Bill Nye slams creationism [Archive] - Page 3

redzero

09-06-2012, 05:03 PM

Nobody is lying or doing anything other than trying to talk about something far above Pink Unicorns:rolleyes Talk abouit stupid.

It is not about Pink Unicorns, you freaking idiot. You comically miss the point yet again. Replace Invisible Pink Unicorns with any other mythical being and the question still stands.

I'll dumb the question down so that you might actually understand my point:

If one person believes in <insert supernatural entity of your choosing here>, does that in and of itself prove that said being exists? Yes or no?

What great lengths will you go to dodge this simple question?

There is no ..yes/no..here. There are way too many things to take into consideration not surprised you aren't aware of that. You really don't seem to comphrehend anything. It's frustrating.

Thank you for defeating your own argument ad populum. It's hilarious how you try to oversimplify things by using the "If all these people believe in it, it must be true" argument, then turn around and criticize others for oversimifying things.

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:03 PM

Naturalism alone cannot account for the inception of life.

This is an argument from ignorance.

If we don't know what caused X, you don't get to fill it in with your favored theory.

We haven't yet figured out exactly how life sprang from non-life therefore God did it, is an argument from ignorance.

It has the same logical form as "We haven't yet figured out exactly how life sprang from non-life therefore Bigfoot did it".

2,000 years ago, we hadn't yet figure out what the sun was, so the prevailing theories of the time were sun-chariots of some sort.

This argument has already been pretty thoroughly debunked as spurious, decades ago when it was fist made.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

This assertion is dismissed.

Next fallacy?

Blake

09-06-2012, 05:03 PM

Trust me amigo the last thing you are is grown up. That's funny.

You're still pinked for being immature, princess. That's hilarious.

Work with me here...

The locals have talked about a giant creature in the woods, you know better than that so you take nothing with you while everyone else has a rifle. You head off west, everyone else in other directions, guess what...yep, a giant creature and he doesn't like you.

You didn't cover your ass because you are just too fucking smart to beleive in a giant creature, you need proof, well now you have it.

Yeah, that's beyond your usual stupid.

please move aside.

thanks

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:04 PM

If some of the brightest minds ever have come to the realization that our universe was created, how is it you all can nonchalantly ignore the significance of their realization?

Appeal to popularity.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

I can non-chalantly dismiss any logical fallacy, no matter how seemingly significant you might think it is. Someone in the future might discover some evidence that God exists, but people like you have yet to show any. Your claim, your burden of proof.

also debunked as spurious
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:05 PM

Nobody is lying or doing anything other than trying to talk about something far above Pink Unicorns:rolleyes Talk abouit stupid.

There is no ..yes/no..here. There are way too many things to take into consideration not surprised you aren't aware of that. You really don't seem to comphrehend anything. It's frustrating.

Ok, what needs to be taken into consideration?

What are we missing?

Do tell.

redzero

09-06-2012, 05:07 PM

Avante is purposefully being obtuse. It would be embarrassing if he actually does not understand the point I am trying to make.

Blake

09-06-2012, 05:09 PM

No...

The English during King John's time translated it from the Greek, who translated it from Hebrew.

How many inadequacies and revisionism might there be, intentional and accidental?

one error is enough to throw the entire Bible out as truth.

Sidebar: Why do you continue to talk out of your ass hole?

DMC

09-06-2012, 05:09 PM

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:11 PM

Trust me amigo the last thing you are is grown up. That's funny.

Work with me here...

The locals have talked about a giant creature in the woods, you know better than that so you take nothing with you while everyone else has a rifle. You head off west, everyone else in other directions, guess what...yep, a giant creature and he doesn't like you.

You didn't cover your ass because you are just too fucking smart to beleive in a giant creature, you need proof, well now you have it.

A variation on Pascal's wager.

With the exception that you have credible eye witnesses telling you something that they themselves have seen.

The other foil is that there tend to be no shortage of things in the woods that would require firearms to protectoneself, from, so there is a whole logic to taking firearms that is missing, but this line of reasoning is beside what you are getting at, so pardon my digression.

Work with me here:
You talk to 15 locals, each telling you about a huge creature in the woods. Each of them has a different story about how to repel this creature, some of them directly contradictory.

Who do you believe about how to repel this huge creature that you have no evidence for?

Avante

09-06-2012, 05:14 PM

You're still pinked for being immature, princess. That's hilarious.

Yeah, that's beyond your usual stupid.

please move aside.

thanks

You have shown me...0. There is no God because............? Hopefully you aren't stupid enought to..."can't see him".

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:14 PM

Who is arguing? I like "MOST" people aren't stupid enought to think all this just happened. That's for the dummies. I don't know what caused all this, but something did, right now God will have to do.

To think...oh it just happened...is ridiculous and stupid.

The question then is.. what made God happen?

To think God just happened... doesn't seem logical to me.

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:16 PM

Even more reason to ignore it as bunk.

Technically, KJB was from 3 different languages.

Translated by committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

DMC

09-06-2012, 05:17 PM

I know all about the CoN (Council of Nicaea). Accurate acronym however.

mouse

09-06-2012, 05:18 PM

People like mouse, know that they are being dishonest

Examples?

DMC

09-06-2012, 05:19 PM

Examples?
See posts under "Mouse" and about 200 other user names with the same M.O. which is to pretend you are completely autistic about science.

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:20 PM

If one person believes in <insert supernatural entity of your choosing here>, does that in and of itself prove that said being exists? Yes or no?

No, it does not.

Verifiable evidence, reproducible experiments performed by different people in different places at different times, would produce evidence, but a single person believing in something has no bearing whatsoever as to its truth.

e.g. Cosmored.

QED

mouse

09-06-2012, 05:24 PM

No, it does not.

Verifiable evidence, reproducible experiments performed by different people in different places at different times, would produce evidence, but a single person believing in something has no bearing whatsoever as to its truth.

Darwin did it.

Blake

09-06-2012, 05:25 PM

You have shown me...0. There is no God because............? Hopefully you aren't stupid enought to..."can't see him".

I don't have to show you anything.

If you make a claim that there is an invisible magic man out there, then you prove it.

It's already a foregone conclusion that the flying spaghetti monster is way past your comprehension of simple logic...

...so again, please get out of way, princess. Thanks.

redzero

09-06-2012, 05:25 PM

Darwin did it.

Well, there is your example of dishonesty.

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:25 PM

You have shown me...0. There is no God because............? Hopefully you aren't stupid enought to..."can't see him".

This is shifting the burden of proof.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

The claim that requires validating is:

There is a God.

The position that there is no God is presumed true, until proven otherwise to a reasonable degree.

Logic 101.

It isn't up to an Atheist to prove a negative. It is up to someone who claims God exists to prove that positive claim.

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:27 PM

Well, there is your example of dishonesty.

Don't have to wait too long for Alienz gotz da powaz to weigh in on how modern science is a spoooky conspiracy... whooooooo oooooohhhhh (scary ghost noises here)

Avante

09-06-2012, 05:29 PM

I entered this thread thinking...

There's a God or something out there.

I'm leaving now thinking....there's a God or something out there.

Pink Unicorns.....hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DMC

09-06-2012, 05:33 PM

I entered this thread thinking...

There's a God or something out there.

I'm leaving now thinking....there's a God or something out there.

Pink Unicorns.....hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why are you mad at the IPU? (Invisible Pink Unicorn)?

Maybe your life isn't going how YOU planned, the the IPU has plans for you and you just need to open your heart.

DMC

09-06-2012, 05:34 PM

I don't have to show you anything.

If you make a claim that there is an invisible magic man out there, then you prove it.

It's already a foregone conclusion that the flying spaghetti monster is way past your comprehension of simple logic...

...so again, please get out of way, princess. Thanks.
his noodley appendages be praised

Blake

09-06-2012, 05:36 PM

I entered this thread thinking...

There's a God or something out there.

I'm leaving now thinking....there's a God or something out there.

Pink Unicorns.....hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You entered this thread having once been pinked.

You are leaving this thread having once been pinked.

Hahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:37 PM

I entered this thread thinking...

There's a God or something out there.

I'm leaving now thinking....there's a God or something out there.

Pink Unicorns.....hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't answer my question.

What caused this God or something to exist in the first place?

redzero

09-06-2012, 05:39 PM

You didn't answer my question.

You are shit out of luck if you expect a serious argument with him.

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:45 PM

You are shit out of luck if you expect a serious argument with him.

I get that impression.

I get the impression of someone who is completely out of their depth, and who is just competant enough to realize it.

Unlike mouse, who is a Donning-Kruger poster child.

Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It (http://news.yahoo.com/incompetent-people-too-ignorant-know-175402902.html)

Dunning and his colleague, Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now at New York University, "have done a number of studies where we will give people a test of some area of knowledge like logical reasoning, knowledge about STDs and how to avoid them, emotional intelligence, etcetera. Then we determine their scores, and basically just ask them how well they think they've done," Dunning said. "We ask, 'what percentile will your performance fall in?'"

The results are uniform across all the knowledge domains: People who actually did well on the test tend to feel more confident about their performance than people who didn't do well, but only slightly. Almost everyone thinks they did better than average. "For people at the bottom who are really doing badly — those in the bottom 10th or 15th percentile — they think their work falls in the 60th or 55th percentile, so, above average," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries. The same pattern emerges in tests of people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess. "People at the bottom still think they're outperforming other people." [Graph]

It's not merely optimism, but rather that their total lack of expertise renders them unable to recognize their deficiency. Even when Dunning and his colleagues offer study participants a $100 reward if they can rate themselves accurately, they cannot. "They're really trying to be honest and impartial," he said.

RandomGuy

09-06-2012, 05:47 PM

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/images/i/1552/i02/incompetence.png?1330360292

Blake

09-06-2012, 05:47 PM

But seriously Avante, kudos to you for finally recognizing just how low your IQ is here and just bowing out.

Well done. :tu

Proxy

09-06-2012, 08:22 PM

Unlike mouse, who is a Donning-Kruger poster child.

Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It (http://news.yahoo.com/incompetent-people-too-ignorant-know-175402902.html)

Knowing that he isn't the only one who thinks like he does scares the shit out of me.

Agloco

09-06-2012, 08:59 PM

Between RG, DoK and DMC : thread = regulated.

mouse

09-06-2012, 08:59 PM

You didn't answer my question.

What caused this God or something to exist in the first place?

Why did WTC7 collapse? Why did Kurt kobain kill himself?

How many licks does it really take to get to the center of a totsie pop?

Just because you may not have the answer doesn't mean it didn't happen.

mouse

09-06-2012, 09:05 PM

Between RG, DoK and DMC : thread = regulated.

And that is what science is about regulating our opinions and thoughts
Don't think for yourselves people that's what us Scientits are here for you evolved from an ape just have fun with your short life soon you will be just another fossil in the geological colum

RandomGuy

09-07-2012, 10:01 AM

Why did WTC7 collapse? Why did Kurt kobain kill himself?

How many licks does it really take to get to the center of a totsie pop?

Just because you may not have the answer doesn't mean it didn't happen.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1316

Agloco

09-07-2012, 10:12 AM

Darwin did it.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-2deLTw-GILE/Tq6bS3lUfBI/AAAAAAAAEew/zeS2OA56FbQ/v3%257Camused%257C_img%257Cphone-tails.jpg

mouse

09-07-2012, 10:33 AM

now "your" reply.............not another Goggled image.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bored/mm1.jpg

mouse

09-07-2012, 10:57 AM

Agloco reduced to posting Gifs?

