Hey Creationists!

[Braunwyn]

You owe me an irony meter. Now, how come you don't have to know what science is before you use it to spout nonsense?

But the difference is that I use the term gossip correctly. He's a gossip, especially by religous standards (Loshon hara).

OK, so why not use scientists for science. You call a plumber for plumbing. Do you then tell the plumber that he shouldn't be using the 3" defrangulated sproffle valve for a flow rate of 2.1 gallons/minute? Or do you just let a trained plumber do the plumbing that he's better trained than you to do? Most normal people leave the plumber to it, and judge them by their results. Thaumaturgy's whole point in this post is that he'd like people to do the same with scientists. (And if you don't like the results scientists have achieved, please throw your computer and medicines and automobile and ... out the window.)

He'll "use" all the fruits their work provides and then simultaneously call them SOB's. It would be similar to complaining about the evils of walmart and then go shopping at walmart. It's stupid.

 

[dad]

But the difference is that I use the term gossip correctly. He's a gossip, especially by religous standards (Loshon hara).


He'll "use" all the fruits their work provides and then simultaneously call them SOB's. It would be similar to complaining about the evils of walmart and then go shopping at walmart. It's stupid.

The issue on this forum is creation/evolution, not science, because science itself really can't go there. I like science. No idea how you get off thinking you have some monopoly on it.
I am not so naive as to think scientists, and educated people in general are all selfless saints, however.
The so called science folks are really just religious racketeers in sheep's clothing.

 

[dad]

To help you in your everyday life?

Alright, fine many sacrifice to help themselves in life. So?? Maybe some feel it is a sacrifice to get off their seats at a buffet to get more food.

 

[Baggins]

Great post Baggins. If True_Blue want to make lots of money off science he may need to re-think his strategy.

He could start by either:

Learning some science himself


or

Trusting what the scientists tell him


Believing that he knows better than professional scientists doesn't seem like a very smart way of going about making a buck from science/scientists.

 

[Braunwyn]

The issue on this forum is creation/evolution, not science, because science itself really can't go there. I like science. No idea how you get off thinking you have some monopoly on it.

Monopoloy on what? You bring everything under the sun, including the kitchen sink, into a conversation and then you confuse yourself and get lost in your own verbage. That's quite a skill you have.

I am not so naive as to think scientists, and educated people in general are all selfless saints, however.
The so called science folks are really just religious racketeers in sheep's clothing.

Please, I don't think anyone assumes that you think scientists are saints lol. And again, despite what some scietists and creationists here believe, that a great war between religion and science is at the forefront, doesn't mean this is a correct assessment. I come across more Hindus and Jains than anything else and your god simply is never a part of the conversation. And I probably live in an area with a greater concentration of scientists and educated folk in general compared to elsewhere in the US- Cambridge/Boston.

When all this blathering about "Expelled" came out I asked a few people what they thought. Only my old boss heard something about a documentary called "Expelled" but didn't even know its content nor did he care. Most scientists I know don't give a hoot one way or the other (for the 10th time) and since they don't care I don't see how you reasonably place 'scientific folk' as religious racketeers. You and your religion isn't as important as you would like to believe although I understand that forums often lend to hyperbole.

 

[IzzyPop]

I hope not, most people realize fantasy from reality, one would hope.

You mean like transmuting water into wine or raising the dead fantasies? Maybe a magic man that came down to impregnate a virgin? That kind of fantasy?

Do you tell everyone that the universe was all stuffed in a speck, by any chance?

Nah. Cosmology ain't my specialty. Physics is fascinating stuff, but I'm not quite smart enough to understand more than the edges.

 

[Braunwyn]

Believing that he knows better than professional scientists doesn't seem like a very smart way of going about making a buck from science/scientists.

I've been waiting to see dad employ his stereotyping to YECs now. He charges people (specifically scientists since the OP is a scientist) of getting their education for the money, which as it turns out is not the case for the OP. But, we have a YEC come on board displaying the intentions dad was so eager to pounce on earlier.

 

[dad]

Easy to determine right from wrong using God's book? OK, I state that the square root of 2 cannot be written as a ratio of two integers with no common factors. Right or wrong? Chapter and verse, please.

Ps 71:15 -My mouth shall shew forth thy righteousness and thy salvation all the day; for I know not the numbers thereof.



