Jump to content

Doctorb

Members
  • Content count

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Doctorb

  • Rank
    enthusiast
  • Birthday 11/26/2017
  1. Why don't climbers developing new routes post

    Die, cock-throttler... The reason why climbers developing new routes don't post here is...who the fuck cares????
  2. State Of The Union

    ACTUAL State of the Union
  3. The real Butthead?

    Bruning a Wtich
  4. The real Butthead?

    Bruning
  5. The real Butthead?

    We'll be bruning witches next. Is anyone else getting sick of this type of domestic agenda bullshit? Wasn't yesterday Martin Luther King Jr. day, and day on which we celebrate diversity?
  6. what is the purpose of phlegm?

    What else am I supposed to spit into your face???? Air???
  7. Fraser Valley climbs

    Be sure to stock up on paper plates and permanent markers so that you can communicate with the locals. Otherwise, they shoot your car full of holes, burn it, and ram it off the road and into the woods.
  8. Triple Couloirs, a pseudo TR

    My favortie kind of TR: slamming your partners on-line after an unsuccessful trip. Way to go!! Of course, it's all YOUR fault for heading out with them in the first place, so you should have nothing to complain about. And if you still think you can blame it all on them, you should have soloed the route.
  9. Die

    "The"? You want me to "The"? Speak some sense, boy!
  10. Re-name cc.com??

    It's sort of humorous that this particluar forum has more threads and posts than any other. It's clear that this site is mainly about spraying, and unchecked corporate greed. I'd put in a poll for testing some new names, but I see that that feature has been removed. So, how about "Cascadespray.com"? Or "traskstoilet.com"? What about "letsjerkoffcolin.com"? "bigstudTshirts.com"? "no_one_climbs_shit.com"?
  11. Cloned Human?

    Between your atrocious spelling and your incoherency, it is difficult to extract meaning from your post... Natures laws are not set. Human laws that explain observations and allow us to make successful predictions are "set" until an observation is made that forces the law to be reevaluated or rejected, or a better law is developed, one that makes more accurate predictions. As far as the Big Bang theory is concerned, it is based on observations of the physical universe, and makes valid predictions. Creation mythologies are fiction, and don't predict shit. Examples of natural selection on a macroscopic level: Mass extinction at the end of the cretaceous period due to asteriod impact 65 mya. Spanish Flu pandemic, 1918 AIDS pandemic 1940(?)-present SARS Another of my rants, given to a former student during his freshman biology class: 1. What is your personal opinion of the evolution vs. creation debate in public schools? There is no debate. Proponents of "Christian creation mythology" (see 3B below) have put forth that this is a debatable issue, but it is not. Science is a system for explaining and predicting observed natural phenomena. Religion is a belief system based on a mythology. Each serves its own purpose. Would you use a religious text to determine the melting point of an aluminum alloy, or the chemical formula for trinitrotoluene, or the crystal structure of molybdenum? Would you use a physics book to determine which deity to worship on the first full moon after the autumnal equinox, and what sacrifice is appropriate, and which prayers to chant? 2. Should evolution be taught in public schools? Why? If science is to be taught in public school, then evolution needs to be taught. The modern theory of evolution is THE most important foundational theory that the science of biology has ever put forth. Teaching biology without teaching the modern theory of evolution is not teaching biology. Replacing the modern theory of evolution with Christian creation mythology is an insult, and would result in a nation of ignoramuses mocked and ridiculed by the entirety of the enlightened world. 3. Should creationism be taught in public schools? Why? Not as a substitute for the modern theory of evolution. A) Public schools are funded by tax dollars. The U.S. constitution explicitly separates church and state, and teaching Christian creation mythology would violate this tenet. B) Who's "creationism" would we teach? Christianity? Native American? Satanism? Islamic? Buddhist? Norse? Roman? Pagan? Wiccan? Last time I checked, this is not a monotheistic country, yet "creationism" has come to mean, within the context of this discussion, "Christian Creation Mythology". "Creationists" or "Creation Scientists" (a term that is laughable in its inherent contradictions) support only their own explanations for our existence, and furiously reject any other, be it "evolution" or "we live on the back of a giant turtle". They only see the world one way, the way that they have been trained to see it, and reject any evidence that invalidates their beliefs. C) Christian creation mythology is a mythology. Mythology, though often a source of entertainment and lessons for living life morally, is not a science. I teach science. D) I find the concept of replacing the modern theory of evolution with Christian creation mythology to be offensive in the extreme. It rejects thousands of years of scientific exploration, an organized endeavor of knowledge acquisition, assimilation, synthesis, and expansion, that is without parallel in any other human sphere, in order to preserve the perceived "validity" of a mythology embraced by a religious minority. This is supreme ignorance. 4. As a science teacher, do you teach either and why? I teach the modern theory of evolution. I discuss Christian creation mythology only briefly, and in the context of a discussion creation myths found in a number of different global cultures and religions.
  12. Cloned Human?

    Not the case. Scientists have a responsibilty to not only challenge accepted theories, but to consider new theories as well.
  13. Cloned Human?

    Science creates theories to explain facts. Religion is belief in dogma. Science gathers all available data, and adjusts or rejects and re-develops theories, as required by observed phenomena. Religon only accepts facts that support underlying dogma. All other facts are rejected. Science disdains ignorance. Religion depends upon ignorance. Using reason to examine facts is scientific research. Using reason to examine faith in dogma is heresay. And Christians are the worst. They just suck.
  14. Speaking of Shit

    King James Bible toilet paper.
×