Do you want to borrow my red stapler?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bored/milton-st.jpg

Proxy

09-07-2012, 12:42 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex/?source=link_tw20120907news-menwomen&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_tw20120907news-menwomen&utm_campaign=Content

Clipper Nation

09-07-2012, 12:51 PM

While you're at it, also make sure to ask him why your god endorses destroying the Earth (Malachi 4:6), cutting your enemies into pieces (Psalm 58:6-7) and feeding their blood to your dog (Psalm 68:23), incest (Exodus 6:20), lying (1 Kings 22:21-22), discrimination against women (1 Timothy 2:11-12), stealing from your neighbors (Exodus 11:2), and being a judgmental prick (1 Corinthians 2:15).....

STILL no response from the evangelicals.... I guess they can't stand the fact that their god can easily be hung by what's advertised as his own words, tbh.....

RandomGuy

09-07-2012, 01:05 PM

STILL no response from the evangelicals.... I guess they can't stand the fact that their god can easily be hung by what's advertised as his own words, tbh.....

Jephthah Burns His Daughter

"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter." (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)

Josiah and Human Sacrifice

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to Jerusalem. King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: "You must celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of the Covenant." There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of Israel and Judah. This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during the eighteenth year of King Josiah's reign. Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since. (2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT)

Burn Nonbelievers

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

mouse

09-08-2012, 10:34 PM

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-2deLTw-GILE/Tq6bS3lUfBI/AAAAAAAAEew/zeS2OA56FbQ/v3%257Camused%257C_img%257Cphone-tails.jpg

At least the parent cell phone is showing the child cell Phone another "phone"

Proving "micro" evolution scientist today want you to believe in "macro" evelution and that the cell phone evolved from a cigarett lighter

Agloco

09-09-2012, 06:41 PM

Agloco reduced to posting Gifs?

It's what I deem your discussion of the matter worthy of.

Blake

09-09-2012, 08:09 PM

RandomGuy

09-10-2012, 11:06 AM

At least the parent cell phone is showing the child cell Phone another "phone"

Proving "micro" evolution scientist today want you to believe in "macro" evelution and that the cell phone evolved from a cigarette lighter

bzzt, wrong answer, and still a bad analogy.

https://communities.bmc.com/communities/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/38-3107-18603/353-235/phone_evolution.jpg

Humans still didn't evolve from snails, any more than the modern smartphone evolved from the thing with the hose.

Agloco

09-10-2012, 11:24 PM

Bad analogy per the usual

bzzt, wrong answer, and still a bad analogy.

https://communities.bmc.com/communities/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/38-3107-18603/353-235/phone_evolution.jpg

Humans still didn't evolve from snails, any more than the modern smartphone evolved from the thing with the hose.

I have faith in mouse. He will figure it out.

DMC

09-10-2012, 11:53 PM

Even mice have evolved.

Wild Cobra

09-11-2012, 02:23 AM

Even mice have evolved.
Well, I still use one with a tail. I know the newer wireless are better than what I bought years ago, but I can't stand even the slightest delay.

mouse

09-11-2012, 04:50 PM

I have faith in mouse. He will figure it out.

unfortunately I have very little faith in you ever getting my point

Blake

09-11-2012, 05:27 PM

unfortunately I have very little faith in you ever getting my point

Everyone gets your plagiarized points.

Unfortunately you don't get why they fail.

RandomGuy

09-11-2012, 05:28 PM

unfortunately I have very little faith in you ever getting my point

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/images/i/1552/i02/incompetence.png?1330360292

RandomGuy

09-11-2012, 05:31 PM

Everyone gets your plagiarized points.

Unfortunately you don't get why they fail.

I wonder why phenomanul slinked off...

Blake

09-11-2012, 07:41 PM

I wonder why phenomanul slinked off...

he went to church where they like him because anyone here that doesn't agree with him is biased and mean :cry

DMC

09-11-2012, 10:10 PM

Well, I still use one with a tail. I know the newer wireless are better than what I bought years ago, but I can't stand even the slightest delay.
I am talking about real mice. Electronics don't evolve in the Darwinian sense.

FuzzyLumpkins

09-11-2012, 10:14 PM

Wild Cobra

09-12-2012, 02:46 AM

I am talking about real mice. Electronics don't evolve in the Darwinian sense.

No shit Sherlock. Can't you tell I was having fun because of the telephone tail thing?

mouse

09-12-2012, 03:38 AM

Everyone gets your plagiarized points.

Unfortunately you don't get why they fail.

Post some proof my points are not legit.

Wild Cobra

09-12-2012, 03:40 AM

Post some proof my points are not legit.
Blake and I agree.

That should be good enough.

mouse

09-12-2012, 03:41 AM

What I want to know is how we are a different species than neanderthal or several other hominids we reproduced with. I thought being able to mate with and reproduce with something made you of the same species.

Are you trying to get these clueless Darwin Lovers heads to explode?

We haven't reached that far in the debate yet they are still stuck on outdated insults and no proof man Evolved from a snail.

mouse

09-12-2012, 03:43 AM

Blake and I agree.

That should be good enough.

I forgot this was paper rock and scissors. my bad you win I came from a Monkey .......happy now?

Wild Cobra

09-12-2012, 04:13 AM

I forgot this was paper rock and scissors. my bad you win I came from a Monkey .......happy now?
LOL...

I didn't know rodents came from monkeys.

I learned something new today!

Blake

09-12-2012, 09:00 AM

Post some proof my points are not legit.

every single time you plagiarize a creation website, someone posts proof why that material is junk.

At that point you either:

A. Plagiarize more junk from the creation website
B. Run away
C. Post a stupid jpeg

Fabbs

09-12-2012, 10:39 AM

A. Plagiarize more junk from the creation website

You keep spouting about plagiarizing. Do you claim to have set up a lab in your house and dug down and found the missing fossil? :lol

Blake

09-12-2012, 11:16 AM

You keep spouting about plagiarizing. Do you claim to have set up a lab in your house and dug down and found the missing fossil? :lol

of course I do, because if I didn't, that would mean I was a hypocrite for calling mouse out for plagiarizing.

:td

mouse

09-12-2012, 02:33 PM

I will Give Blake and his cronies until Saturday to post "solid" proof Man Evolved from a Primate.

Let me know if its not enough time.

Blake

09-12-2012, 03:04 PM

I will Give Blake and his cronies until Saturday to post "solid" proof Man Evolved from a Primate.

Let me know if its not enough time.

lol cronies

what happens if you don't get the proof by Saturday

Wild Cobra

09-12-2012, 03:21 PM

"I will give that gambling place 24 hours..."

DMC

09-12-2012, 04:35 PM

No shit Sherlock. Can't you tell I was having fun because of the telephone tail thing?
No, just figured you saw another opportunity to run your head about shit you Googled.

mouse

09-12-2012, 10:50 PM

lol cronies

what happens if you don't get the proof by Saturday

I will expose you and your misguided Darwin groupies for the lying frauds you all are.

Agloco

09-12-2012, 11:17 PM

unfortunately I have very little faith in you ever getting my point

Not all of us are MIT material or particle physicists mouse.

Sorry.

phyzik

09-13-2012, 01:31 AM

I will Give Blake and his cronies until Saturday to post "solid" proof Man Evolved from a Primate.

Let me know if its not enough time.

First things first...

We didnt evolve from apes. We were not monkeys that became human... If thats your understanding of evolution, then you dont understand evolution.

Get that straight. We had a common ape-like ancestor at some point in time and the evidence is overwhelming if you would just take the time to look it up.

here's a list of hommonid fossils that "connect the Dots" as we know them right now.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

The evidence is clear as day if you would just choose to look at it objectively.

This is HARD evidence, actual fossils, not some peter-pan fictional moral story out of a book written by man. It's all supported by peer-review and all carbon dated with every C14 scanner known to man.

Shit... who the fuck am I kidding, Im arguing with a moron that believes in conspiracy theories like we didnt land on the moon.

RandomGuy

09-13-2012, 11:43 AM

What I want to know is how we are a different species than neanderthal or several other hominids we reproduced with. I thought being able to mate with and reproduce with something made you of the same species.

The exact defintion of "species" is somewhat, um, fuzzy. :lol

Once you start delving into the actual current science and debate, there are several slightly differing definitions in the more advanced materials.

RandomGuy

09-13-2012, 11:58 AM

I will Give Blake and his cronies until Saturday to post "solid" proof Man Evolved from a Primate.

Let me know if its not enough time.

That information is there already, and is very readily available.

You would however, need to understand the vageries of bones, morphistic charactoristics, genetics, and fossil evidence.

Even were I to bother with it, you would simply cut and paste something and run off.

Trying to teach you valid science or debate scientific issues with you is a waste of time, and everybody here knows it.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/images/i/1552/i02/incompetence.png?1330360292

RandomGuy

09-13-2012, 11:59 AM

Shit... who the fuck am I kidding, Im arguing with a moron that believes in conspiracy theories like we didnt land on the moon.

http://www.managemywebsite.co.uk/storage/girl-shouting-at-brick-wall.jpg

Fabbs

09-13-2012, 02:13 PM

First things first...

Get that straight. We had a common ape-like ancestor at some point in time and the evidence is overwhelming if you would just take the time to look it up.

The evidence is clear as day if you would just choose to look at it objectively.

This is HARD evidence, actual fossils, not some peter-pan fictional moral story out of a book written by man. It's all supported by peer-review and all carbon dated with every C14 scanner known to man.
In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.

and

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. .Luck_The_Fakers_.Luck_The_Fakers_. If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Blake

09-13-2012, 02:18 PM

I will expose you and your misguided Darwin groupies for the lying frauds you all are.

You were exposed as an idiot long long ago.

Nothing about that will change after Saturday

DisAsTerBot

09-13-2012, 02:18 PM

Fabbs

09-13-2012, 02:19 PM

ah, and thus.........god and jesus and the bible, amen

:rollin
Insecure Evo man strikes again.

redzero

09-13-2012, 02:20 PM

In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.

and

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. .Luck_The_Fakers_.Luck_The_Fakers_. If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

So you are saying that just because there is fraud that ALL evidence must be thrown out? There's already scrutiny in the scientific community. Those frauds being found out is evidence of that.

Blake

09-13-2012, 02:21 PM

Blake

09-13-2012, 02:23 PM

Insecure Evo man strikes again.

Copy/pasting man fails again

Fabbs

09-13-2012, 02:48 PM

Future history books (or for that matter current ones)

Insecure SemiErectus Evo Man
Found remains of t-bone steak while digging under property. Surmised this made them hotshot hipster Evos as this must prove that humans evolved from t-bone steaks.

Becomes highly defensive-insecure when unsupported fabrications are questioned. Claims to get all information on their own but in reality simply absorbed readings of Evos.

DisAsTerBot

09-13-2012, 02:57 PM

Becomes highly defensive-insecure when unsupported fabrications are questioned. Claims to get all information on their own but in reality simply absorbed readings of Evos.

lol the irony

RandomGuy

09-13-2012, 04:55 PM

In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.

and

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. .Luck_The_Fakers_.Luck_The_Fakers_. If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Neither of those tidbids somehow disproves decades of science underlying the theory of evolution as the best fit for available evidence.

(edit)

You should however cite your source.

This bit has been spammed around the internets quite a bit.

Fabbs

09-13-2012, 05:48 PM

Neither of those tidbids somehow disproves decades of science underlying the theory of evolution as the best fit for available evidence.

(edit)

You should however cite your source.

This bit has been spammed around the internets quite a bit.
I didn't know i was under the burden of disproving decades of theories. Was just picking a couple points. Have yet to have pro Evo person respond to the point(s) in question. Are you saying Piltdown man was/is legit?

