Atheists just love peer reviews. If a "scholar" reviews something they like favorably, the "scholar" is an official peer.

Sorry. In the future I'll try to show your panties more respect.
I must express my strong disapproval of your inappropriate and offensive comment. Such language and behaviour are not only disrespectful but also highly unprofessional and unacceptable. I demand an immediate apology for your offensive and derogatory remark about my undergarments. Your attempt at humour is not only distasteful but also insulting. It is unacceptable to speak in such a manner to anyone, regardless of their gender. I urge you to refrain from making such offensive comments in the future and to show respect and professionalism in all of your interactions.
 
OK.
I apologize for being mean to your underpants. I'm sure that in an untwisted state, they are some exemplary underpants.
I find your insincere apology both disrespectful and offensive. It is not acceptable to make derogatory comments about undergarments, let alone make an insincere apology afterwards. Your words are a reflection of your character, and your lack of respect and decency is abhorrent. I demand that you refrain from making any further derogatory comments, and instead focus on being a respectful and considerate member of this community.
 
I find your insincere apology both disrespectful and offensive. It is not acceptable to make derogatory comments about undergarments, let alone make an insincere apology afterwards. Your words are a reflection of your character, and your lack of respect and decency is abhorrent. I demand that you refrain from making any further derogatory comments, and instead focus on being a respectful and considerate member of this community.

Maybe you can find a group of your peers who sport the same brand of underpants as you, and you can achieve some sort of underpants solidarity.
 
Maybe you can find a group of your peers who sport the same brand of underpants as you, and you can achieve some sort of underpants solidarity.
Who sport the same keks, reducing ya fears,
Achieve some kinda underpants unity,
And strut around town, feeling real snooty.

But let me tell ya mate, it's a load of old tripe,
To find comfort in keks, is really not ripe,
Ya gotta look beyond, to find some real solidarity,
Find common ground with others, not just a shared fabric rarity.

So don't be fooled by the power of pants,
It's the person inside that truly enhances,
The connections you make, the friendships you form,
That's the key to staying cozy and warm.

So go out there and make some true mates,
And leave the underwear to determine your fates,
For it's the bond of trust, the shared experiences you bear,
That will bring you true joy, beyond any underwear.
 
Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that the scientific community is forcing a particular narrative on anyone.
I pretty much disagree.....we see an example with so-called global warming and the ridiculous rules such as the WEF and countries in bed with them are trying to impose on the world. Other areas is the forced fed narrative of evolutionism being forced upon our children...as the ONLY...scientific view completely disregarding Intelligent Design.
To touch or speak of anything against the "narrative" is strickly taboo.
Other areas of taboo science is discussions of ancient structures and artifacts.
 
I pretty much disagree.....we see an example with so-called global warming and the ridiculous rules such as the WEF and countries in bed with them are trying to impose on the world. Other areas is the forced fed narrative of evolutionism being forced upon our children...as the ONLY...scientific view completely disregarding Intelligent Design.
To touch or speak of anything against the "narrative" is strickly taboo.
Other areas of taboo science is discussions of ancient structures and artifacts.
Oh dear. In the case of Kitzmiller v Dover the United States Federal Court found that intelligent design was not a science and should not be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to evolution.

This court is not the scientific community.
 
Oh dear. In the case of Kitzmiller v Dover the United States Federal Court found that intelligent design was not a science and should not be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to evolution.

This court is not the scientific community.
But of course....LOL.

Oh, BTW, can you explain how an assembly line of code derived and biologically built organelle can form without ID?
 
But of course....LOL.
This says nothing. It just laughs at the point that the Federal Court isn't the scientific community. That doesn't show I'm wrong, it just avoids the question.
Oh, BTW, can you explain how an assembly line of code derived and biologically built organelle can form without ID?
Why are you asking me? Have you asked an expert in the field yet? Why are you posting this on an internet backwater where few would have the expertise to properly answer? If you seriously wanted an answer to your question why haven't gone to academia to find out if there is one?
 
Why did they rulke that way?
Because they listened to both sides and judged that ID isn't science.
Well, you seem to be expressing your faith...do you understand your faith?
Yeah, it's faith.

Now, have you asked an expert in the field yet? Why are you posting this on an internet backwater where few would have the expertise to properly answer? If you seriously wanted an answer to your question why haven't you gone to academia to find out if there is one?
 
Because they listened to both sides and judged that ID isn't science.
Why is it not science?
What if an advanced race of aliens in a spacecraft came to earth and engineered DNA with their version of CRISPR/Cas...would that not be science? Would that not be ID?
Yeah, it's faith.
Then like ID it shouldn't be taught...right?
Now, have you asked an expert in the field yet? Why are you posting this on an internet backwater where few would have the expertise to properly answer? If you seriously wanted an answer to your question why haven't you gone to academia to find out if there is one?
I've looked...the experts don't have an answer...heck, even you can look.
 
I pretty much disagree.....we see an example with so-called global warming

Climate change is very real, and threatens to affect millions of people around the world, through droughts, stronger storms, and other potentially catastrophic weather. Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.

and the ridiculous rules such as the WEF and countries in bed with them are trying to impose on the world.

Really? What "ridiculous rules"?

Other areas is the forced fed narrative of evolutionism being forced upon our children...as the ONLY...scientific view completely disregarding Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is just creationism in a cheap suit. It isn't a scientific theory - it's a religious concept. It has no place being taught in the science classroom. It isn't taken seriously outside of a relatively small group of people in the USA because it isn't supported by any evidence - and when you boil it down it doesn't offer any explanation beyond "God Did It", which isn't helpful in the slightest.

To touch or speak of anything against the "narrative" is strickly taboo.
Other areas of taboo science is discussions of ancient structures and artifacts.

Again, these ideas aren't take seriously because many of the questions have already been answered by basic physics. Only people who lack a basic education in science tend to subscribe to such ridiculous ideas.
 
Why is it not science?
Here is what one of the expert witnesses said, he's a catholic btw....

September 27, 2005
  • Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." He said that the idea of intelligent design was not subject to falsification, and demonstrated that many claims made by intelligent-design advocates against evolution were invalid. When asked what the harm was in reading the statement, Miller gave a two-fold response. 1) "t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means."




    • What if an advanced race of aliens in a spacecraft came to earth and engineered DNA with their version of CRISPR/Cas...would that not be science? Would that not be ID?
Why is this relevant?

    • Then like ID it shouldn't be taught...right?
I was granting you that for the sake of convenience, I don't really believe it is a faith.

    • I've looked...the experts don't have an answer...heck, even you can look.
Where have you looked? This is the important question, what experts have you talked to about this specific point about organelles?
 
Climate change is very real, and threatens to affect millions of people around the world, through droughts, stronger storms, and other potentially catastrophic weather. Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.

ROFLOL....
Really? What "ridiculous rules"?
Some of the recent.....getting rid of gas ranges.....getting rid of the combustion engine...15 minute cities...
Intelligent Design is just creationism in a cheap suit. It isn't a scientific theory - it's a religious concept. It has no place being taught in the science classroom. It isn't taken seriously outside of a relatively small group of people in the USA because it isn't supported by any evidence - and when you boil it down it doesn't offer any explanation beyond "God Did It", which isn't helpful in the slightest.
I suppose your entitled to your opinion...

Then again do you want to discuss assembly lines of organelle? You know, using your science show all of us they they evolved?

Can you do that? Or will you wait for the science of the gaps to catch up?
Again, these ideas aren't take seriously because many of the questions have already been answered by basic physics. Only people who lack a basic education in science tend to subscribe to such ridiculous ideas.
Why don't you get your head out of the....sand.
 
Back
Top