We evolved from a great ape, now what?

[RD2191]

What's the point? Spending hundreds of thousands of hours to prove evolution is true is leading to what? How is it helping the human race?

[Clipper Nation]

And your week-long meltdown and stubborn clinging to a magical sky man is helping the human race how?

[RD2191]

And why the fuck are Inuits still using the fur of animals to cover themselves? Shouldn't they of evolved their own fur by now? Sure does seem like a valuable mutation. Oh and scientist now say that birds first developed wings for warmth? Hey Kool, I guess the Inuits have you beat out on them wings.

[Clipper Nation]

You do realize how slowly and subtly evolution works, right?

[lebomb]

You do realize how slowly and subtly evolution works, right?

Yeah, a few hours right??

[RD2191]

Okay then, so no one has actually ever observed evolution?

[lebomb]

Okay then, so no one has actually ever observed evolution?

Well, I licked a chicks ass, went balls deep till tears ran down her cheek, and I watched her turn from a healthy, strong woman into a bowl of jello.

[RD2191]

http://atheismandme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/UnderstandingEvolution.png

[RD2191]

Yes, the Gorilla and Chimp beat out the Neanderthal who had tools, fire, and could cook. :lol

[RD2191]

Oh and if early humans mated with Neanderthals then why can't humans fuck a chimp or gorilla and create life?

[DJR210]

Thought you'd make a 10 page thread of your own, eh robdiaz2191?

[Mr. Pink]

Oh and if early humans mated with Neanderthals then why can't humans fuck a chip or gorilla and create life?


or at least lick their freshly showered assholes.

[RD2191]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2fdwS3Y1VhU/TLvGdSGj2QI/AAAAAAAAoHw/tf1gyjZeabM/s400/australian_aborigines_09.jpg

[RD2191]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/are-neanderthals-human/image-03-large.jpg

[RD2191]

Look like Neanderthals to me.

[Fabbs]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120623135902/simpsons/images/0/08/The_Call_of_the_Simpsons_(Promo_Picture).jpg

[RD2191]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ml4Re-sMwW4/TdWzbWV3YwI/AAAAAAAAANs/5y6jQnWzgUI/s1600/Jimmy+Walkabout+-+Australian+Aborigine.jpg

[silverblk mystix]

I admire the asian peeples....they are aware that the Spoon was invented...

but they say - "fuck it - I am going with the chopsticks"

[johnsmith]

I admire the asian peeples....they are aware that the Spoon was invented...

but they say - "fuck it - I am going with the chopsticks"

Seinfeld

[silverblk mystix]

Seinfeld


Yup - right on -


That Jew is funny and pretty truthful.

[TE]

What's the point? Spending hundreds of thousands of hours to prove evolution is true is leading to what? How is it helping the human race?
imo understanding (passed the point of proving it to be true) evolution will help humanity in future events. Take for example the effects of AGW...out there somewhere in some lab, somebody is running data on how humans will adapt to the inevitable rise in global temperatures. The question you pose can be answered with so many examples.

[johnsmith]

Yup - right on -


That Jew is funny and pretty truthful.

I never laughed harder at a standup comic then when I saw him about 10 years ago.

Close second was Chapelle back in the day.

[mouse]

You do realize how slowly and subtly evolution works, right?

At only 1/2 speed of the persons brain that believes in it.

[silverblk mystix]

I never laughed harder at a standup comic then when I saw him about 10 years ago.

Close second was Chapelle back in the day.


Well, those two actually do the work - and aren't hacks.

[TE]

Oh and if early humans mated with Neanderthals then why can't humans fuck a chimp or gorilla and create life?
I'll throw a quick guess without knowing specifics, perhaps differing developmental mechanisms?

Weird questions tho brah.

[RD2191]

What do they need data for? Either we adapt or we die.

[TE]

What do they need data for? Either we adapt or we die.
Data is needed to assess how to best adapt. We have this thing called cognition that helps us analyze results to reach conclusions.