Also the quotes name the books authors.

mouse

09-14-2012, 07:46 AM

That information is there already, and is very readily available.

Link?

DMC

09-14-2012, 10:25 AM

Reading a science debate featuring Mouse is like watching a mud wrestling contest only the mud is actually shit and the contestants are two retarded, overweight balding men in their 50's.

Agloco

09-14-2012, 07:17 PM

Trying to teach you valid science or debate scientific issues with you is a waste of time, and everybody here knows it.

I've resorted to leaving 'serious' out of this "debate", and more generally whenever mouse is in the mix. You must admit though, these threads are good for a few chuckles in between sips of Marnier or whatever drink pleases you.

Agloco

09-14-2012, 07:18 PM

Reading a science debate featuring Mouse is like watching a mud wrestling contest only the mud is actually shit and the contestants are two retarded, overweight balding men in their 50's.

:lol

mouse

09-14-2012, 10:03 PM

A few outdated insults and poor attempts at humor and still no proof.

Tick tock ........

DMC

09-15-2012, 02:35 PM

You guys keep showing me proof, I can always just feign ignorance and switch personalities to get support. Besides, no one seems interested in my old "me" photos and the old crew doesn't come around any longer.

DMC

09-15-2012, 06:00 PM

_dRXA1_e30o

Start here Mr MIT dropout

MultiTroll

09-15-2012, 08:36 PM

A few outdated insults and poor attempts at humor and still no proof.

Tick tock ........
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wq12PhP4jSI/TcrYB1VfrvI/AAAAAAAAAEc/xIjghtnnMqI/s1600/getty_rm_photo_of_dog_straining_toward_steak_bone. jpg
The object on the left is clearly about ready to evolve into the object on the right.

mouse

09-15-2012, 08:48 PM

Still no proof looks like I made my point.

Blake

09-15-2012, 10:07 PM

Still no proof looks like I made my point.

No you didn't. You're stupid.

mouse

09-15-2012, 11:49 PM

No you didn't. You're stupid.

Just when you think the IQ bar can't be lowered any further.

10 minutes to Sunday and no proof.

Blake

09-15-2012, 11:59 PM

Just when you think the IQ bar can't be lowered any further.

10 minutes to Sunday and no proof.

plenty of proof that you are stupid.

Wild Cobra

09-16-2012, 12:13 AM

plenty of proof that you are stupid.
Blake, it's pretty bad when people of all types here say you are stupid. I say you are stupid too.

Blake

09-16-2012, 12:18 AM

Blake, it's pretty bad when people of all types here say you are stupid. I say you are stupid too.

I don't care what you think.

Because you are incredibly fucking stupid.

...It's what a very large number of people say about you.

DMC

09-16-2012, 12:42 AM

No one here can stupid me.

Muse likes to pretend that by demanding extraneous levels of evidence (that he won't even read) means he wins, as if the answer is "no" by default.

Wild Cobra

09-16-2012, 12:44 AM

No one here can out-stupid me.

Blake

09-16-2012, 12:46 AM

^^that was stupid

mouse

09-16-2012, 12:49 AM

Is that your way of saying you can't prove man evoked from a snail?

I can give you guys a 12 hour extension if your still gathering your research

DMC

09-16-2012, 12:54 AM

Is that your way of saying you can't prove man evoked from a snail?

I can give you guys a 12 hour extension if your still gathering your research
It's been proven that man (especially short, fat white men with long wavy hair who smoke and like to post pics of themselves online) evolved from mere elements.

Blake

09-16-2012, 12:55 AM

Is that your way of saying you can't prove man evoked from a snail?

I can give you guys a 12 hour extension if your still gathering your research

man didn't evolve from a snail. You've been told this numerous, numerous times.

Only someone that is incredibly stupid would keep demanding proof that humans evolved from a snail, when nobody is claiming that they did.

Agloco

09-16-2012, 01:00 AM

man didn't evolve from a snail. You've been told this numerous, numerous times.

Only someone that is incredibly stupid would keep demanding proof that humans evolved from a snail, when nobody is claiming that they did.

Meh, you'll have better luck drawing blood from a rock before mouse comes around.

mouse

09-16-2012, 01:43 AM

I can see the effects of drinking contaminated tap water has had it's effects on the memory of many in here so I will give you a pass and repeat myself as I have done in numourus topics about Evolution.

Scientist claim "all" <- (key word) life evolved from pools of liquid after the earth cooled down two billion years ago.

The tiny microbe grew legs and formed into a tiny creature until it slithered out of the pools of liquid. So if a snail somehow missed being part of that chain of life that evolved from the tiny microbe then I stand corrected.

mouse

09-16-2012, 07:57 AM

Straight from Science Sequence data
:lmao

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/sequence1.gif

I gave you fools plenty of time to produce any proof Darwin was right and you failed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/CheckmateProper.jpg/350px-CheckmateProper.jpg

Blake

09-16-2012, 11:30 AM

Meh, you'll have better luck drawing blood from a rock before mouse comes around.

Borat Sagyidev

09-16-2012, 12:11 PM

I gave you fools plenty of time to produce any proof Darwin was right and you failed.

It's not so much that Darwin is right as to how much you are wrong and go on blathering nonsense.

This is why Bill Nye had to say something. People like you are a plague to this country. I just visited China and it becoming clearly evident America is going to fall behind in technical industry the way this is going. In America, Bristol Palin gets more notoriety than George Hotz, while in Hong Kong...it would be the exact opposite.

You're religious beliefs are lies greatly exaggerated by power hungry, penile envious, largely caucasian males. This is why Wild Cobra supports you. It's all about power, it's the reason Pat Robertson is involved with Blood Diamonds. It's the reason why Catholic priests can molest boys and get away with it. Do you like being controlled? Just curious.

Oh, as per evidence.. but I doubt you understand more than 5 words in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous_recombination

DMC

09-16-2012, 12:25 PM

In some strange circles one can act an idiot for 10 years and be considered to have "owned" those standing around watching.

RandomGuy

09-17-2012, 11:19 AM

Straight from Science Sequence data
:lmao

I gave you fools plenty of time to produce any proof Darwin was right and you failed.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/images/i/1552/i02/incompetence.png?1330360292

You are too incompetant to recognize proof for what it is, or to understand the flaws in your own reasoning.

Presenting you with proof has been proven only to be a waste of time. I might as well as show information to the snails you say we evolved from.

RandomGuy

09-17-2012, 11:22 AM

man didn't evolve from a snail. You've been told this numerous, numerous times.

Only someone that is incredibly stupid would keep demanding proof that humans evolved from a snail, when nobody is claiming that they did.

Next he is going to claim his cousin vinny is his grandfather.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1642

mouse

09-17-2012, 06:00 PM

It's not so much that Darwin is right as to how much you are wrong and go on blathering nonsense.

Excuse me did you prove Evolution on a previous page?

Was the challenge to difficult to understand?

You guys want to slam others for not believing in Darwin and Bill Nye and yet you can't even support your own theories?

This topic needs to be renamed Bill Nye slams creationism but wont support his followers in the Club who are getting slammed by Mose

This is why Bill Nye had to say something. People like you are a plague to this country. I just visited China and it becoming clearly evident America is going to fall behind in technical industry the way this is going. In America, Bristol Palin gets more notoriety than George Hotz, while in Hong Kong...it would be the exact opposite.

You're religious beliefs are lies greatly exaggerated by power hungry, penile envious, largely caucasian males. This is why Wild Cobra supports you. It's all about power, it's the reason Pat Robertson is involved with Blood Diamonds. It's the reason why Catholic priests can molest boys and get away with it. Do you like being controlled? Just curious.

Oh, as per evidence.. but I doubt you understand more than 5 words in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous_recombination

this quote is so far off I may need to grab a beer brb...

mouse

09-17-2012, 06:19 PM

PS: It's now Monday two days past the Saturday deadline and still not one of you have posted any Proof.

why is that?

Blake

09-17-2012, 06:19 PM

Poor mouse.

Everyone gets it but you. :cry

mouse

09-17-2012, 06:31 PM

So this is your white flag?

http://neorepublica.com/media/blogs/republica/white-flag.jpg

let me know so I can start making screen shots of this topic for the next Evolution topic we meet in where you say there is "proof" Darwin was right.

Blake

09-17-2012, 07:15 PM

Poor mouse.

The creator wasn't kind to you.

mouse

09-17-2012, 07:39 PM

Poor mouse.

The creator wasn't kind to you.

Dude face it you lost this debate just try to perform some sort of damage control and move on to the next topic.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture001.jpg

Blake

09-17-2012, 08:41 PM

a jpeg of your room!

no way did I see that coming!

Wild Cobra

09-18-2012, 03:25 AM

Mouse, that does seem a bit tacky...

mouse

09-18-2012, 11:47 AM

Mouse, that does seem a bit tacky...

Tacky? You do realize I am talking to Blake right?

Well its now Tuesday and still no proof?
I think the (intelligent) readers of this topic know who lost this debate.

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:19 PM

How an industrial accident has helped evolutionary theory

SOMETIMES, scientific results come from the most unlikely places. The aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, for example, might reasonably be expected to have revealed the effects of radiation on health. That it casts light on the theory of sexual selection as well is a bit of a surprise.

That, nevertheless, is the inference of a paper by Anders Moller of Pierre & Marie Curie University in Paris, and Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina. Dr Moller and Dr Mousseau have been looking at bird life around the wrecked reactor. One of their conclusions, just published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, is that colourful species have done less well than dull ones. Since colourful plumage is almost always a sexual signal, understanding why is instructive.

The data come from a census of 57 bird species that the researchers carried out in the area affected by the radioactive plume from the accident. When due allowance was made for habitat differences, they found that species which relied on a class of chemicals called carotenoids to tint their feathers fared worse when there was more radioactivity around. Intriguingly, that did not apply to birds that used melanin, another pigment, in their plumage, nor to those that employed iridescence—which is a result of the structure of feathers, rather than their chemistry.

Besides acting as pigments, carotenoids are antioxidants that have an important role in protecting DNA from harm. One of the ways that radiation causes harm is by generating molecules that promote oxidation, so a good supply of carotenoids protects against such damage. Using them to make feathers pretty instead of mopping up oxidative molecules thus has a significant cost—as this result shows.

The reason this is interesting is that there is a debate in biology between those who think signals such as flashy feathers are essentially arbitrary and those who think they are signs of underlying health and good genes. Dr Moller's and Dr Mousseau's result shows that the bright reds and yellows of carotenoid-based plumage really do come at a price, and thus indicate underlying health. The unusual circumstances of Chernobyl have exposed that price to human observers, but it will have to be paid all the time, even in places that have not fallen foul of radioactive plumes.

The costs of melanin-based plumage and iridescence are clearly different from this. No doubt they exist, but it would be nice to think that the experiment needed to expose them is not quite so drastic as an exploding reactor.

from the print edition | Science and technology

http://www.economist.com/node/9468786

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:21 PM

The nature of man
Large-scale genetic studies are throwing light on what makes humans human

HUMANS are peculiar as a species, so what makes them so must be hidden in their genome. To an almost disconcerting extent, though, the human genome looks similar to the genomes of other primates, especially when it comes to the particular proteins it allows cells to make. The powerful new ways of looking at the genome being pioneered by the ENCODE consortium (see article), though, provide ways to seek out the subtle species-specific signals. Lucas Ward and Manolis Kellis of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report on the results of such sleuthing in a paper just published in Science.

