laws actually try to prescribe anything, do you? Scientific laws are descriptive, generalizations derived from empirical observations.
BTW, you're the one who expects that the cosmos is listening and caring, or why else would you be interested in prayers? (I know you can tell if one is sardonic - canít you? I believe that answers that question.)
As you apparently don't know what a scientific law is you probably don't know what a scientific theory is, either. Case in point, you believe ID is one.
See Oldman's post for why you're wrong.
ANSWER: I am afraid that I do take offense to you judgmental statement. You do not know me, nor I know you. I have made no judgments on your dissertate writings and I do not appreciate, however inadequate you may feel they are, you doing that to mine. I choose not do be maximally descriptive. I am purposefully pulling away from the Piety of Academia, so people will and can understand. I am sick and tired of the nose so high in the air, if it were to rain, most academicians would drown. Thereon my sarcastic statement, which you had too much English on your billiard ball, not comprehending the Gnostic meaning that we think we are so high and mighty, we believe the Universe has to obey our miniscule understanding of principles we have not a clue. ďWhen they are learned, they think they are wise.Ē B.S. That does not refer to a degree of achievement, just a degree of underachievement. Oldman is built his entire educational pursuit on a foggy foundation. Darwin did everyone a large disfavor.
How can a Theory which has been constructed on several shaky axioms, still be classified a ďTheory?Ē I am passing the burden of proof to you. Yes, I have studied paleontologists (who many are now back-peddling), biologists, geneticists, and Darwinís work as opposed to Wallace. I am still waiting for the shout of the Ďmissing link,í the fossilized remains of a transition animal from Precambrian to the (I did not coin the phrase), life explosion of the Cambrian. I am not interested in all the sub divisions in between. I am aware of animals of the Precambrian era: sponges, jellyfish, early versions of sea animals, early algae. Charles Darwin himself was worried about the sudden appearance of fossilized records in the Primordial Strata, fearing it would have negative impact on his Theory of Ďunguided mutational selectivity.í (Charles Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. Murray, London, United Kingdom. pp. 315Ė316.)
I myself have yet to hear any ípostí Precambrian and ípreí Cambrian bones rattle. If that not be enough, multiply astrophysics with microbiology and genetics. The entire puzzle and library of books, written by some very capable individuals, still leaves a Black Hole of a Paradox.
Astrophysics. Are you reading Science Fiction or Science Fact, when you study the ĎSingularity?í Where is your evidence to support it? There is NONE. Oh, I am very aware of the data gathered by the WMAP. But that my friend is an after picture. The beginning is nothing but ĎGUESS.Ď And it is not even meaningful. More garbage than gibberish. Where is your proof of the Singularity. I do not want some quote. Read again, Einsteinís statement I conveniently place above. I did so because we are so mixed up in axioms and theories, we cannot see the tree for the forest. We have lost our minds in who can scribble the most unintelligible than the other. We have all forgotten the true aim of all science: Empirical Facts by Logical Deduction. And for the 140 Billion galaxies to Ďrubber-bandí upon itself and become a piece of matter as big as a Neutron is pure CRAP. It is not logic. It is not factual. And that what my 40 years of research and study have lead me to believe about Darwinian Thinking and The String and Bubble Universe Theories. At least Sir Isaac Newton used his mind, instead of making some stupid ďStar TrekĒ remark.
Now, you show me the burden of proof why a Neutron is unstable. Why the Neutron and Proton originally have the same mass, why the bostons know what to do and how to interact. Why Carbon is the most plentiful element in the Universe when it should not be according to the laws of Fusion, why in atoms, there are levels of energy and only so many electrons can travel in those levels, why atoms know how to and when to make covalent bonds instead of no covalent bonding, why a carbon-based molecule as the DNA could have suddenly appeared? And functions as the leader, with each atom holding a page of information. These are scientific question more plausible than ďsomewhere and somehow.Ē Students are not robots and mindless. They can see through the smoke screens and Darwin, building his ĎTree of LifeĒ upside-down forgetting the most important iatrical part - self-replication out of MUTATION? Oh, what is going through your Scientific mind. Donít give me ďyou apparently don't know what a scientific law is you probably don't know what a scientific theory is, either.ď That is an insult of the lowest order. ALL matter is ďPre-programmed!!!
