Who's seen "The Passion"?

And again, you assume I have no knowledge and you'd be wrong. Just because I don't bother to recollect the works of twits, doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I just don't waste my time reading the works of twits, that's all. Mr. Gould thinks that Ross and his ilk are twits who wouldn't know good science if it fell from the sky and landed on top of them. His opinion is good enough for me. I don't give a good shit about Ross or his works because he's like all the other "Creation Science" asswipes out there: full of it. Their work is so full of holes that it's not even funny. It's those glaring holes that keep them from being taken even remotely serious in the scientific community. Not the "liberal cabal" you pointed out earlier.

Not judging me my ass. Yeah, keep telling yourself that one and maybe someday it will be true.

Because I don't like your guy, I need to grow up. OK, I do. By that same token, you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that your world view is based on the rantings of lunatics.

I have grown up. I put away childhood fairy tales, aka Christianity and Creation Science, and now live in the real world. Maybe you should try it.

 

I wonder if you can read. I didn't assume anything about your knowledge, in fact I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD ANY.

I said you need to grow up because of the way you insult anyone that diagrees with you, not because of what or who you believe.

Apparantly you take the word of one about what another guy says. I hope you never end up in the legal system.

Anyway, it doesn't bother me that we disagree. One only learns when challenged. I just think your manner is unneccesary and juvenile. I bet your smart enough not to have to resort to that sort if behavior.

Intolerance: I questioned your source as a matter of record. I never insulted you, Gould or any of your 'ilk'. You returned rantings, insults and personal attacks, not to mention taking what I said out of context. And again, you refused to answer the question, only making excuses.

Stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and lunatic.

Unless that's what you believe.

 

Not everyone, just "Creation Scientists."

Those folks are either ignorant or lunatics. One or the other. There's no middle ground. Either your down with science or you believe fairy tales. Those folks are firmly in the latter category. They're either criminally stupid or religious zealots with an axe to grind. None of them have ever put forth a defensible work and that's exactly why no serious scientist even acknowledges their existence.

And since you asked, it's the way you ask if I have any knowledge that rubs me the wrong way. Simply because your question implies that I don't and that I have no idea what the creation science idiots believe. I do, I just don't bother to offer their misguided BS any kind of actual credibility.

Beyond that, I don't know what you want and have long ago gave up on even caring. Believe in creation science, I could care less. You might as well also believe in a flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, the tooth fairy, and a bunch of other ideas with no scientific backing behind them.

 

Michael , my intention in asking was to find out information, not to insult you. If you can sugget another way of me asking "Have you ever read anything Ross has written?" without saying "Have ever read anything Ross has written?", I'd be appreciative if you'd tell me.

 

You can exchange "Ross" with any other "Creation Scientist" and you get the same load of BS.

Honestly, I have no idea if I've ever read anything by Ross or not. I've read some crap by "Creation Scientists" and it was exactly that: crap. As such, I didn't really care who wrote it as keeping track of the authors of crap isn't really high on the agenda.

Every other "Creation Scientist" writer's works fall under that same heading: crap. They all have the same misguided logic, commit the same logical mistakes, and attempt to distort evolution in the same incorrect ways. They have to, because otherwise their "logic" is clearly flawed on it's face. They have to resort to claims that the sky is red and that down is up to make the world fit their incorrect view of it.

It just happened that the essay by Gould I pointed out before summarized that point quite well. Much better than I ever could. Ross is no different than the rest of the charlatans in the "Creation Science" field and frankly isn't worth my time to read. If I'm going to invest my time in reading something about how the world came to be, Mr. Gould has published 22 books and hundreds of essays. Every one of them (except maybe the baseball book) will have a lot more valid scientific information in it than anything a "Creation Scientist" has ever written.

 

Here's just some of Mr. Gould's thoughs on Creationism:

“Scientific claims must be testable; we must, in principal, be able to envision a set of observations that would render them false. Miracles cannot be judged by this criterion, as Whitcomb and Morris have admitted. But is all creationists writing merely about untestable singularities? Are arguments never made in proper scientific form? Creationists do offer some testable statements, and these are amenable to scientific analysis. Why, then, do I continue to claim that creationism isn't science? Simply because these relatively few statements have been tested and conclusively refuted.”

— "Genesis vs. Geology," Science and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 130-131.

“‘Creation science’ has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage — good teaching — than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?”

— "Verdict on Creationism," The Skeptical Inquirer, 1988, 12 (2): 186.

Those two sum up quite well why I don't read Ross or his ilk. And yes, I chose a perjorative term for a reason.

 

You are so far off on where Ross comes from that you wouldn't believe it. He does not presuppose creation, therefore any arguement that tries to refute his work based on a wrong beginning is irrelevant. There is no intersection in these two arguements, not even in the area of refuting one or the other.

Ross' Fingerprint Of God is about the Big Bang, not that it didn't happen but that it did and how. His data is observational and widely accepted.

It is the conclusions that differ.

We are not talking about apples and oranges Michael, we're both talking oranges. It's just we don't agree on the tree.

Ease up on the adamant attitude and you'll learn something. I have. I'm not as stuck as you suppose. The day I can't learn is the day I'm dead. I'm not you're enemy man. We're just talking about ideas.

 

Does Ross use God to explain anything? If so, not interested.

Sorry, religious whackos and I do not mix.

And like I said, I may very well have read his stuff before. I just don't buy ANYTHING from ANYONE who says "God is the reason" for anything. God doesn't exist.

 

I took a minute and looked up the kook, excuse me Dr. Ross, via Google.

I stand by that statement. The man is a kook and his stuff deserves the same ridicule as the "Creation Scientists." Anyone who puts forth that the existence of, and specific value of, the Universal Gravitational Constant as a clear sign of a Creator is a fruitcake. Old Dr. Ross fits firmly in that mold.

 

Is what you're saying is that there is no cause of the existance of matter/energy? This is really the origin of all questions in this area, is it not?

 

Shut up MTK! You are just pissed b/c you fall victim to the "Universal Gravitational Constant" every time you lowside or highside you pit bike!! Copme on! Admit it!!

 

I'm saying Ross is a kook. A nutcase. A whacko. A man who's lost touch with reality. Or at the very least, a man who wouldn't know good science if it bit him in the ass.

He puts forth the notion that the existence of universal constants proves the existence of not only God, but of the Christian God in particular. To call that a "leap of logic" would be wrongly labeling it as logic at all.

Pi equals 3.14159..., therefore God exists.

It's not surprising he isn't taken seriously in the scientific community. Quacks usually aren't.

 

Roger, I'll have you know that those are finely crafted scientific experiments done to verify the uniformity of the earth's gravitational field. I'm just doing my part to help my fellow man, that's all.

 

Mike - I'm sure I have sacrificed more than you - I'll try to get a photo of my leathers from the 1980s - scuffs, rips, tire marks, etc. --it amazing I broke as few bones as I did!!

 

C'mon Rodger, don't mess with us.


We all know lefties are spineless and therefore can't break any bones.

 

Wrong!! As a lawyer/shark, i have only cartilage, no bones!

 

Yeah, that's what I meant.

BTW what kind of law do you practice, criminal or recreational?

 

Mostly negligence (defense and plaintiff) and some contract and employment law too.

 

Did this thread wander off topic, or what?

Did you see it yet RD?

 

The Passion of The Bugs Bunny

Just because you don't have Mel's budget doesn't mean you can't do a nice violent passion play:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116560,00.html