We don't need to know it all, and the right and wrong that God's word deals in, is the issues of life.

If you can't give me a Biblical reference, then I'll even let you do with "common sense" or "general knowledge". But no math. Because, of course, that would require specialized knowledge about the subject at hand.

I gave a verse, guess there is no need to crack your little would be conundrum.

You owe me an irony meter. Now, how come you don't have to know what science is before you use it to spout nonsense?

Part of knowing what is is, is knowing what it ain't. knowing what it
covers, and what it's little mandate is helps.

OK, so why not use scientists for science. You call a plumber for plumbing. Do you then tell the plumber that he shouldn't be using the 3" defrangulated sproffle valve for a flow rate of 2.1 gallons/minute? Or do you just let a trained plumber do the plumbing that he's better trained than you to do? Most normal people leave the plumber to it, and judge them by their results.

If I need real science done, I'll hire a scientist. If I need false baseless conjecture about a future and past that is unknown to science, I'll call a false prophet of the wrong way, so called scientist, and pay her to lie.

Thaumaturgy's whole point in this post is that he'd like people to do the same with scientists. (And if you don't like the results scientists have achieved, please throw your computer and medicines and automobile and ... out the window.)

No, Mat, and others cannot hide under the dress of science for wild blue yonder godless claims of yesteryear. They can do as they are told, and find a way to harden plastic [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] we might use in a car panel,.or try to find a better method of storing information, etc. Everything in it's place, and the place of science is as my slave in the here and now, not as some little godless lying dreaming dictator trying to cast dirt on the eternal truth of God's Own words to mankind.

And from another post, a big, pointless list of fraudulent executives. What was that supposed to demonstrate?

Well, one executive from some other companies than the ones I used as an example was brought up, and the fact that he was a Christian. I pointed out that he was not the only fish in the pond.

That power corrupts. Yes, Lord Acton was way ahead of you there. You state that these people were educated. And...? I really hope you're not about to commit a correlation/causality fallacy.

And...that is a requirement for all the wicked things wicked man, and wicked governments, and wicked corporations do these days. So, if someone tells me that he had to sacrifice to get educated somewhat, I say he better get in line, cause men and women of faith over time, and history, could teach him what the word actually means.

Besides, where's the list of common-or-garden research scientists (who are more educated than business execs) NOT convicted of fraud?

I don't know, are they of topical interest to the creation debate? Or are they just working stiffs, that mind their little business?

 

[dad]

Did you read your article? First of all this does not address getting a degree for the money.

Money is not the only part of the topic here. That was brought in to balance the sacrificial claims of some, and show that a degree is also about money.

Second, your article states "Along with Stanislaw Ulam, Teller designed the first hydrogen bomb. Teller also was influential in the decision by the Truman administration to produce the bomb over the objections of much of the scientific community. "

Which side are you arguing?

The side that science is evil as the day is long in many areas, and is about to destroy life on earth if Jesus didn't stop them. Literally.

"His testimony against physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the fallout of the H-bomb dispute, made Teller a pariah to many of his colleagues, further diverting his career from science to defense politics, and causing him profound sorrow. Some old associates refused to speak to him for more than 30 years. "

And you just argued against yourself with this

Point? What, that there is good and bad in the little science world? Yes, there is, so?? How would the good help, if the bad killed the good, and the bad, precisely?

"At an early age, Teller said, he learned the fun of mathematics. He would stay awake in bed working out mathematical problems such as computing the number of seconds in a day. His father was unhappy when Teller announced he wanted to be a mathematician.
"My father said I couldn't make a living that way, so we compromised, a little painfully, on chemistry. But I cheated. I studied chemistry and mathematics. After two years, my father gave up and told me to study what I wanted," he recalled. "

How cute, guess he learned to love the bomb.

What in the world does this have to do with a person making decision in the name of money? C'mon dad, this is ridulous. You are making "scientists" look squeaky clean, which they aren't, by linking an artical stating that the community ostracized Teller.

All one has to do is look at over fishing, pollution on earth, WOMD, loss of freedoms, carnage on the highways, porn, and worse on the net, and etc, to see that science is anything but clean. No wonder they often oppose God, and His word.

Again, where is the argument that scientist got into it for the money and where is the argument that their education and choices are equated to TP?