I hope I look as good as your icon when I am fossilized. Quack, quack
That certainly got me started. Hi Walter!
Like yourself, I am not a scientist either, and yet I don't think I share your disdain for science, scientists and "Scientific Jargon". I won't bother with your American fascination with firearms; I suppose that is a legacy of your Wild West.
(A Scientific/Religious Philosopher. My over-done segue was too much, I do admit and apologize for.)
Nor do I think that is a relevant subject for this forum. (Again, correct. My mind was venting another forum I was about to start; therefore yours unfortunately received a poor introduction. I could have cut straight to the subject. I actually am try to be more concise).
If we could limit the debate to issues relating to the scientific issue: Did/do species evolve, and what is the cause? Examining all available evidence is a good place to start. I don't know your position WRT the ultimate origins: How come, why is there life on this planet at all? As far as I can tell, nobody knows - even though many scientists are studying the subject and have yet to find any reason why life could not be the result of natural processes. But WRT evolution that is something we need not bother with; we know there is life on the planet and know it must have started somewhere, sometime - and the geological and fossil record clearly shows a pathway through geological time for the evolution of species. (Correction, the fossilized record shows one thing and one thing only - fossils. Paleontologist arrogantly attach them. Following Darwinian Selectivity, deduced similarities in sockets and limbs and assumed and connection. Yes, I am a proponent of Adaptation; but that is a far cry from ďOrigin of the Species and the Descent of Man.Ē Alright, I am not ashamed. I will bring in a Creator into this Scientific conversation. It still remains scientific, for this Creator possess all Scientific knowledge. This creator did not create the world in 6-literal days (I do not buy any offshoots, who do so just to appease and try to come closer to the scientific community. It was, after all the Literal Creationists, from which our Pilgrim forefathers fled and which religion of Literal Creationists, pointed the first lancet at the scientists. If I were a Scientists back then, I would probably be a Theists as Einstein as well).
I choose to bring in a Scientist Creator for one reason and one only. If I were in His position, and in the reptile or mammal for, whatever form of life uses a knee joint, it may not be the same in every animal; but why reinvent the wheel. If it works and is efficient in a T-Rexís knee and can take the pounding, then it would be efficient in a manís knee, or an Elephantís knee. That is just as scientific - if IDT insisted a Scientific Intelligence was the source of life. No spark. No mud hole. No muck. With all the microbial life forms for billions of years prior to the end of the Precambrian Era, when early invertebrates and early fish lived, a very, very valid Scientific Question is this: Which microbial life form did the dinosaurs come from? Was it different than the mammals? Were the Apes different than man. And donít give that garbage about the genomes. There are so many minute variation even with genomes that it is not only possible; but very likely that there is not relationship between man and ape whatsoever. And you know that.
The field is wide open for anyone to propose causes, mechanisms, hypotheses on how and why, but the record of the history of life on this planet stands firmly set in stone for anyone to examine. (The Byzantine Ruins that are under the trafficked streets of the East Bank, which I have walked by myself alone many times, has not one whit of proof that there is a relationship between the two cultures or what and how the people lived.)
So how does your scientific theory of evolution look? Maybe you prefer a non-scientific theory? Faith-based? The stage is yours. (What is wrong with Faith? Have we dis-converted ourselves so much from that past, we are ashamed of it. When you are outside on a starry night, are you really certain your ladder is leaning against the right wall? I do not believe Religion should be taught in two places: in oneís home and at oneís assembly of worship. But science cannot prove Darwinian Selectivity, nor can science prove the existence of God. A Religionist also cannot prove the existence of God. The same marvels, both groups point to that give credit to their statements.
No one will ever will this debate. So why are both side so smug?)
Hi, Schroedlingís Dog \
Sorry about being boastful. It was a retort to a fellow that called me a F-----g I---t. Those are labels I do not take lightly. So, I get PeeOíd once in a while. I am human.
QUESTION: Schroedlingís Dog
Should correct that stuff on your page though, Walter...