[RD2191]

For decades the consensus view—among the public as well as the world’s preeminent biologists—has been that human evolution is over. Since modern Homo sapiensemerged 50,000 years ago, “natural selection has almost become irrelevant” to us, the influential Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (http://www.amnh.org/science/bios/gould/) proclaimed. “There have been no biological changes. Everything we’ve called culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.”

[RD2191]

Looks like we are fucked.

[TE]

What's the point you're trying to make?

[RD2191]

I don't even know.:pctoss

[mouse]

What's the point? Spending hundreds of thousands of hours to prove evolution is true is leading to what?

The school texts books.



How is it helping the human race?

By passing Biology and Science you advance to the next level.

[Clipper Nation]

What's the point you're trying to make?
That he's still extremely salty over a thread Leetonidas posted almost a week ago :lol

[TE]

I'll throw a quick guess without knowing specifics, perhaps differing developmental mechanisms?

Weird questions tho brah.
Guessed kinda right.

Has to do with differing amount of chromosomes in both humans (pairs of 23) and primates (pairs of 24). Pairs of chromosomes gotta link up as a zygote forms and begins to undergo the initial rounds of mitosis.

There's also a problem with post-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms.

[TE]

I don't even know.:pctoss
Dude it's the science!

Science, bitch! :lol

[xmas1997]

Seinfeld


I never laughed harder at a standup comic then when I saw him about 10 years ago.

Close second was Chapelle back in the day.


Well, those two actually do the work - and aren't hacks.

You might add another Jew to the list, Black.
And there was another comedian who died not long ago who used to tell it like it is but I forgot his name.

[silverblk mystix]

You might add another Jew to the list, Black.
And there was another comedian who died not long ago who used to tell it like it is but I forgot his name.

I'm kinda not a Black fan - just seems a bit forced - IMO -

and are thinking of Sam Kinison? That was a long time ago though...

Recently - Richard Jeni - I thought he was pretty good.

[DMC]

And why the fuck are Inuits still using the fur of animals to cover themselves? Shouldn't they of evolved their own fur by now? Sure does seem like a valuable mutation. Oh and scientist now say that birds first developed wings for warmth? Hey Kool, I guess the Inuits have you beat out on them wings.

Evolution /= technological advancement or higher IQ.

Case in point: "Shouldn't they of evolved their own fur by now?"

Otherwise I agree. If Eskimos don't grow fur soon, I might shitcan the entire evolution facade.

[Blake]

Carlin

[xmas1997]

Seinfeld


I never laughed harder at a standup comic then when I saw him about 10 years ago.

Close second was Chapelle back in the day.


I'm kinda not a Black fan - just seems a bit forced - IMO -

and are thinking of Sam Kinison? That was a long time ago though...

Recently - Richard Jeni - I thought he was pretty good.

No, he was in a couple of movies. He was tall, white, and bald.

[xmas1997]

Carlin

YES, George Carlin!

[DMC]

MISCONCEPTION: Humans can't negatively impact ecosystems, because species will just evolve what they need to survive.
CORRECTION: As described in the misconception above (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b2), natural selection does not automatically provide organisms with the traits they "need" to survive. Of course, some species may possess traits that allow them to thrive under conditions of environmental change caused by humans and so may be selected for, but others may not and so may go extinct (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=extinction). If a population or species doesn't happen to have the right kinds of genetic variation, it will not evolve in response to the environmental changes wrought by humans, whether those changes are caused by pollutants, climate change, habitat encroachment, or other factors. For example, as climate change causes the Arctic sea ice to thin and break up earlier and earlier, polar bears are finding it more difficult to obtain food. If polar bear populations don't have the genetic variation that would allow some individuals to take advantage of hunting opportunities that are not dependent on sea ice, they could go extinct in the wild.





MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.
CORRECTION: When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole, even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population. However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. In general, natural selection simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source).
So what's the evolutionary explanation for altruism if it's not for the good of the species? There are many ways that such behaviors can evolve. For example, if altruistic acts are "repaid" at other times, this sort of behavior may be favored by natural selection. Similarly, if altruistic behavior increases the survival and reproduction of an individual's kin (who are also likely to carry altruistic genes), this behavior can spread through a population via natural selection. To learn more about the process of natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_25), visit our article on this topic.
Advanced students of evolutionary biology may be interested to know that selection can act at different levels and that, in some circumstances, species-level or group-level selection may occur. However, it's important to remember that, even in this case, selection has no foresight and is not "aiming" at any outcome; it is simply favoring the reproducing units that are best at leaving copies of themselves in the next generation. To learn more about levels of selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/selectionhierarchy_01), visit our side trip on this topic.





MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.
CORRECTION: In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts. To learn more about evolutionary fitness (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_27), visit Evolution 101.





MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.
CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To learn more about the process of natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_25), visit our article on this topic. To learn more about evolutionary fitness (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_27), visit Evolution 101.





MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments.
CORRECTION: Natural selection is not all-powerful. There are many reasons that natural selection cannot produce "perfectly-engineered" traits. For example, living things are made up of traits resulting from a complicated set of trade-offs — changing one feature for the better may mean changing another for the worse (e.g., a bird with the "perfect" tail plumage to attract mates maybe be particularly vulnerable to predators because of its long tail). And of course, because organisms have arisen through complex evolutionary histories (not a design process), their future evolution is often constrained by traits they have already evolved. For example, even if it were advantageous for an insect to grow in some way other than molting, this switch simply could not happen because molting is embedded in the genetic makeup of insects at many levels. To learn more about the limitations of natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_03), visit our module on misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation.





MISCONCEPTION: All traits of organisms are adaptations.
CORRECTION: Because living things have so many impressive adaptations (incredible camouflage, sneaky means of catching prey, flowers that attract just the right pollinators, etc.), it's easy to assume that all features of organisms must be adaptive in some way — to notice something about an organism and automatically wonder, "Now, what's that for?" While some traits are adaptive, it's important to keep in mind that many traits are not adaptations at all. Some may be the chance results of history. For example, the base (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=base) sequence GGC codes for the amino acid (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=amino+acid) glycine simply because that's the way it happened to start out — and that's the way we inherited it from our common ancestor. There is nothing special about the relationship between GGC and glycine. It's just a historical accident that stuck around. Others traits may be by-products of another characteristic. For example, the color of blood is not adaptive. There's no reason that having red blood is any better than having green blood or blue blood. Blood's redness is a by-product of its chemistry, which causes it to reflect red light. The chemistry of blood may be an adaptation, but blood's color is not an adaptation. To read more about explanations for traits that are not adaptive (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_07), visit our module on misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation. To learn more about what traits are adaptations (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_06), visit another page in the same module.

[Leetonidas]

That he's still extremely salty over a thread Leetonidas posted almost a week ago :lol
Yeah, it's not even funny or humorous at this point, just getting old tbh and bringing down the overall quality of the club. I almost feel bad for making that thread now because of what I unknowingly unleashed on the forum. Can't we just get back to some good ol JudynTX threads about favorite brands of mayonnaise or Trill posting about the white devil? There is really nothing that needs to be said on the subject anymore when the facts aren't even read or researched and the whole why are monkeys still here thing being brought up despite countless posts correcting that and even videos posted explaining the lineage that are passed over. Either way, not interested anymore tbh

[Leetonidas]

You might add another Jew to the list, Black.
And there was another comedian who died not long ago who used to tell it like it is but I forgot his name.
I used to like Black tbh but his whole screaming everything and angry face shaking got annoying quickly

[RD2191]

Seems like a bunch of bullshit, what the fuck is the point then? Didn't Darwin's finches supposedly evolve to be able to eat different foods when it was scarce?

[DMC]

Seems like a bunch of bullshit, what the fuck is the point then? Didn't Darwin's finches supposedly evolve to be able to eat different foods when it was scarce?

Why does their need to be a point? Only theists think everything is done for a reason. For them it sucks to be faced with the reality that their existence is a chance occurrence. It flies in the face of how important their religion makes them out to be in the grand scheme of the universe.

