User talk:Rittjc

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Archer3 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your resented vandalism to expelled
You do not appear to understand how science works. Theories don't "graduate" and turn into laws when they get enough support. A scientific theory is a scientific fact. Biologists don't believe in evolution, they accept evolution as a scientific fact. Please read up on scientific theories and laws. Even gravity is a theory. Theories represent complicated facts, laws represent far more simple facts. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

@Thegrayanomalie It's you that doesn't seem to know how science works. But then again most Evolutionist don't or they wouldn't be Evolutionists. What a stupid thing to say that a scientific theory is a scientific fact. Spontaneous Generation was a scientific theory. The heart produced blood was a scientific theory. Both are know realized to be anything but fact. Laws come about by popular opinion and mob tactics these days but that only makes them Laws with the mob itself. A theory neither has not does not have scientific fact. It is simply not proven or disproved. In the case of Evolution, it is coarse conjecture contrary to the science we do observe. Please read up on the concepts of scientific laws and theories and while you are at it, secular ideologies contrary to scientific observation.

How dare you insult me by calling it vandalism?

The theory of Evolution has been graduated in the rhetoric of evolution by evolutionists and I pointed that out. Scientific theory is absolutely NOT fact. If you knew even the basics of science 101 you would never have said such a fallacious thing. Fact is proven, not constantly disproved and changed for another spun theory hoping to plug the exposed holes in it. That's fantasy. Evolution cannot be proven but even worse, will not allow testing or scrutiny and therefore is itself the definition of a pseudoscience and has many professional scientists upset having to stifle their objections for the safety of their careers because there are more intellectually violent and corrupt people just like you, who have somehow maneuvered themselves in an authoritative position to assault anything that objects. You yourself in an extremely hypocritical and ironic way said I need to read the latest science as though science was somehow in the domain of evolution and there were actual facts rather than constant bickering amongst secular ideological spins. You criticized all viewpoints supporting the massive complaints of bias by evolutionists, of which the movies is based on, and praised strong arming by evolutionary ideologues such as yourself. That is a case of the "fox demanding to guard the chicken house".

Evolutionists fight each other like viscous animals rebuking each others ideas like religious groups fight about theirs. There is no factual consensus WHATSOEVER, just a secular religious bias where normally loathing enemies come together to portray a united front against a common "undeclared" enemy that threatens to expose them all and their unscientific philosophies they try to paint as fact. Evolutionists portray evolution as absolute fact but are terribly insecure and violent against the concept of not allowing public scrutiny, equal time or honest discourse on the subject because they know the weakness of their unscientific philosophies are regularly contradicted by science and common sense.

Your post was simply a diatribe against ID where you quoted only pro-evolution sources and used innuendo, dissenting childish rhetoric and ridicule to undermine views from pro-creation/ID sources. It is a biased opinion and smells of the idealism of Wikipedia guarded from opposing viewpoints. You are corrupt by sponsoring one idealogical view and stifling opposition to such a shameful bias on a source that "claims" to be unbiased. This casts a shadow of shame on Wikipedia as being a corrupt source of knowledge. This was "originally" (no longer) a tenet that at one time Wikipedia claimed it would never violate.

You are a evolutionist and not objective person, and you claimed (without fact) I have no science but self-assert that you do. It is this Nazi tactic of cramming your ideology down people's throat, intimidating and indoctrinating them that is causing the growing backlashes of those that are exposing this obvious oppression of people, that are rising from every corner, as you now see Ben Stein is doing here. Archer3, you may control the biased narrative at wiki, but you don't control the minds of free people and delude yourself into thinking strong arm tactics can stop this wellspring of resistance as people have had enough. It is becoming more and more frequent and more andmore intense but is ironically fueled by narrow and closed minded people like yourself who don't care what you do as long as it satisfies your lust to "evangelize" your idealism on others. You are petty, insecure and a coward, just like so many evolutionists who have deluded themselves into believing they are intellectual in some unseen capacity. People talk about how dubious and non-factual much of Wiki's content is and now I am inclined to agree. If you have corrupt people in control, the corruption must, by definition, be their resultant product. You don't get apples from an lemon tree.

By the fact you called the posting of an opposing viewpoint to your diatribe "vandalism" tells me how you have made a god of evolution and your unmitigated hate for anyone that does not acknowledge your emperor's new clothes, speaks volumes of your honesty and character you have, or should I say the lack thereof. This was a lowdown trick and simply more Goebbels-esk propaganda promoted by you evolutionists who think your empire will also last "1000 years" and that your indoctrination will not eventually come to a boil in the area of objectivity and human perseverance. How do you vandalize one of Goebbels posters?