The two researchers used data from ENCODE to identify the bits of the genome that actually do things and data from the 1,000 Genomes Project, which has studied human-genome variation across hundreds of people, to discover how much these functional elements vary from person to person. In particular, they looked for telltales that an element is being maintained by natural selection. If something is evolutionarily important then random variations in its DNA sequence will be slowly eliminated from the population, keeping it on the functional straight and narrow in a process known as purifying selection.

Dr Ward and Dr Kellis found that, in addition to the 5% of human DNA that is conserved between mammals, an additional 4% of human DNA appears to be uniquely human in the sense that it is prone to purifying selection in humans but not in other mammals. Much of this proprietary DNA is involved in regulating gene activity—for example, controlling how much of a protein is produced, rather than changing the nature of the protein itself. This finding is in line with modern thinking that a lot of evolutionary change is connected with regulatory elements rather than actual protein structure. The researchers also found that long non-coding segments that are not conserved in other mammals are in fact highly constrained in humans, suggesting they have human-specific functions.

Some areas identified as particularly human are the regulation of the cone cells of the retina (which are involved in colour vision) and the regulation of nerve-cell growth. These processes evolved rapidly in man’s primate ancestors but are now under strong purifying selection to maintain their beneficial functions. The implications of that, given humanity’s main distinguishing feature—its huge brain—are obvious. Dr Ward and Dr Kellis have thus created a powerful tool for investigating in detail just what it is that makes a human being human.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562185

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:23 PM

WOMEN have to get their reproducing done early. The menopause curtails it, and even before that a woman’s fertility falls significantly over the years. Men—those who can find willing partners, at least—do not suffer in quite the same way, as many stories of celebrity elder fathers testify. But perhaps such ageing Lotharios should think twice, for evidence is accumulating that their offspring are at greater-than-average risk of genetic disease.

The latest study to this effect has just been published in Nature by Kari Stefansson and his colleagues at deCODE Genetics, a genetic-analysis company based in Reykjavik that was founded to take advantage of Iceland’s excellent medical records and its unique genealogical history. Recent immigrants apart, the relationship of almost everybody on the island to everybody else is known back as far as the first census, in 1703. In many cases it is known back to the first human settlement of the island, in 874.

Dr Stefansson’s study does not reach as far back as that. He and his colleagues examined 78 trios of father, mother and child who are all still alive. In some cases they looked at grandchildren as well. Their goal was to examine the number of new mutations—traits not found in the normal body cells of either parent—in children.

The average answer is about 63. That number, however, varies widely—and the main factor involved in this variation is the age of the father. Mothers transmitted an average of 14 mutations to their children, regardless of age. Fathers showed a much wider range: 20-year-olds passed on an average of 29 mutations; 30-year-olds (the average age of fatherhood in Dr Stefansson’s sample) passed on 49; and 40-year-olds passed 69.

That it is the father, rather than the mother, who causes this effect is probably because a woman’s eggs are created early on, when she is still in her mother’s womb, and are then put into what is, in effect, physiological deep-freeze until they are required for ovulation. Sperm, by contrast, are made continuously throughout life, and each division of their precursor cells brings risk of a misinterpretation of the DNA, and thus a mutation.

Dr Stefansson’s work adds to an existing body of research on the effect of paternal age. Previous studies have linked older fathers with higher rates of schizophrenia and autism in their offspring. In April three teams of researchers identified specific mutations that increase the chance of autism; all three observed that the risk of such mutations in a child rose with his father’s age at conception. But Dr Stefansson and his team are the first to measure the impact of older fathers so precisely.

Modern genomics made their task easier. After sequencing the genomes of each of the people involved, tallying the new mutations in the children was simply a matter of comparing the sequences of the parents with those of their offspring. Though both mother and father contribute to a child’s DNA, their contributions come in large, identifiable blocks. If a mutation is seen, its parentage is thus obvious.

There is, of course, the question of how much this matters, for most mutations have little effect—and a rare few, the stuff of evolution, are actually beneficial. According to Alexey Kondrashov of the University of Michigan, an expert on the matter who wrote an article in Nature to accompany Dr Stefansson’s study, about 10% of mutations are damaging. This means that for the average baby, six of Dr Stefansson’s 63 mutations are probably up to no good.

In Iceland, the average age of fathers at conception has risen from 28 in 1980 to 33 in 2011. Over the same period Dr Stefansson estimates that the number of new mutations in Iceland’s newborns jumped by more than 17%.

Whether that has implications for the country’s overall health remains to be seen. In the grand scheme of things, the negative effect of extra mutations is likely to be countervailed by the positive effects of modern life: better nutrition, hygiene and sanitation, as well as better medical care. But Dr Stefansson’s results do give pause for thought. Some women—those undergoing cancer-related hysterectomy, for example—have eggs frozen before their operations. In the fullness of time, perhaps men will think likewise and have some of the sperm of their carefree, mutation-free youths frozen in case they fancy a little procreation in their old age.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.economist.com/node/21560836

(this one offers some rather particularly good evidence, as the theory of evolution predicts a lot of the things that were found, evolutionary theory not only explains, but it PREDICTS new things, that is one of its strengths)

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:27 PM

The human microbiome
Me, myself, us
Looking at human beings as ecosystems that contain many collaborating and competing species could change the practice of medicine
--------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT’S a man? Or, indeed, a woman? Biologically, the answer might seem obvious. A human being is an individual who has grown from a fertilised egg which contained genes from both father and mother. A growing band of biologists, however, think this definition incomplete. They see people not just as individuals, but also as ecosystems. In their view, the descendant of the fertilised egg is merely one component of the system. The others are trillions of bacteria, each equally an individual, which are found in a person’s gut, his mouth, his scalp, his skin and all of the crevices and orifices that subtend from his body’s surface.

A healthy adult human harbours some 100 trillion bacteria in his gut alone. That is ten times as many bacterial cells as he has cells descended from the sperm and egg of his parents. These bugs, moreover, are diverse. Egg and sperm provide about 23,000 different genes. The microbiome, as the body’s commensal bacteria are collectively known, is reckoned to have around 3m. Admittedly, many of those millions are variations on common themes, but equally many are not, and even the number of those that are adds something to the body’s genetic mix.

And it really is a system, for evolution has aligned the interests of host and bugs. In exchange for raw materials and shelter the microbes that live in and on people feed and protect their hosts, and are thus integral to that host’s well-being. Neither wishes the other harm. In bad times, though, this alignment of interest can break down. Then, the microbiome may misbehave in ways which cause disease.

That bacteria can cause disease is no revelation. But the diseases in question are. Often, they are not acute infections of the sort 20th-century medicine has been so good at dealing with (and which have coloured doctors’ views of bacteria in ways that have made medical science slow to appreciate the richness and relevance of people’s microbial ecosystems). They are, rather, the chronic illnesses that are now, at least in the rich world, the main focus of medical attention. For, from obesity and diabetes, via heart disease, asthma and multiple sclerosis, to neurological conditions such as autism, the microbiome seems to play a crucial role.

bug’s life

One way to think of the microbiome is as an additional human organ, albeit a rather peculiar one. It weighs as much as many organs (about a kilogram, or a bit more than two pounds). And although it is not a distinct structure in the way that a heart or a liver is distinct, an organ does not have to have form and shape to be real. The immune system, for example, consists of cells scattered all around the body but it has the salient feature of an organ, namely that it is an organised system of cells.

The microbiome, too, is organised. Biology recognises about 100 large groups of bacteria, known as phyla, that each have a different repertoire of biochemical capabilities. Human microbiomes are dominated by just four of these phyla: the Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria. Clearly, living inside a human being is a specialised existence that is appropriate only to certain types of bug.

Specialised; but not monotonous. Just as ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and coral reefs differ from place to place, so it is with microbiomes. Those of children in Malawi and rural Venezuela, for instance, contain more riboflavin-producing bugs than do those of North Americans. They are also better at extracting nutrition from mother’s milk because they turn out lots of an enzyme known as glycoside hydrolase. This converts carbohydrates called glycans, of which milk has many, into usable sugars.

That detail is significant. Glycans are indigestible by any enzyme encoded in the 23,000 human genes. Only bacterial enzymes can do the job. Yet natural selection has stuffed milk full of them—a nice example of co-evolution at work.

This early nutritional role, moreover, is magnified throughout life. Like the glycans in milk, a lot of carbohydrates would be indigestible if all the digestive system had to work with were the enzymes that it makes for itself. The far larger genome of the microbiome has correspondingly greater capabilities, and complex carbohydrates are no match for it. They are relentlessly chewed up and their remains spat out as small fatty-acid molecules, particularly formic acid, acetic acid and butyric acid, that can pass through the gut wall into the bloodstream—whence they are fed into biochemical pathways that either liberate energy from them (10-15% of the energy used by an average adult is generated this way) or lay them down as fat.

--------------------

I will end it there, but the full article is worth reading.
http://www.economist.com/node/21560523

More science that uses evolutionary theory to predict things, and where findings support the theory of evolution.

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:30 PM

Health indicators
On the face of it
More evidence that symmetrical features indicate good health
BEAUTY may be in the eye of the beholder, but a symmetrical face is usually a big help. In contrast, asymmetry is often associated with malignance. Biologists have long speculated why this is. In theory, evolution provides a logical answer: unfit individuals are less likely than fitter folk to be able to maintain the symmetrical development of their bodies when exposed to stress and disease. In other words, many parts of the body are supposed to be symmetrical, so any deviation from perfect symmetry indicates that an animal has not been able to grow as intended. As an animal is unlikely to want to mix its genes with an unfit or diseased partner, evolution selects symmetry as an attractive trait.

Whether asymmetry and poor health or fitness really go hand in hand has not been easy to prove. Research on this in humans causes ethical problems and can raise hackles. Now a new study conducted with macaque monkeys hints that there is indeed a connection.

Previous studies with macaques have demonstrated that the animals will gaze longer at symmetrical faces than they do at asymmetric ones, which could be interpreted as the monkeys finding such faces more attractive. The results of these studies have led researchers to believe that the monkeys have a preference for symmetry just as humans do. However, a clear connection between health and symmetry had not been made.

Fascinated by this question, Anthony Little of the University of Stirling in Scotland and Annika Paukner of the National Institutes of Health in America established a new study with 93 female macaque monkeys. The monkeys came from three different groups (it was difficult to find one large group) and had been raised in some degree of captivity. All of the monkeys, between the ages of five and 20, were photographed, face forward.

Dr Little and his colleagues analysed facial symmetry using a computer to measure the distance of various features, like the edges of the nostrils, lips and eyes, from a line drawn down the centre of the monkey’s face. These distances were then compared and any differences between them (say, from one nostril and another) were added to an overall asymmetry score. Thus a perfectly symmetrical face, with eyes, lips and nostrils exactly the same distance from the central line, would earn a score of zero. A highly asymmetric one would score the sum of all the distance differences between features on the face.

The team then considered the overall health of the monkeys during their first four years of life. This comparison was made from veterinary records and evidence of health problems. The researchers looked out for minor wounds that had been noted by staff but left to heal on their own; major wounds such as bites that required stitches; levels of subcutaneous fat and muscle; the quality of their coat; and their weight gain. These health factors were compiled into two scores, one reflecting wounds and one reflecting the monkey’s general condition, and they were compared with the asymmetry scores.

Dr Little and his colleagues report in Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology that whereas wounds showed no relationship to asymmetry, as the monkeys’ condition scores declined so too did their facial-symmetry results. The researchers argue that this health connection is what makes macaque monkeys look longer at symmetrical faces than they do at uneven ones. Thus facial symmetry really does appear to be an indicator of health, at least among macaques. And what is true for them is likely to be true for people too.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562896

------------------

Note, this particular bit is quite similar to the one on Chernobyl, thematically, in that it details the mechanisms and results of sexual selection and how that affects evolution.