List all the scientists that work for free then? Let's see which side of the scale tips there. Of course money is part of the deal. get over it. Like a lawyer, or a brothel, you simply hire them as needed for your purposes.

If anything, once again, you have shown here that such choices are far from worthless. If anything they can have real consequences. If I were to provide two links as evidence of two scientists that A. didn't go into it for the money-Teller B. their eduction and profession obviously isn't worthless, but dangerous -Elkin, I would use your links.

Great, some are rich enough not to need the money. Nevertheless, if their work is evil, that only makes it worse! If not, well, fine, get to serving me, scientist, and bettering mankind, and don't boast too loudly about your sacrifices, please.

And your brother YEC wants to imply that scientists lack critical thinking. lol, now that's funny.

Not really. I think they think in the box. How would it matter how critical it is there?

Nobody asked you to get personal. I don't want to know your name, where you live, work, etc. Saying that you teach history, run a grocery store, are a stay-at-home-dad, etc is no more personal than stating your gender. The way it looks is that you are in an industry that might forfeit your credibility as the great judge lending to your hypocrisy.

Any professions or similar I may have indulged in were full of bad things. If I were a tent maker, it would be the same thing. The slave labor in China or someplace that is used to make the plastics, or fabrics, perhaps. The fuel used in shipping materials, the crooked salesman maybe involved in getting the product in the right places, etc etc. It is a wicked world, and those of us passing through here must realize that. When we rule the earth, then you can blame us. Until then, I will blame them.

How is your assumption that scientists get their education in the name of money, or that their education and profession is worthless, reliant on the ability to know right and wrong? Please share this twisted pearl of wisdom.

All men, not just scientists need to make a living. If we engage in actively teaching against the bible, and God, then our education is a vile, and wasted thing. If they mind their business, and do the best they can, fine. But don't try and hold a candle to people of faith over history, that died, and suffered for what they believed in, because you got mono at the dorm, or had a hole in a shoe.

Yes it is. And you practice Lashon hara, which I assume you are familiar with.

No. I wear nothing on my eyes.

"

Lashon hara (or Loshon hora) (Hebrew לשון הרע; "evil tongue") is the prohibition in Jewish Law of telling gossip, truthful remarks about a non-present person or party. It should not be confused with the prohibition of Motzei Shem Rah, slander, untrue remarks.

How many people are non present at a debate forum? If they are, they ought to get with it.

The main prohibition against lashon hara is derived from Leviticus 19:16 [1] : "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.".

My people are not anti god myth makers. My tales are generally about the myths, and lies, not personal. Get a grip.

The Talmud (tractate Erchin 15b) lists lashon hara as one of the causes of the Biblical malady of tzaraath. In Sotah 42a, the Talmud states that habitual speakers of lashon hara are not tolerated in God's presence. Similar strong denouncements can be found in various places in Jewish literature.[2"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashon_hara

Cheer up, the talmud isn't tolerated in His presence either!

You engaged in the Lashon Hara in this very thread.

Jesus, Paul, and anyone that was anyone would have fought the rulers of darkness of this world. Call it what you like, it's fun. It is a good thing. Principalities, and powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world, in case you missed it, are responsible for the assault on truth, and God, and His word.
If, in the assailing of such things, and spiritual forces behind the scenes, someone is so closely tied together with it, that they get their feeling hurt, too bad.

You throw stones.

They throw fiery darts, stones are the least I could do.

Translation - "I do nothing worthy of being judge and jury"

being worthy in God's sight is not from anything we do. It is from what Jesus did, and us getting behind that.

Look in the mirror when you discuss man's righteousness because you seem to be drowning in your own.

I have the righteousness He gives, not my own, thanks. It doesn't get any better than that.

See above.

I try to.

I think it's poor form to use people as you will and then berate them.

I don't berate plumbers, or scientists that serve me well, etc. I berate liars, and high priests of the anti god myths.

That's called stereotyping and when you throw it in your negative light it's closer to bigotry. One thing educated people have in common is that they are educated. Beyond that you are stereotyping.

Another thing they have in common is a high percentage of acceptance for anti God wickedness, as I pointed out. Deep down, you must know I am right there.