So you have made your latest deposit of corrupting wiki and don't give a crap because it fits your small deluded world view and your religion of secularism where you sacrifice truth on the altar of evolution. If you think that will stop free and critical minds, you are simply fooling yourself with a simple-minded fantasy and making more impassioned and inspired enemies. Archer3, you have done your part to bring wiki to a new low and have shown that it is simply another ideological site like "The DailyKos" or "BartCop". You sir, vandalized "EXPELLED", but you simply don't give a crap. It is in fact, that simple.

Rittjc (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. There are no published scientific papers that support creationism or ID. ID is not an accepted scientific theory, it's not even pseudo-science, it's just bullcrap. There are no controversies amongst scientists about whether evolution occurs. Scientist accept that EVOLUTION DOES OCCUR, they debate over how it occurred (ex. punctuated equilibrium vs. Darwinian gradualism). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right you do not know what I am talking about. You don't even know what you are talking about. You have the most sophomoric understanding of evolution I have ever read or debated with. You don't even know anything about evolution or ID. This makes your input on a movie talking about the ignorance of evolutionists and their viscous attacks to silence the opposition, completely worthless. If you knew anything about evolution at all, you would have known that evolutionists have long since rejected their own, laughable ideas (even laughable to themselves) of punctuated equilibrium, embryonic recapitulation, etc. But, you are so ignorant of it that you had someone tell you what to believe so long ago and never investigated it for yourself, that you still believe outdated bull crap.

There are tons of publish articles on intelligent design and books. Perhaps that was the most ignorant statement you made here and proves you have stuck your head in the sand so as not to see any argument against evolutoin. The ID movement came about when microbiologists got tired of having to hide their professional and scientific objections to evolution and the oppression of trying to expose these problems, by people viscously trying to defend their "religion" of evolution. Many scientists DO NOT accept that evolution occurs. Hence the ID and creationist movements.

With your own ignorant opinion you stated that evolution occurs but they do not know how. Evolution is simply change, and NOT an origin of information and organisms as Darwin postulated, and the only thing we know for sure about change is that change comes from "preexisting" information in the DNA that gets isolated in the offspring. This proves that the variations from recessive DNA information was put in the DNA before the DNA was isolated in the offspring. This is information isolation is destructive, not constructive and what makes the idea of evolving upward so conceptually ridiculous as we see species that go extinct or deform and disappear because they have lost too much DNA information, not gained it. Explaining the mechanisms of this information getting their spontaneous is what makes evolution the next chapter in the shamed "Spontaneous Generation" scientific philosophies in the middle ages, were they believed that flies came from raw meat, or mice are created in an open jar with wheat in it. Evolution is just a modern spin on an old idea that things come from nothing.

You need to learn something about a subject before posting. Your contributions simply turn Wiki into a dumbed down blog of narrow-minded and uneducated people.

The fact is, no one knows exactly how many scientists even believe in evolution or just are silent as they don't want to jeopardize their careers or reputation by unscrupulous people such as your self who would say or do anything to silence the opposition. You are the reason such a movements are being driven and such things as this movie has arisen. Exposing the same mechanisms of stifling and controlling ideas that the NAZIs used in concentration camps. The first people arrested and sent to concentration camps where the educated Jews and German dissidents. Why must they get rid of the educated and intelligent first? That's obvious, so they can't expose the truth to the general population. By giving you people any authority to post and override Wiki has allowed Nazi-like practices in its arena and has destroyed its own credibility, whether it knows it or not.

Rittjc (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bye
You really need to go pick up a good biology textbook and read it. You are the sophomoric one. Intelligent Design did not come from microbiologists. Expelled is a piece of creationist propaganda. ID is not a science. You cannot test. ID is just a repackaging of creationism. The Supreme Court has already stated that creationism is not science. All the arguments of ID have already been thoroughly refuted http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html. Even the few idiot biologists who openly support ID (Behe, Dembski, etc.) don't have published peer-reviewed articles. If there were scientists "in the closet" about ID, why are these ones out in the open. Why don't they support their unpublished papers (papers can only get published if they are peer-reviewed)? ID is not a scientific theory, it is piece of bullshit and Ben Stein is filling you mind with lies and propaganda. I am tired of dealing with you bullshit; good day with you, I hope someone teaches you some good biology. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast hater man
Thegreyanomaly, What an illogical argument. You cannot test Evolution, either! It is not seen to happen! You are simply saying that two destructive processes are able to create from the unexplained existence of physical atoms. (no sense in explaining where the physical matter comes from, bad enough you should try to explain the formation of a cell and other inexplicable physical quandaries). That is about as irrational a concept as you can get. In fact, science, that which based on observation, not the so called science you believe which is based on bully tactics and averting scrutiny, DOES prove Evolution doesn't happen. The genetic code is being destroyed NOT augmented. We are losing information 100%. There is not creation of new genes by these destructive processes, just the destruction of preexisting information leading to a diminishing of that information. Real science proves this unquestionable and all observations of anything science has ever seen is entropic. The fact that Evolution is not entropic says how unscientific it is and how flawed any conclusion based on it, even if logic, would be. Now before you try the Evolutionist tap dance to get out of entropy which nails you to floor, don't quote me a man made law that give you a loophole to say "its not a closed system". That is simply a man's way of saying what his limits to proving that are required.