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:34 PM

Bacterial flagellum.

"nuff said.

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:36 PM

The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine
Molecular machines drive essential biological processes, with the component parts of these machines each contributing a partial function or structural element. Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular machines for protein transport. How these molecular machines evolved is a fundamental question. Mitochondria were derived from an α-proteobacterial endosymbiont, and we identified in α-proteobacteria the component parts of a mitochondrial protein transport machine. In bacteria, the components are found in the inner membrane, topologically equivalent to the mitochondrial proteins. Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general.

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:36 PM

Mouse's response to this will be blandly predictable.

He will simply copy and paste articles from creationist websites, without addressing any of the evidence I have just presented.

Mouse does not understand the theory of evolution. He is too incompetant to understand that he does not understand the theory.

Instead, he will make something up about what evolution is, then "disprove" this non-existant theory using someone elses words, and brag about how much smarter he is than "Darwinists".

The rest of us who understand what the theory of evolution is, will then watch this well-played out spectacle.

RandomGuy

09-18-2012, 12:41 PM

Dance monkey, er mouse.

Dance.

I take it all back, if you can state, in your own words what the theory of evolution actually is.

Blake

09-18-2012, 01:05 PM

Tacky? You do realize I am talking to Blake right?

Well its now Tuesday and still no proof?
I think the (intelligent) readers of this topic know who lost this debate.

They all know its not a debate

mouse

09-18-2012, 02:57 PM

Mouse's response to this will be blandly predictable.

He will simply copy and paste articles.

So all that you posted was your original words?

mouse

09-18-2012, 03:01 PM

They all know its not a debate

So over 25 pages is just deep conversation?

Face it your circling the drain your all out of excuses and you had plenty of time to prove to all of us Darwin was right and you failed miserably.

You can move on or keep debating errr... I mean disagreeing with me but the truth is 25 pages don't lie.

mouse

09-18-2012, 03:05 PM

Alright to be fair I will voluntary extend the deadline to 11:00 pm tonight for many of you misguided people to post proof man evolved from a primate.

tick tock

Blake

09-18-2012, 03:11 PM

So over 25 pages is just deep conversation?

Face it your circling the drain your all out of excuses and you had plenty of time to prove to all of us Darwin was right and you failed miserably.

You can move on or keep debating errr... I mean disagreeing with me but the truth is 25 pages don't lie.

the evidence you are asking for have been posted here many times. It is also readily available by typing it into google.

Face it. You are stupid.

mouse

09-18-2012, 04:04 PM

the evidence you are asking for have been posted here many times.

show me

Face it. You are stupid.

very mature

6 hours and 54 minutes left.........tick tock

Blake

09-18-2012, 05:13 PM

show me

RG already did. you're too stupid to know it.

very mature

6 hours and 54 minutes left.........tick tock

Very stupid

mouse

09-18-2012, 07:14 PM

RG already did. you're too stupid to know it.

And how long would it take to post the link?

Very stupid

If you actually knew the definition of Stupid you would have stopped replying 23 pages ago.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Mark-Allen-MIT_zps17fbdd72.jpg

mouse

09-18-2012, 07:23 PM

What BLAKE,RandomLie,Deadzero.Wild Conya,and Agloco wont explain is if Darwin was right and Scientist confirm Evolution took place as a result of the big bang that still doesn't explain all the 105 elements we now have when the big bang only produced helium and hydrogen? Elements don't evolve.

This is the shit they avoid.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Mark-Allen-MIT%20(4)_zps7d14bd00.jpg

Blake

09-18-2012, 07:51 PM

You're too stupid to know that you are stupid by definition.

phyzik

09-18-2012, 09:00 PM

Not that this is going to convince Mouse, given all the tons of data already provided in many other threads....

Five proofs of evolution

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please Watch this video (http://www.evolutionfaq.com/videos/transitional-fossils) for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (Source (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full)), 80% with cows (Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5926/522)), 75% with mice (Source (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112)), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

phyzik

09-18-2012, 09:03 PM

Now, after that, MANY people have provided TONS of scientific peer-reviewed data about evolution....

Please provide scientifically hard peer-reviewed "proof" The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Sounds like an awesome plot for some anime Dragon-ball Z-type cartoon....Do you trully believe that?

If you even doubt one part of that, than you admit that "gods" word is in fact fallable. The "book", by definition, is said to be words directly from god... No "anecdotal" or "interpritation"... It is what he says it is according to the faith.

If you do, in fact, believe that nonsense, please provide hard evidence of any of that to have ever happened. Be it walking on water, talking snake, a man having 1 less rib than a woman, the dead rising from the grave or a magical tree.

Please.... The Onus is on you now... We have presented facts as far as we know them, its on you to prove to us that we are wrong...

Show us the evidence.... Not "faith based" but actual, testable, hard evidence.

You wanted to test us and we came up with verifiable scientific peer-reviewed results...

Its your turn.

Remember, I can claim a teapot orbits Jupiter all I want, its on me to prove it.

The ball is in your court now... What hard evidence do you have?

I'll give you a hint: None.

Its your turn Mouse... Time to stop questioning science... Its time for you to prove your side with verifiable science and hard facts.

A few things I would like you to prove...

1. Human conception without a partner.

2. Walking on water.

3. turning water into wine.

4. Raising from the dead.

Dont get me wrong, I believe Jesus was a real person.... but he was just a man... Nothing more than the guy I see on the intersection of 410 and Callaghan claiming to be a prophet.

People just aren't as ignorant as they were 2000 years ago, although you are extremely convincing in making me think otherwise, and thats sad.

redzero

09-18-2012, 09:44 PM

I don't think mouse is Christian. He does believe that aliens made humans, so you should probably pursue that line of questioning.

phyzik

09-18-2012, 09:51 PM

I don't think mouse is Christian. He does believe that aliens made humans, so you should probably pursue that line of questioning.

That could be true, and I wouldnt deny the possibility if thats were he is coming from, but Mouse has always been past the borders of science.

I dont know how long you have been around redzero, but Mouse believes that the moon landing was a hoax, that 9/11 was an inside job, and many other crazy conspiracy theories.

Bottom line, I probably wasted my time giving the evidence to him, he will just dismiss it as more propoganda and will probably think I work for the government and have a black van outside his house surveying him.

He is that delusional.

DMC

09-18-2012, 10:08 PM

I don't think mouse is Christian. He does believe that aliens made humans, so you should probably pursue that line of questioning.
There's no way of knowing what Mouse believes. Everything he says is a lie and an attempt to solict a response. He's so enamored with the trolling concept that he's sold his life to it.

Blake

09-18-2012, 10:21 PM

I don't think mouse is Christian. He does believe that aliens made humans, so you should probably pursue that line of questioning.

when asked who made those aliens, he usually melts down and just posts a picture of himself laying in front of his 1989 Zenith TV

Wild Cobra

09-19-2012, 03:06 AM

What BLAKE,RandomLie,Deadzero.Wild Conya,and Agloco wont explain is if Darwin was right and Scientist confirm Evolution took place as a result of the big bang that still doesn't explain all the 105 elements we now have when the big bang only produced helium and hydrogen? Elements don't evolve.

First of all, if you think about it, I have said things that support or dismiss views from both sides. As for elements, do you know what fusion is?

Avante

09-19-2012, 04:06 AM

Clipper Nation

09-19-2012, 07:16 AM

Does she really love me, I can't prove it but prefer to believe she is telling the truth. It makes me feel better. This believing in "a" God is like that, some things simply don't have to..."could you prove it huh? huh? huh?" You just go with it.
And that's fine, but when Christianity stops being that and starts being an excuse to make bigoted laws and ostracize all non-Christian religions (and atheists), then it becomes an issue.....

RandomGuy

09-19-2012, 10:32 AM

And how long would it take to post the link?

If you actually knew the definition of Stupid you would have stopped replying 23 pages ago.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Mark-Allen-MIT_zps17fbdd72.jpg

I put links to each article.

Is that what you are looking for?

RandomGuy

09-19-2012, 10:36 AM

Mouse's response to this will be blandly predictable.

He will simply copy and paste articles from creationist websites, without addressing any of the evidence I have just presented.

Instead, he will make something up about what evolution is, then "disprove" this non-existant theory using someone elses words, and brag about how much smarter he is than "Darwinists".

What BLAKE,RandomLie,Deadzero.Wild Conya,and Agloco wont explain is if Darwin was right and Scientist confirm Evolution took place as a result of the big bang that still doesn't explain all the 105 elements we now have when the big bang only produced helium and hydrogen? Elements don't evolve.

This is the shit they avoid.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Mark-Allen-MIT%20(4)_zps7d14bd00.jpg

:lmao

You copied and pastde articles from creationist websites, without addressing any of the evidence I have just presented, then went on to make something up about what evolution is, then "disprove"d this non-existant theory using someone elses words, and bragged about how much smarter you are than "Darwinists".

:rollin

RandomGuy

09-19-2012, 10:39 AM

There's no way of knowing what Mouse believes. Everything he says is a lie and an attempt to solict a response. He's so enamored with the trolling concept that he's sold his life to it.

Eyup.

That's why putting much effort into responding to the troll stuff... isn't worth it.

Agloco

09-19-2012, 11:13 PM

Agloco

09-19-2012, 11:19 PM

Elements don't evolve.

Their nuclei do fuse and/or absorb other baryons though.

Come on mouse, you can do better than this.

DMC

09-19-2012, 11:29 PM

Does she really love me, I can't prove it but prefer to believe she is telling the truth. It makes me feel better. This believing in "a" God is like that, some things simply don't have to..."could you prove it huh? huh? huh?" You just go with it.

Wow. You really have no fucking idea when it comes to epistemology if you think forcing a belief in an all knowing invisible sky daddy equates to believing your wife loves you because she sucks your dick even though you have to lift your 120lb ponch with both hands just to see it.

Avante

09-20-2012, 12:05 AM

Wow. You really have no fucking idea when it comes to epistemology if you think forcing a belief in an all knowing invisible sky daddy equates to believing your wife loves you because she sucks your dick even though you have to lift your 120lb ponch with both hands just to see it.

Don't you ever get tired of this..."aren't I sooo funny?"..bit? Dude, who you talking to? You sure in the fuck ain't talking to me with that silly ass bullshit. So why even bother with it? Talk like an intelligent adult not some punk ass kid...ok? I know. I know you need to showoff in front of everyone, that is so fucking immature.

Listen up amigo, the point was hell no we can't prove every fucking thing, ya reckon? So to play this totally idiotic..."I can't see Him"...that is so fucking lame. Do you buy into that silliness, you do don't you?

So tell me slick how come far ...FAR.. more people believe in "a" God than don't......well?

Your parents did a piss poor job raising your dumb ass. Talking about sex between a man and his wife....??? Dude, where's some class?

redzero

09-20-2012, 12:14 AM

Avante's analogies are embarrassing.

Avante

09-20-2012, 12:19 AM

Avante's analogies are embarrassing.

Think about, can we prove emotions? No we can't, so what do we do? We go with what feels the best. Prove jealousy, envy, hate, love. Who can prove they really feel that way? They really can't.

redzero

09-20-2012, 12:24 AM

Think about, can we prove emotions?

Prove to whom and why? I know that I am angry because I am angry. Other people know that I am angry because of the way I behave. There are traits one associates with anger. This can be observed.

Also, the brain itself reacts in different ways based on mood. This has been observed.