Oh, please. It would be like saying the rantings of some christians speak for christianity. Here's a little "in" for you. I work with dozens of scientists, hundreds in my time, and you know what? God never comes up.

No accident, I assure you! Thanks for fessing up.

You, and christianity never come up. No one cares. Most are simply concerned with their work. The few who have an agenda is just that, a few.

Bully for them, that they are concerned with themselves, and their 'work'. A lot of that work is as wicked as the day is long, by the way. If they happen to be working on just the good bits, fine, but I am suspicious if God never comes up!! That should clue you in right there.

 

[dad]

Monopoloy on what? You bring everything under the sun, including the kitchen sink, into a conversation and then you confuse yourself and get lost in your own verbage. That's quite a skill you have.

Monopoly on science, in respect to applying it to old age stuff.

Please, I don't think anyone assumes that you think scientists are saints lol. And again, despite what some scietists and creationists here believe, that a great war between religion and science is at the forefront, doesn't mean this is a correct assessment.

It isn't, science is in no position to fight God, or the truth. real science cannot oppose the bible at all. The rest is religion, and science falsely so called. The war of the worlds is between the forces of God, and the dark forces competing for the minds and souls of men. Science has little to do with it, except that so called science is used in the attempt to pretend God is a liar.

I come across more Hindus and Jains than anything else and your god simply is never a part of the conversation. And I probably live in an area with a greater concentration of scientists and educated folk in general compared to elsewhere in the US- Cambridge/Boston.

Point? Maybe I might walk down to some docks, and see that He is not part of some longshoreman's chatter either. So??

When all this blathering about "Expelled" came out I asked a few people what they thought. Only my old boss heard something about a documentary called "Expelled" but didn't even know its content nor did he care. Most scientists I know don't give a hoot one way or the other (for the 10th time) and since they don't care I don't see how you reasonably place 'scientific folk' as religious racketeers.

The racketeer bit has to do with the old agers anti bible claims and lies, not actual science. But, since they go in the name of science, it is sometimes blurred. I never heard about Expelled, except in some thread titles here.

You and your religion isn't as important as you would like to believe although I understand that forums often lend to hyperbole.

You are misinformed, His people are the reason the earth exists, and the universe is in the state it is in. His people are the future forever rulers of all earth. Nations rise and fall as to how they treat His people, and all history cannot be understood without that concept. The fastest growing faith on earth, some claim, is Christianity, and others say it is Islam. It is safe to say it is one of the fastest growing things on the planet. Your inability to perceive the importance of God, or His people changes nothing. It simply pegs your current understanding level.

 

[dad]

You mean like transmuting water into wine or raising the dead fantasies? Maybe a magic man that came down to impregnate a virgin? That kind of fantasy?

Ignoring history, and the records is an option, I suppose.

Nah. Cosmology ain't my specialty. Physics is fascinating stuff, but I'm not quite smart enough to understand more than the edges.

OK, better stick to what you think you know, I suppose.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Ps 71:15 -My mouth shall shew forth thy righteousness and thy salvation all the day; for I know not the numbers thereof.

Which agrees or disagrees with my statement? Oh, right, neither; it's completely irrelevant. I made a statement of fact and asked whether or not the Bible could tell you if it's true. I guess not:

We don't need to know it all, and the right and wrong that God's word deals in, is the issues of life.

Pity, then, that the entire point of all this thread/discussion was whether you need appropriate training in a subject before issuing criticism about that subject. You claimed that you need only Biblical knowledge to vilify the scientific Theory of Evolution. But the Bible is not a scientific text. If you want to object to the ToE on theological grounds, fine; but you can't claim to have scientific objections without being able to deal in science. Unfortunately for you, the ToE doesn't make any theological claims, so your theological objections are your own problem.

I gave a verse, guess there is no need to crack your little would be conundrum.

You gave a verse, yes -- one that was completely irrelevant. I stated that sqrt(2) is not representable as an irreducible ratio of integers. The verse neither confirms nor denies this. AFAIK, no verse of the Bible confirms or denies this claim. The point being that you need more than Biblical knowledge, theology, common sense, etc, to evaluate this claim; specifically, you need to know some math to determine if this mathematical claim is true or not. Similarly, when someone makes a scientific statement about, say, DNA mutations, you need to know enough about biology to make an intelligent criticism if you're going dispute it.