ANSWER: Correct. You are right. I should check my spelling. I produced those in PhotoShop, which unfortunately does not have spell checker, and that was not a good time for me. I am still paying 4 hospitals, so I had to drop the editing capabilities on the http://www.iwalter.org site, even though I own it permanently. I am ashamed of the spelling; but I hope people look at the message and not the method. I even ran across a misspelled word in my ďGlobal WarmingĒ video, which is my best viewed yet. Although some of the others that I put on the second time, I took off for changes; but lost my clicks, then I thought, oh well. If you want to view the Global warming one, the link for that one is:
"May the LORD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU. Amen. I'm praying for you". - Louis
COMMENT: Thank you Louis for your patience. May the Lord bless you.
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G
ANSWER: Sorry, I know what hail is made out of. What is the context? Some say, that I am witty; but others believe Iíve only made it half way.
"Forget Jesus! Stars died so we all could exist!" Lawrence Krauss
ANSWER: Yes, I know that Star and Novas are the ultimate alchemists; but I still believe in Christ. Thanks anyway.
Someone should ask him what version of the Bible he reads and when it was written.
ANSWER: Someone really should not. They may not like my answer. I have done translation and am aware of ancient Aramaic and Hebrew. Even though the Latin word for Bible biblia was used in the Medieval time, we really need to go back to the original Greek to understand the meaning of the original root. Ta biblia literally means "little papyrus books. Therefore the Bible as we have it today, literally came into existence in the 5th Century.
It is important to understand that after the death of Christ, the Church of believer split into 3 different groups and locations. One was in Rome. One was in Constantinople. And the last was in Egypt. Each had their own set of scriptures and each group included different books which the others did not. There were other influences The Torah and the Samaritan Torah, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic Text, to name only a few.
Also scholars believe, as diligent as scribes were or tried to be over the thousands of years; being there were no printing presses, everything had to be hand printed and several copies of each book was available to the public for basically all Synagogues. Therefore, we can only assume, that 2000 years ago, at the time of Christ, it is very possible there were several copies of the writing of the prophets. No one knows how many copies or which ones the Lord read.
To answer the question, I study all forms of Scriptures, even the Dead Sea Scriptures. For there is much good in them all. I also study Josephus and Philo.
Hi again, Quack. (I hope your not a physician)
Wow! we have another Robert Byers on our hands!.
If I could prove even one small part of my faith through purely
scientific methods that would be highly satisfying intellectually-
See my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6NpLXZYwCU
Seriously, natural selection does not have any kind of
creative power at all. All it does is kill of the runts.
- Unknown creationist.
Here is a video which may help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C61k7yYyKmk
Hi Dr. GH
QUESTION: Dr. GH
Walter seems to have a lot of time on his hands. I watched his YouTube "What is Life." It is a shame that Walter has not used his free time to study science. He is promoting the old "elan vital" idea that failed in the 1820s (F. WŲhler, 1828 "ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).
ANSWER: I hope that does not bother you that I have time on my hands. Yes, I do study science. Thank you very much. I have never studied the old idea of ďelan vital.Ē Are you so sure that part of what F. Wohler was not heading the Ďwrightí direction (no pun intended) You may want to view:
I was blinded by the tard.(I do hope that was prefaced by re-)
Duane Allman, in response to the question "How are you helping the revolution?": "There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
Every one is entitled to their own view. Ainít it great.
1. Evilution is a religion, like Judaism
2. Jews don't fuck with the Torah.
3. Evilutionists shouldn't fuck with TOS.
Apparently he's never heard of the Talmud...
I will not consider this a question. I just love fellows who canít spell, think they are cool, use gutter language (we've come a long way as a society - don't you think? Perhaps you don't. And the topping on the cake, they in they 'coolness' believe others are not that cool.
For your information, yes, I have heard of the Talmud. I have the whole collection in my library. Have you been to Israel?
Oh, what a shame. Don't know your own culture. Pity. Oh, using that language does not make you grown up, so maybe you should - grow up that is.
I can be just as big an jerk as you can. So donít push your luck.
Walter D. Wright