Your comparison fails completely because one can actually observe and feel emotions. Nobody has observed God. Can we know with absolute certainty (something you will undoubtedly bring up in your response to this post) what somebody is feeling all the time? No, but there are signs. There are no signs of God.

mouse

09-20-2012, 12:26 AM

Their nuclei do fuse and/or absorb other baryons though.

Come on mouse, you can do better than this.

Scientist claim helium and hydrogen were the "only" two elements
Around during the " big bang" elements don't evolve not to mention the synthetic ones we have. I didn't write this shit go after the science text books

mouse

09-20-2012, 12:32 AM

First of all, if you think about it, I have said things that support or dismiss views from both sides. As for elements, do you know what fusion is?

You can pull out the fusion card all day long you don't get over 105 elements from helium and hydrogen do more research

Avante

09-20-2012, 12:40 AM

Prove to whom and why? I know that I am angry because I am angry. Other people know that I am angry because of the way I behave. There are traits one associates with anger. This can be observed.

Also, the brain itself reacts in different ways based on mood. This has been observed.

Your comparison fails completely because one can actually observe and feel emotions. Nobody has observed God. Can we know with absolute certainty (something you will undoubtedly bring up in your response to this post) what somebody is feeling all the time? No, but there are signs. There are no signs of God.

Obviously ..OBVIOUSLY..I'm not talking about someone knowing their feelings. I'm talking about trying to convey your emotions to someone else and proving them. How do they know you aren't lying? They don't!

There are no signs of God? Are you serious? Do you honestly believe He hasn't answered prayers? I had a prayer answered myself.

Doesn't it bug you living in a world where nobody really buys into your...bah humbugging? All those churches, all those Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Buddists etc etc. When does it hit you that just maybe people prefer a God in their life? What you play totally sucks.

redzero

09-20-2012, 12:49 AM

Obviously ..OBVIOUSLY..I'm not talking about someone knowing their feelings. I'm talking about trying to convey your emotions to someone else and proving them. How do they know you aren't lying? They don't!

I predicted that you would try to use absolute certainty, and I was absolutely correct. AGAIN, because you didn't read it the first time, there are traits associated with emotions. If somebody was smiling, you would think that they are happy, correct? Can one know with absolute certainty if that person is happy? No, but one can make a reasonable conclusion based on what they observed.

There are no signs of God? Are you serious?Of course.

Do you honestly believe He hasn't answered prayers?Of course, prayers haven't been answered.

I had a prayer answered myself.Do you have any evidence of divine intervention, or did something that you want to happen, happen?

Doesn't it bug you living in a world where nobody really buys into your...bah humbugging?I don't bah humbug.

When does it hit you that just maybe people prefer a God in their life?That's not the issue here and never has been. Obviously, many people believe that a god exists for comfort. Does that make a god exist? No. Wanting something to be real doesn't make it real.

What you play totally sucks.Excuse me for not letting my emotions cloud my judgement to the point that I would believe in fairy tales.

I want to believe in something because I have a good reason to believe in it. I don't think your reasons are good, so I don't believe. It's that simple.

But of course, you're going to ignore the points I made like you always do, because you never want to have a serious discussion about anything.

mouse

09-20-2012, 12:54 AM

Dance monkey, er mouse.

Dance.

I take it all back, if you can state, in your own words what the theory of evolution actually is.

It's a "theory"

Just like any other religion.

Scientist and many Darwin whorshipers work day and night to prove man evouled from ape. That is why the cable tv if full of shows like
The universe

Is there life out there

The beginning of life

How we got here

The days of the dinosaurs

Life on our planet and how we came about

Tons of tv shows on history channel national geographic dyscovery channel

And they all promote Darwin and start off the show saying 4 billion years ago.....

Talk about brain washing on an epic scale.
It's no wonder we have so many clueless people in this forum.

Thursday morning and still no poof......

Avante

09-20-2012, 12:58 AM

I predicted that you would try to use absolute certainty, and I was absolutely correct. AGAIN, because you didn't read it the first time, there are traits associated with emotions. If somebody was smiling, you would think that they are happy, correct? Can one know with absolute certainty if that person is happy? No, but one can make a reasonable conclusion based on what they observed.

Of course.

Of course, prayers haven't been answered.

Do you have any evidence of divine intervention, or did something that you want to happen, happen?

I don't bah humbug.

That's not the issue here and never has been. Obviously, many people believe that a god exists for comfort. Does that make a god exist? No. Wanting something to be real doesn't make it real.

Excuses me for not letting my emotions cloud my judgement to the point that I would believe in fairy tales.

I want to believe in something because I have a good reason to believe in it. I don't think your reasons are good, so I don't believe. It's that simple.

But of course, you're going to ignore the points I made like you always do, because you never want to have a serious discussion about anything.

We are talking absolutes. Can you prove your emotions, no you can't. You can talk about how you feel all you want, you cannot prove it.

Moving on...

Why this overwelming need to have absolute proof of something before you can believe in it? Sounds pretty bland to me. So in your world there is no faith in anything, no hope of anything, it's all cold, cut and dry. Sounds very boring to me. And you know for sure there is no God, how do you know that for sure? Remember you said no prayers have ever been answered, so that means you don't believe in God. You can't prove He doesn't exist so since you need proof..........................

howbouthemspurs

09-20-2012, 01:08 AM

wow this thread really blew up!

redzero

09-20-2012, 01:15 AM

We are talking absolutes.

No, we are not. YOU are talking about absolutes. I am not talking about absolutes, because I realize how foolish that is.

Can you prove your emotions, no you can't. You can talk about how you feel all you want, you cannot prove it.Can you prove that I am not a Martian? No. Would it be reasonable to conclude that I am not a Martian? Yes. That's the difference.

Why this overwelming need to have absolute proof of something before you can believe in it?I never claimed that I required absolute proof to believe in something.

Seriously, now, why do you misinterpret people's arguments so much? Do you realize that that makes you look dishonest? Do you just not care?

So in your world there is no faith in anything, no hope of anything, it's all cold, cut and dry.Not believing in God does not mean not having hope in anything. You really love lying, don't you?

Sounds very boring to me.Yes, your lie sounds boring to you. Congratulations.

And you know for sure there is no God, how do you know that for sure?Jesus Christ! The amount of straw men and logical fallacies you use is ridiculous. Please, take a philosophy class or something, because you really cannot have a serious conversation without misinterpreting the other side's argument.

Not once did I claim to know for sure that God doesn't exist. I have chosen not to believe in God because of a lack of any kind of evidence at all.

Remember you said no prayers have ever been answered, so that means you don't believe in God.I lack belief in God, yes, but not believing that prayers have been answered is not the same as not believing in God.

You can't prove He doesn't exist so since you need proof..........................I can't prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and I don't believe in it, either. I would bet you don't believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, as well.

Of course, you're probably thinking "Oh my God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is stupid! Nobody would believe in that." You're missing the point again, because it's not about The Flying Spaghetti Monster. My point is that believing in something because there is no evidence that it DOESN'T exist is moronic, because there an infinite amount of things that you should believe in, then, following that reasoning.

If there is no evidence that something exists, one can come to the reasonable conclusion that it doesn't exist. It doesn't take absolute certainty to not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, just like it doesn't take absolute certainty to not believe in God.

Avante

09-20-2012, 01:21 AM

No, we are not. YOU are talking about absolutes. I am not talking about absolutes, because I realize how foolish that is.

Can you prove that I am not a Martian? No. Would it be reasonable to conclude that I am not a Martian? Yes. That's the difference.

I never claimed that I required absolute proof to believe in something.

Seriously, now, why do you misinterpret people's arguments so much? Do you realize that that makes you look dishonest? Do you just not care?

Not believing in God does not mean not having hope in anything. You really love lying, don't you?

Yes, your lie sounds boring to you. Congratulations.

Jesus Christ! The amount of straw men and logical fallacies you use is ridiculous. Please, take a philosophy class or something, because you really cannot have a serious conversation without misinterpreting the other side's argument.

Not once did I claim to know for sure that God doesn't exist. I have chosen not to believe in God because of a lack of any kind of evidence at all.

I lack belief in God, yes, but not believing that prayers have been answered is not the same as not believing in God.

I can't prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and I don't believe in it, either. I would bet you don't believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, as well.

Of course, you're probably thinking "Oh my God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is stupid! Nobody would believe in that." You're missing the point again, because it's not about The Flying Spaghetti Monster. My point is that believing in something because there is no evidence that it DOESN'T exist is moronic, because there an infinite amount of things that you should believe in, then, following that reasoning.

If there is no evidence that something exists, one can come to the reasonable conclusion that it doesn't exist. It doesn't take absolute certainty to not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, just like it doesn't take absolute certainty to not believe in God.

As usual you can't conduct yourself like a mature adult, you..must...resort to calling me a liar.

I can't deal with ya man, you are too immature to bother with. If you haven't figured out you are in a minority for a reason I can't help you and yes saying no prayers haven't been answered is saying you do not believe in God, you cannot have one without the other.

As usual you were a huge waste of time....again.

Dude, learn how to talk with grownups, trust me..."you are lying"...will not work. Now beat it!

redzero

09-20-2012, 01:24 AM

I am calling you a liar because you are lying.

Show me in any of my posts where I claimed that I needed absolute proof of God to believe in him.

Show me where I claimed to know with certainty that God doesn't exist.

Show me that atheists are incapable of having hope, like you claimed.

When you misinterpret the other side's arguments, I'm going to call you out on it.

You want to be mature and have a mature conversation, Avante? STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I addressed each of your points fairly. So, stop putting words in my mouth.

It is nice to see you fake outrage to weasel out of an argument again.

mouse

09-20-2012, 02:12 AM

I'm in a semi good mood I will extend the deadline to prove Darwin was correct and man evolved from Ape like creature to Sunday noon 23rd of September.

Goodluck!

Wild Cobra

09-20-2012, 02:39 AM

You can pull out the fusion card all day long you don't get over 105 elements from helium and hydrogen do more research
How do you know that for certain? Are you a God?

mouse

09-20-2012, 02:43 AM

:lmao

You copied and pastde articles from creationist websites,

show me what website your talking about.

and bragged about how much smarter you are than "Darwinists".

:rollin

Are you saying you never copy and paste?

mouse

09-20-2012, 02:45 AM

How do you know that for certain? Are you a God?

pssssst! its in the Science text books.

Provocative Prescription for Chemical Evolution

http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/science_062912_f1.jpg

http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/plant_evolution1_f.jpg

100s of more books
http://www.google.com/search?q=chemical+evolution+science+book&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=UcpaUOb5FYOmqgHAqICQCQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAA&biw=1280&bih=581

Wild Cobra

09-20-2012, 02:52 AM

pssssst! its in the Science text books.

So is the fusion of elements to ones with heavier mass.

mouse

09-20-2012, 02:55 AM

The mere fact you ask how I know about Hydrogen and Helium being the only two elements mentioned in the big bang shows your lack of knowledge on this subject.
I suggest you bail on this debate since I have yet to use 25% of all my data.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2012, 03:01 AM

mouse

09-20-2012, 03:25 AM

You know what conservation of Angular momentum is?
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mallen-evolution-9_zps203bd838.jpg

mouse

09-20-2012, 03:28 AM

Scientist claim billions of years ago there was a swirling mass that exploded that means all matter from that mass will follow a pattern from the explosion and rotate in the same direction.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mallen-evolution-8_zps3f6f9b7e.jpg

mouse

09-20-2012, 03:30 AM

How can that be correct if Venus and Uranus rotate in the opposite direction?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mallen-evolution-7_zps7e54b996.jpg

mouse

09-20-2012, 03:34 AM

Six of the sixty three moons rotate in the opposite direction are you saying they stopped and then started to rotate in reverse?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mallen-documentaries-001_zps991e32cc.jpg

Wild Cobra

09-20-2012, 03:37 AM

It doesn't matter Mouse. There are possible explanations. Why do you use lack of knowledge as knowledge?

mouse

09-20-2012, 04:34 AM

It doesn't matter Mouse. There are possible explanations. Why do you use lack of knowledge as knowledge?