Part of knowing what is is, is knowing what it ain't. knowing what it covers, and what it's little mandate is helps.

I assume this is a slight against scientists supposedly speaking beyond their realm. Unfortunately, you don't appear to know what science covers. It doesn't cover the supernatural and the divine. It does cover the past and the future.

If I need real science done, I'll hire a scientist. If I need false baseless conjecture about a future and past that is unknown to science, I'll call a false prophet of the wrong way, so called scientist, and pay her to lie.

Ah, a nice No True Scotsman fallacy. Neat. Now, let's re-enter the real universe: science can and does talk about the past and the future. It does so scientifically. If a scientist says the Earth is x years old because leprechauns told them so, they're not doing science. But when a scientist uses actual science to determine the age of the Earth, either know enough science to critique their science, or accept what they say. ("They" in this case being the scientific community en masse, not just one or two fallible individuals -- blindly following an authority is a bad idea; wouldn't you agree Sr. Galileo?)

It's also just a tiny bit ironic that you criticize scientists for making conjectures about the distant past when creationists invent all sorts of half-arsed, ad hoc interpretations -- to accommodate a book of religious stories -- to make statements about the distant past. At least scientists have to work within the (testable) methodologies of science. So, actually, if you "need false baseless conjecture about a future and past that is unknown to science" you should call a creationist. (I guess you were half-right: "false prophet of the wrong way". Yep, I'd say that describes creationists.)

No, Mat, and others cannot hide under the dress of science for wild blue yonder godless claims of yesteryear.

No they can't. But that's a strawman because that's not what they're doing. They're doing science. If you don't like the conclusions, that's your problem, but take it up with God and/or reality.

They can do as they are told, and find a way to harden plastic [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] we might use in a car panel,.or try to find a better method of storing information, etc. Everything in it's place, and the place of science is as my slave in the here and now, not as some little godless lying dreaming dictator trying to cast dirt on the eternal truth of God's Own words to mankind.

If scientists did as they were told, we'd still believe that the Sun orbited the Earth (and have we forgotten who was holding on to that falsehood, and why?). Whether you accept it or not, your quality of life has improved thanks to scientists doing advanced scientific research, often with no immediate practical application in mind. Indeed the examples of "science" you list just go to show that you don't know what science is. Protip: it ain't engineering. Also calling scientists "godless" and claiming that their motive is to "cast dirt" on "God's Own words" is libel: many scientists -- evo biologists included -- are religious and very few of them make any statements regarding theology (at least in the sense of "I'm a scientist and science says X about God").

You are constantly exposed by your own words as an ignorant hypocrite full of fear and hate. I'm glad I have nothing to do with your misconceived notions of both science and God.

 

[dad]

Which agrees or disagrees with my statement? Oh, right, neither; it's completely irrelevant. I made a statement of fact and asked whether or not the Bible could tell you if it's true. I guess not:

If it was fact, why would one need the bible to tell it was true? There are many facts, for example, how many legs an ant has. How many molecules in a macaroni bit? Etc. The things the bible deals in do not need to cover every silly question one ever could dream of.

It does cover the history, and purpose of man, the creation, the future, and a plethora of thing in between. It isn't up to you to invent questions that God agrees or not with. It is up to you to grapple with the issues of life and death, and truth, and the revealed truths of God.

Pity, then, that the entire point of all this thread/discussion was whether you need appropriate training in a subject before issuing criticism about that subject.

Says you. Seems to me, that the thing here was someone blowing their horn, and saying how much they sacrificed, and how it paid off, they thought, etc. As for getting training in so called science, that is not needed in any way. And, since real science can't really address creation itself, or the future, or the spiritual, and etc. - neither is deep training in that of any relevance.

You claimed that you need only Biblical knowledge to vilify the scientific Theory of Evolution.

Hec, I think a kindergarten education would be enough. Ask a kid how to squish up the sun and planets and earth, and moon, and a trillion, trillion suns into something smaller than a dot on a paper, and see how they react.

But the Bible is not a scientific text.

Yes it is, as far as real science can go. So called science is not a scientific text!!!!!!!

If you want to object to the ToE on theological grounds, fine; but you can't claim to have scientific objections without being able to deal in science.