Entropy is seen in 100% of any scientific observation we have ever seen. Yet you say Evolution is "proven" by science? You must mean proven false 100%. It cannot happen. Not that it didn't but that it not only didn't, it couldn't possibly. ALL of the materials involved in your so called evolution process are subject to entropy. Therefore their formation cannot be counter-entropic. That is a false and ridiculous concept you want us to believe and throw away observed science? Hey, saying you are an Evolutionist might get you better grant money, but it will never get you closer to truth.

Who do you think you are to say magic produced everything contrary entropy, and the paradoxical mathematical concept of addition by heavy subtraction so you don't have to rationally explain what we see by the effects of the two destructive processes of "Natural Selection" and "Genetic Mutations" which bespeak extinction NOT creation? That is not just magic, but irrational magic, the kind even magicians wouldn't dream up to deceive their audiences.

Contrary to you baseless rhetoric about science supporting Evolution, what science DOES see is diminishing now and that the Newtons Laws of motion need of a metaphysical input to start motion in the physical is not needed because you say invisible secular magic is not added to his laws. I don't believe in magic. I did when I was a kid. The magicians you claim are peer reviewed scientists can't even address the basics. That is an Evolutionist concept and the foundation of their "religion" they try to pass off as science. No science tells us how things started, it can (and has) said how it cannot start (counter-entropic processes) and tells us it did not start itself something you disagree with in order to join Evolution with its priests and popes and men of the "cloth" you falsely call scientists. These are the same popes and priests came up the the early, now-shamed approach to evolution, called "Spontaneous Generation". That's right! Your boys were spewing the false concepts of spontaneous creation many years ago and had all kinds of great concepts like blood letting to "let the bad blood out" and that meat was a generator of flies. (how stupid in concept and how unscientific evolution/spontaneous Generation is).

[] (A,k.a Evolution 1.0. Same as Evolution 2.0 but reworded to cover past realized absurdity)

In addition the pure cowardice of secular Evolutionists to hide from scrutiny to expose their self-deluded ultra religious, non-scientific ideas, that none of them can agree substantively on any significant believe calling each other a fool, speaks volumes about how immature fantastic and baseless such secular fairy tales of "unseen science" (an oxymoron), are. The bully tactics repeated here, like censoring posts and blocking debates and public scrutiny, and becoming desperate to have even reminder stickers in text books that say the Theory of Evolution is a THEORY, shows that you don't have any sort of fact at all and though you would never admit it, you know it yourself! This is why you only tactic left is to go Ad Hominem and use Gestapo-esk means to silence criticism. Facts do not need cowards to do low life things like this to cover them from scrutiny. They stand on their own and why an Evolutionist's beliefs never will. They are not even rational enough to be exposed. They would be laughed off the internet if not vociferously protected from objectivity by ideologues like yourselves. You do not want you religion exposed and will fight wars to protect it. But, the internet has done you in. You no longer censer everything and why Evolution is being exposed. You might stop Wiki from ever having truth exposed but you cannot stop it anywhere else! Cowards are as cowards do and your exhibition, even your blind mind can't hide from realizing right or wrong you are a coward with shame behavior and not trustworthy with ever knowing the truth.

In a way, I like that you do these sleazy these here. They serve as the penultimate testimony, from your own words, that you and other Evolutionists are merely ideological religious extremists and have no tenable substance to what you believe and therefore must be hidden from public scrutiny. This is EXACTLY what Expelled was about. In fact, Stein could have included your tactics and arguments here as another anecdote in his movie. You have spoken the corruption and cowardice of the brutal, self-protecting, self-promoting fact-less religion of Evolution, that Stein was demonstrating. Same techniques, same aversion to scrutiny, same dishonesty, same childishness, same desperation to protect the evolution religious system against the facts that scream against it, as if you were out to prove how right he was in his documentary.

If not your tactics, you hatred here alone should prove to you that you do not have one objective or reasonable bone in your cowardly body. You merely evangelize your unscientific beliefs in an effort to raise "strength by numbers" to cover the fact your emperor is naked!

Sorry, to get back two years later but my email address had changed and I never got notice of this cowardly and exposing post.

BTW: The Supreme Court has not declared creation unscientific. How must you people lie to try to convince people you are right without any scientific basis. You are losing your "strength in numbers" edge and I might say you have used it as corruptly as such a principle has ever been used.

November 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Antichrist. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. In addition, see the guidelines against original research. Personal interpretation of the Bible qualifies as original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)