It seems to be what you and the Darwin clones do everyday.
Why cant you just answer the questions?

Everything I am posting is right out of the Science text books are you saying Science is wrong?

If your going to debate a subject your not familiar with you have to at least bring something to the discussion.

Ok WC I will dumb it down just for you.

Did you know Darwin wasn't sure of 75% of his bullshit Theories?
A quote from your Daddy
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/evolution-debunked339_zps2d679db9.jpg

mouse

09-20-2012, 04:37 AM

Did you know Biology teaches students life formed from a soup?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/evolution-debunked8_zpsdcbe3ccf.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mallen-documentaries-14_zps45d2a582.jpg

mouse

09-20-2012, 07:40 AM

Dude we haven't even gone into Fossils,Fossilization,carbon 14 dating , and polar Ice core samples.

Are you sure you want to continue?

Fabbs

09-20-2012, 08:03 AM

Evo Poster

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41qVhFkKC9L._SL500_AA300_PIbundle-12,TopRight,0,0_AA300_SH20_.jpg
Is this your mon and dad?

mouse

09-20-2012, 08:29 AM

It's a full series, enjoy.

BS5vid4GkEY

psssssssst! I am not a creationist the mere fact you don't remember me saying that 25 Evolution topics before explains why you cant focus on any debate its a symptom from mercury digested by your parents or lead from the tap water.

The truth is you have never challenged me in a Evolution debate so you and your wannabee stand up comic pals on the bash the mouse bandwagon that not only refuse to debate with me one on one, they hide like new born puppies in Vietnam

the bottom line is if anyone wants to call me out on my lack of education at least man up and stick around long enough to debate me one on one and let me show you how educated I can really get.

I have students and professors at MIT that avoid debating me you think I am really going to allow a few Mountain dew drinking spur fans intimidate me?

I cant wait to see who accepts the one on one debate challenge.

Agloco?

paging professor Google! paging professor Google!

Agloco

09-20-2012, 02:56 PM

Scientist claim billions of years ago there was a swirling mass that exploded that means all matter from that mass will follow a pattern from the explosion and rotate in the same direction.

How can that be correct if Venus and Uranus rotate in the opposite direction?

I'll give our MIT alumn a hint: You've neglected the third dimension.

Agloco

09-20-2012, 02:58 PM

I cant wait to see who accepts the one on one debate challenge.

Agloco?

paging professor Google! paging professor Google!

Page answered...... Educate away. You can begin by answering the hint I gave you in the previous post.

Agloco

09-20-2012, 03:02 PM

Their nuclei do fuse and/or absorb other baryons though.

Scientist claim helium and hydrogen were the "only" two elements
Around during the " big bang" elements don't evolve not to mention the synthetic ones we have. I didn't write this shit go after the science text books

smh....this is going to take a while......

mouse

09-20-2012, 06:47 PM

Page answered...... Educate away. You can begin by answering the hint I gave you in the previous post.

Unlike you and your meth enduced night crawlers I do sleep from 11pm -3pm so allow me to shower first .

Borat Sagyidev

09-20-2012, 08:39 PM

Scientist claim helium and hydrogen were the "only" two elements
Around during the " big bang" elements don't evolve not to mention the synthetic ones we have. I didn't write this shit go after the science text books

Oh fuck. Science is screwed.

mouse

09-20-2012, 09:10 PM

I am away from my HD that contains the charts and photos that I like to use when educating the misinformed.

But while your out there Agloco what do you know about comets?

Blake

09-20-2012, 10:37 PM

psssssssst! I am not a creationist the mere fact you don't remember me saying that 25 Evolution topics before explains why you cant focus on any debate its a symptom from mercury digested by your parents or lead from the tap water.

Pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst.

alternative design is your stupid made up theory where the word ”design” implies creation.

You are a creationist.

....not to mention you plagiarize failed jpegs from creationist websites.

I have students and professors at MIT that avoid debating me you think I am really going to allow a few Mountain dew drinking spur fans intimidate me?

Wouldn't be surprised if they were to call the cops

DMC

09-20-2012, 10:45 PM

lol arguing with a 5'4 fat fuzzy headed ugly motherfucker with a nicotine addiction.

Agloco

09-20-2012, 10:45 PM

I am away from my HD that contains the charts and photos that I like to use when educating the misinformed.

Uh huh.

But while your out there Agloco what do you know about comets?

Not much. Why don't you bring me up to speed......once you get to your HD of course.

mouse

09-20-2012, 11:25 PM

The big boss is leaving around midnight my hd is connected to his laptop I will have access in 32 minutes.

So you really don't know much about comets are you being sarcastic?

Agloco

09-21-2012, 12:17 AM

So you really don't know much about comets are you being sarcastic?

Educate me......

mouse

09-21-2012, 01:10 AM

Educate me......

maybe another night we are having WiFi issues at work.

I was going to ask you a series of questions not to belittle you but to make a point. But you really cant have a decent debate with someone who rolls over like a dog and gives up.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 02:24 AM

Unlike you and your meth enduced night crawlers I do sleep from 11pm -3pm so allow me to shower first .
16 hours of sleep?

I have a hard time sleeping more than 5-6 hrs.

mouse

09-21-2012, 04:59 AM

16 hours of sleep?

I have a hard time sleeping more than 5-6 hrs.

I meant 11:00AM

Either way Agloco is clearly out of his league on this topic so I will give that wannabee Scientist a pass.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 05:43 AM

I meant 11:00AM

Either way Agloco is clearly out of his league on this topic so I will give that wannabee Scientist a pass.
I agree that Algoco doesn't have half the intelligence I initially thought he had, but he is still correct on most topics that are in conflict with your ideas.

Blake

09-21-2012, 10:11 AM

I agree that Algoco doesn't have half the intelligence I initially thought he had....

Because you are more than qualified to judge intelligence

Agloco

09-21-2012, 01:45 PM

I agree that Algoco doesn't have half the intelligence I initially thought he had....

:lol

A quarter maybe? A third?

Perhaps I'll throw myself off the nearest bridge now.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 04:12 PM

:lol

A quarter maybe? A third?

Perhaps I'll throw myself off the nearest bridge now.
No, I just thought you were more than twice as smart as most people. I see you are just average.

Agloco

09-21-2012, 05:12 PM

No, I just thought you were more than twice as smart as most people. I see you are just average.

Well now you can gloat about how you know a nuclear scientist of average intelligence. Or was that already on your "I know that too." list?

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 05:59 PM

Well now you can gloat about how you know a nuclear scientist of average intelligence. Or was that already on your "I know that too." list?
That's nothing to gloat about.

Blake

09-21-2012, 06:07 PM

That's nothing to gloat about.

says a parts changer

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 06:20 PM

says a parts changer
Well Blake. Considering you haven't a clue of what type a "parts changer" I am in the aspect of which skills the equipment I work on requires, you are seen as clearly talking out your ass.

What type of job do you have?

I am basing my comments by the things said in various forums, and just doing a bit of rib jabbing from someone who often, in technical threads, ankle-bites and leaves no intelligent responses related to the topic.

Blake

09-21-2012, 06:26 PM

Well Blake. Considering you haven't a clue of what type a "parts changer" I am in the aspect of which skills the equipment I work on requires, you are seen as clearly talking out your ass.

A nuclear scientist has every reason to gloat.

Unless you are changing parts of a molecule, it's you that's talking out of his ass.

leaves no intelligent responses related to the topic.

I'm not sure I've ever seen you leave an intelligent response related to the topic.

This topic included.

lol I literally shake my head every time I see you use the word "Torah" in an expert tone.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 06:39 PM

Believe what you wish Blake. I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to waste my time.

Blake

09-21-2012, 06:42 PM

Believe what you wish Blake. I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to waste my time.

Why would anyone try to change someone else's mind in a message board?

Agreed that's a complete waste of time

ClipperLuva

09-21-2012, 07:56 PM

Why would anyone try to change someone else's mind in a message board?

Agreed that's a complete waste of time

Because he's a parts changer, and your mind is a part of your body.

mouse

09-21-2012, 08:56 PM

Employment smack is about as lame as spelling smack. I don't give a rats ass if I debate with a no pussy getting Nuclear scientist or a Toll bridge cashier.

Where you work has nothing to do with your ability to add your personal opinion on abortion,Race,or Religion,
but I can understand if your of low IQ you may mention someone's spelling or employment as a way to avoid answering questions in a debate.

It's now Friday and still with all the educated successful perfect spellers in here and still no proof man evolved from a rock.

Ps: at one time Steve Jobs worked as a Alice in wonderland character for children's parties, and Bill Gates worked in a bowling alley.

ClipperLuva

09-21-2012, 09:09 PM

When someone claims to have been accepted to MIT, you're setting it up. Find a better troll shtick, unless you just caught autism or something.

mouse

09-21-2012, 09:19 PM

The Reverse Engineering class I attended was funded by the Military. Also MIT was not that difficult to be accepted in 1984.

I don't need to toot my horn to try and educate people who think they Evolved from a Primate the subject came up and I replied. MIT has nothing to do with having Common sense of the ability to give your opinion on Evolution or any other debate.

I debate with folks at the MIT Facebook page weekly they are just as ignorant as many of the city college people in here.

I wish people could get over if someone can spell, where they worked, what school they went to. and how well they spell and just answer the questions in a debate.

But that's what immature low IQ people do they try and get off track to avoid looking ignorant.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 09:25 PM

Well Blake. Considering you haven't a clue of what type a "parts changer" I am in the aspect of which skills the equipment I work on requires, you are seen as clearly talking out your ass.

What type of job do you have?

I am basing my comments by the things said in various forums, and just doing a bit of rib jabbing from someone who often, in technical threads, ankle-bites and leaves no intelligent responses related to the topic.

I don't care how "tough" it is for you to follow your damn schematics because it doesn't come anywhere close to the accomplishment of pursing a doctoral degree much less one in a science like physics.

You're a god damn moron and you know enough to think you know a lot when in reality anyone who gets an actual education knows that NONE of us know very much in the grand scheme of things.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 09:25 PM

The Reverse Engineering class I attended was funded by the Military. Also MIT was not that difficult to be accepted in 1984.

I don't need to toot my horn to try and educate people who think they Evolved from a Primate the subject came up and I replied. MIT has nothing to do with having Common sense of the ability to give your opinion on Evolution or any other debate.

I debate with folks at the MIT Facebook page weekly they are just as ignorant as many of the city college people in here.

I wish people cold get over if someone can spell, where they worked, what school they went to. and how well they spell and just answer the questions in a debate.

But that's what immature low IQ people do they try and get off track to avoid looking ignorant.

:lol Glad I came in this thread. Now I'm leaving.

mouse

09-21-2012, 09:39 PM

:lol Glad I came in this thread. Now I'm leaving.

That's to bad I figured a well educated person like yourself would have a higher IQ view on Evolution.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 11:03 PM

I don't care how "tough" it is for you to follow your damn schematics because it doesn't come anywhere close to the accomplishment of pursing a doctoral degree much less one in a science like physics.

You're a god damn moron and you know enough to think you know a lot when in reality anyone who gets an actual education knows that NONE of us know very much in the grand scheme of things.
If you only knew, but you are too ignorant to see.