You can't claim to have a case without presenting the science! Show us how science knows the state of the past and future, so that we can all toss out the word of God here???! Meanwhile, calm down, cause you got nothing, I assure you.

Unfortunately for you, the ToE doesn't make any theological claims, so your theological objections are your own problem.

Yes it does. It actually makes nothing else. The only possible shred of science that it might try to ride on, is the evolving that does take place. IF evolving was a creation gift, a created trait, then evolving does, and cannot lead to the silly pond. What else you got?

You gave a verse, yes -- one that was completely irrelevant. I stated that sqrt(2) is not representable as an irreducible ratio of integers. The verse neither confirms nor denies this. AFAIK, no verse of the Bible confirms or denies this claim. The point being that you need more than Biblical knowledge, theology, common sense, etc, to evaluate this claim; specifically, you need to know some math to determine if this mathematical claim is true or not. Similarly, when someone makes a scientific statement about, say, DNA mutations, you need to know enough about biology to make an intelligent criticism if you're going dispute it.

Not true. If the bible says that it knows not the numbers, that is good enough for some mystery equation you cite. We do not need to know frothy, invented, head banging, trivialities! One thing about God's word, I like, is that it knows how to get real.

I assume this is a slight against scientists supposedly speaking beyond their realm. Unfortunately, you don't appear to know what science covers. It doesn't cover the supernatural and the divine. It does cover the past and the future.

Says you, however, if the past and future involved the spiritual, and supernatural, why that totally moots your point, now doesn't it!!?

Ah, a nice No True Scotsman fallacy. Neat. Now, let's re-enter the real universe: science can and does talk about the past and the future.

Show us. I say it talks the talk, but can't walk the walk.

It does so scientifically. If a scientist says the Earth is x years old because leprechauns told them so, they're not doing science. But when a scientist uses actual science to determine the age of the Earth, either know enough science to critique their science, or accept what they say. ("They" in this case being the scientific community en masse, not just one or two fallible individuals -- blindly following an authority is a bad idea; wouldn't you agree Sr. Galileo?)

In english, now, tell us why you think science says the earth is old?

It's also just a tiny bit ironic that you criticize scientists for making conjectures about the distant past when creationists invent all sorts of half-arsed, ad hoc interpretations -- to accommodate a book of religious stories --

get your story straight. Either they make it up, or use God's word to replace your myth filtering.

to make statements about the distant past. At least scientists have to work within the (testable) methodologies of science.

And those testable limits are in the present. This is news??

So, actually, if you "need false baseless conjecture about a future and past that is unknown to science" you should call a creationist. (I guess you were half-right: "false prophet of the wrong way". Yep, I'd say that describes creationists.)

Say it all you like, but since you cannot bring science to bear here, obviously, and you have only your little empty boasts, to compete against God's words, why, you are whistling in the dark.

No they can't. But that's a strawman because that's not what they're doing. They're doing science. If you don't like the conclusions, that's your problem, but take it up with God and/or reality.

The conclusions of assumptions are not the conclusions of testable science. Conclusions opposing God's account, that can't be evidenced, are complete madness.

If scientists did as they were told, we'd still believe that the Sun orbited the Earth (and have we forgotten who was holding on to that falsehood, and why?).

Why? Because the earth NOW orbits the sun. How it used to work, or will work in the new heavens is another, repeat, another matter. Get it??

Whether you accept it or not, your quality of life has improved thanks to scientists doing advanced scientific research, often with no immediate practical application in mind.

Yes, global warming, and WOMD really improve our lot.

Indeed the examples of "science" you list just go to show that you don't know what science is. Protip: it ain't engineering.

No science is involved in building a bridge, or a dam, or etc??? Think again.

Also calling scientists "godless" and claiming that their motive is to "cast dirt" on "God's Own words" is libel: many scientists -- evo biologists included -- are religious and very few of them make any statements regarding theology (at least in the sense of "I'm a scientist and science says X about God").

So called science, that opposes and exalts it's little vile self against God's word, is dirt. In fact, that is a compliment, it is far worse. Real science dares not do so, but sticks to it's little mandate.

You are constantly exposed by your own words as an ignorant hypocrite full of fear and hate. I'm glad I have nothing to do with your misconceived notions of both science and God.

I stand by my words. And I also say good riddance to those that don't like it.