I have done well with no college, and it was by choice. Schematics are a cakewalk. Just because one can do mundane things like follow instructions and get a doctorate, it doesn't mean they are any more intelligent than the rest of us. It just means they have that time and money to burn.

Clipper Nation

09-21-2012, 11:43 PM

But that's what immature low IQ people do they try and get off track to avoid looking ignorant.

Funny, considering you've deliberately taken this thread off track by throwing out red herrings about humans evolving from snails and rocks, B.....

mouse

09-22-2012, 01:07 AM

Funny, considering you've deliberately taken this thread off track by throwing out red herrings about humans evolving from snails and rocks, B.....

Maybe you can help put it back on track. Say something about Bill Nye slams creationism and I will reply and see were the topic goes.

Ps: Put down the pork skins and start on page one and you tell me when the topic went off track.

It's Saturday Sept 22 2012 and still no proof Man Evolved from ape.

How much time does the Darwin gang need?

DMC

09-22-2012, 01:28 AM

Funny, considering you've deliberately taken this thread off track by throwing out red herrings about humans evolving from snails and rocks, B.....
That's actually strawmen.

Let him joust his own windmills. He doesn't believe a word he's saying and there's no way his spelling and grammar are this atrocious if he's ever taken a college level course.

Let him multitroll himself to death.

DMC

09-22-2012, 01:28 AM

mouse

09-22-2012, 04:34 AM

DMC don't you have more important things to do, like check on your Mojito topic?

mmmm

19 & 1/2 hours till the Sunday deadline for the Darwin gang to prove Evolution.

tick tock

Borat Sagyidev

09-22-2012, 10:03 AM

Maybe you can help put it back on track. Say something about Bill Nye slams creationism and I will reply and see were the topic goes.

Ps: Put down the pork skins and start on page one and you tell me when the topic went off track.

It's Saturday Sept 22 2012 and still no proof Man Evolved from ape.

How much time does the Darwin gang need?

One of the biggest problems in this country is stupid people who do not realize they are stupid. You actually think you're a worthwhile person to debate on this topic? It has nothing to do with degree or social standing, just about everything you post here is false or stupid.
There is no point in debating you or Wild Cobra.

There is a substantial amount of evidence, including DNA evidence that we have evolved from primate-like creatures. Heck, DNA evidence even indicates we have mated with Neanderthals years ago. Let alone taht the Earth is over 5000 yrs ago.

Do you believe in a invisible man in the sky, with no scientific evidence? Do you believe a man walked on water, with no scientific evidence? Do you believe the earth is 5000 yrs old with no scientific evidence?

The onus is on you to provide proof. Nobody has proved these things. That's why they call it faith, because you have to make a leap of it to believe it.

mouse

09-22-2012, 10:50 AM

One of the biggest problems in this country is stupid people who do not realize they are stupid. You actually think you're a worthwhile person to debate on this topic? It has nothing to do with degree or social standing, just about everything you post here is false or stupid.
There is no point in debating you or Wild Cobra.

There is a substantial amount of evidence, including DNA evidence that we have evolved from primate-like creatures. Heck, DNA evidence even indicates we have mated with Neanderthals years ago. Let alone taht the Earth is over 5000 yrs ago.

Do you believe in a invisible man in the sky, with no scientific evidence? Do you believe a man walked on water, with no scientific evidence? Do you believe the earth is 5000 yrs old with no scientific evidence?

The onus is on you to provide proof. Nobody has proved these things. That's why they call it faith, because you have to make a leap of it to believe it.

in a NUTSHELL your point?

Blake

09-22-2012, 10:59 AM

in a NUTSHELL your point?

you're stupid.

Clipper Nation

09-22-2012, 02:31 PM

That's actually strawmen.
Well, if we want to be really picky about it, it's a red herring (attacking specific points that nobody was actually raising) AND a strawman (misrepresenting people's position), tbh....

Agloco

09-22-2012, 04:10 PM

Just because one can do mundane things like follow instructions and get a doctorate, it doesn't mean they are any more intelligent than the rest of us. It just means they have that time and money to burn.

It's statements like these that confirm your ignorance; not that you hadn't removed all doubt long ago.

Agloco

09-22-2012, 04:31 PM

I am basing my comments by the things said in various forums, and just doing a bit of rib jabbing from someone who often, in technical threads, ankle-bites and leaves no intelligent responses related to the topic.

My responses are appropriate for the level of discussion. Look in the mirror first.

Brazil

09-22-2012, 05:30 PM

in a NUTSHELL your point?

you're stupid

mouse

09-22-2012, 09:47 PM

(attacking specific points that nobody was actually raisingtbh....

Maybe you didn't start on page one. The Darwin gang started to call out creationist as being stupid and I pointed out how stupid Darwin is.

What's not to get?

Wild Cobra

09-23-2012, 02:41 AM

It's statements like these that confirm your ignorance; not that you hadn't removed all doubt long ago.
LOL...

I know it takes a lot of research and intelligence to get a doctorate. I just like to yank the chain of ankle biters like you.

You are really an ass, for no reason, so many times. You expect people to treat you otherwise?

Wild Cobra

09-23-2012, 02:43 AM

My responses are appropriate for the level of discussion. Look in the mirror first.
I guess what I understand about global warming must be above your head if you think that. You have never that I recall, furnished any thing of value to such conversations, so I suggest you look in the mirror.

I find very few intelligent people who attack first like you and Manny. I retaliate in kind. I prefer civil conversations, but you seem to be incapable of such.

Care to prove me wrong?

mouse

09-23-2012, 03:30 AM

Maybe you should have a live debate with him (cut down on his googling time)

Agloco

09-23-2012, 10:19 AM

LOL...

I know it takes a lot of research and intelligence to get a doctorate. I just like to yank the chain of ankle biters like you.

You are really an ass, for no reason, so many times. You expect people to treat you otherwise?

Guilty as charged. Honestly though WC it's difficult to tell if you're trolling, or if you really believe half the stuff you post. Case in point is this latest exchange. Because of your extensive history, any honest attempt at sarcasm on your part will likely be missed or dismissed.

I do, in fact, have discussions with various members via PM. I find it difficult to be serious within the context of the various threads posted here.

Overall, ST is a place I come to in order to unwind, not for serious discourse. But, as I just stated, I have gotten serious inquiries about various things from many members. When I do, I always offer a courteous and cogent response.

Agloco

09-23-2012, 10:32 AM

I guess what I understand about global warming must be above your head if you think that. You have never that I recall, furnished any thing of value to such conversations, so I suggest you look in the mirror.

Another illustration of your mindset WC. With you it's always more or less, black or white. I happen to have a different understanding of the concepts related to global warming. They don't fit into the context of your discussions though. Furthermore, since you aren't well acquainted with those concepts you dismiss them as having no value.

I have, in fact, added much value to those conversations only to be greeted with blank stares. Thus, I've pared my commentary to a level I deem appropriate to the level of discussion (as I stated in my previous post).

I find very few intelligent people who attack first like you and Manny. I retaliate in kind. I prefer civil conversations, but you seem to be incapable of such.

Care to prove me wrong?

Perhaps we are too harsh on you at times. It's borne of precedent though. Unfortunately this is the online persona you built. I believe, based on your pattern of posting, that you aren't all that dissatisfied with being the villain or claiming the victims role though. Most times, you instigate these altercations by inserting some asinine comment in hopes of stirring the pot. Then afterwards you claim to have been joking and feign butthurtedness over the resulting exchange.

You're no less guilty than anyone who winds up arguing your points with you.

mouse

09-23-2012, 11:25 PM

tick tock

RandomGuy

09-24-2012, 09:23 AM

Does she really love me, I can't prove it but prefer to believe she is telling the truth. It makes me feel better. This believing in "a" God is like that, some things simply don't have to..."could you prove it huh? huh? huh?" You just go with it.

Bad analogy.

Your wife is present, and telling you, first hand, what she thinks or says.

The God/god/gods/goddesses of religions is/are doing no such thing.

Unless I missed the booming voice from the sky proclaiming "I am real!", the only way we have to know what God/etc thinks is through books written by people about something they heard somebody say once.

Yes, I am asking you to "prove it", and the fact you are failing miserably should, one would hope, give you some reason to ask yourself WHY that is.

RandomGuy

09-24-2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by mouse

Elements don't evolve.

Their nuclei do fuse and/or absorb other baryons though.

Come on mouse, you can do better than this.

He can't really.

He genuinely thinks elements evolved.

:lmao

RandomGuy

09-24-2012, 09:27 AM

Guilty as charged. Honestly though WC it's difficult to tell if you're trolling, or if you really believe half the stuff you post. Case in point is this latest exchange. Because of your extensive history, any honest attempt at sarcasm on your part will likely be missed or dismissed.

I do, in fact, have discussions with various members via PM. I find it difficult to be serious within the context of the various threads posted here.

Overall, ST is a place I come to in order to unwind, not for serious discourse. But, as I just stated, I have gotten serious inquiries about various things from many members. When I do, I always offer a courteous and cogent response.

Bear in mind that WC has stated fairly openly that he believes in trolling.

One has to take what he says/claims with something of a grain of salt.

RandomGuy

09-24-2012, 09:35 AM

So tell me slick how come far ...FAR.. more people believe in "a" God than don't......well?

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1) Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2) Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it.

After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

Asked and answered.

I don't believe in a God because everybody else does, because they could quite possibly be wrong.

Further, which "God" do I believe in? Most of humanity thinks the Bible is wrong.

Even if one were to accept your flawed reasoning as valid, then one would simply have to find the religion with the most adherents.

"Allah hua akbar", anyone?

mouse

09-24-2012, 04:04 PM

He can't really.

He genuinely thinks elements evolved.

:lmao

I never said Elements evolve.

If you took some time off trying to win a smack off with Avante you would see I posted "Scientist" claim the only elements around during the "big Bang" were (Helium and Nitrogen) I posted how do we now have over 150 different elements, I said elements "don't" evolve.

At least take the time to read what I post before you climb on Aglocos sac and make yourself look foolish. If that is even possible at this point.

RandomGuy

09-24-2012, 05:09 PM

I never said Elements evolve.

If you took some time off trying to win a smack off with Avante you would see I posted "Scientist" claim the only elements around during the "big Bang" were (Helium and Nitrogen [helium, not nitrogen, goober-RG]) I posted how do we now have over 150 different elements, I said elements "don't" evolve.

At least take the time to read what I post before you climb on Aglocos sac and make yourself look foolish. If that is even possible at this point.

No, you just think that science says "elements evolve". :lol

No credible scientist says that.

As I keep saying, you are not intelligent enough to realize how badly you understand the topic.

What is the scientific explanation for elements today that are heavier than helium, mouse? In your own words.

mouse

09-24-2012, 06:07 PM

No, you just think that science says "elements evolve". :lol

No credible scientist says that.

As I keep saying, you are not intelligent enough to realize how badly you understand the topic.

What is the scientific explanation for elements today that are heavier than helium, mouse? In your own words.

Well maybe your doing a word play on me. You want to harp on if I said that Scientist said etc that ....... the bottom line is if there were only "two" elements how did we get 105 we have today?

If you have 2 dollars in your wallet and the next time you open your wallet you have 105 dollars you have to explain how it got there.

You can try and figure out who or what put it there and you may have to realize it was a person maybe your father your creator it was his sperm.

Actually he could have digested Ecstasy the night before in your case but that is another topic.

Or you you can take the lazy low IQ Darwin way out of figuring it out and just say your 2 dollars must have evolved into 105 dollars.

What explanation sounds more likely?