[RD2191]

So then why do scientist spend tons of hours researching all of this when in the end nothing matters?

[Clipper Nation]

Yeah, it's not even funny or humorous at this point, just getting old tbh and bringing down the overall quality of the club. I almost feel bad for making that thread now because of what I unknowingly unleashed on the forum. Can't we just get back to some good ol JudynTX threads about favorite brands of mayonnaise or Trill posting about the white devil? There is really nothing that needs to be said on the subject anymore when the facts aren't even read or researched and the whole why are monkeys still here thing being brought up despite countless posts correcting that and even videos posted explaining the lineage that are passed over. Either way, not interested anymore tbh
Agreed.... it's like talking to a brick wall, Jeebotardiaz is simply either unwilling or too retarded to get it, tbh....

[TE]

So then why do scientist spend tons of hours researching all of this when in the end nothing matters?
Everything matters. That's why scientists spend night and day seeking the answer for something. That's the purpose of research.

[RD2191]

Oh and if all living things are the same then why are the lives of humans more valued than that of animals? Am I gonna get life in prison for killing a deer or a duck?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then why do scientist spend tons of hours researching all of this when in the end nothing matters?

Nice bait and switch. Try and attribute a 'point' to evolution. Now you are trying to take the rejection of that to meaning there is no 'point' to the scientists studying it.

[DMC]

So then why do scientist spend tons of hours researching all of this when in the end nothing matters?

Because though they might be atheists, they aren't nihilistic retards with low self esteem like someone here who needs something meaningful to cling to.

[RD2191]

Everything matters. That's why scientists spend night and day seeking the answer for something. That's the purpose of research.
DMC just said that there is no point to life and that we are a chance occurrence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and if all living things are the same then why are the lives of humans more valued than that of animals? Am I gonna get life in prison for killing a deer or a duck?

Because humans are the ones doing the valuing. it should not be difficult to figure. And this throw shit against the wall moralism is making you look stupid. More stupid I should say.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DMC just said that there is no point to life and that we are a chance occurrence.

That does not mean that there is not a point to individual actions. It's a nuance that is above your pay grade apparently.

[DMC]

DMC just said that there is no point to life and that we are a chance occurrence.

Winning the lottery could be a chance occurrence, but it's not meaningless and there's no point to it. I'd still take it.

[silverblk mystix]

Because humans are the ones doing the valuing. it should not be difficult to figure. And this throw shit against the wall moralism is making you look stupid. More stupid I should say.

Are you under the illusion that your name calling, condescension and labeling is not making you look stupid?

Serious question.

[RD2191]

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

You do realize how slowly and subtly evolution works, right?he watched all the x-men movies!

[Leetonidas]

http://manikumar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/8a354f740f10b08a22fdaad071b41e13cc52c614.jpg

[TE]

DMC just said that there is no point to life and that we are a chance occurrence.
I was referring more to things in research like variables and methods utilized. Everything is important in that regard, imo.

You are knotting what I typed to the purpose of life, or existence in general.

[Clipper Nation]

Are you under the illusion that your name calling, condescension and labeling is not making you look stupid?

Serious question.

:lol Irony

[silverblk mystix]

http://manikumar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/8a354f740f10b08a22fdaad071b41e13cc52c614.jpg



Isn't this guy a faggot?

Not that there is anything wrong with it, jus sayin'...

[xXx]

Isn't this guy a faggot?

Not that there is anything wrong with it, jus sayin'...


stupid question, he's an atheist ain't he? :lol

[The Reckoning]

while do atheists always have a sad face on?

[silverblk mystix]

stupid question, he's an atheist ain't he? :lol


:lol



Maybe this is related to why they are so angry at God!



:cry "why did hate on me and make me different


:rollin

[RD2191]

:lol

[TE]

That he's still extremely salty over a thread Leetonidas posted almost a week ago :lol
I think he's just going through the stage where one starts to question everything. Hence the naive Saturn missile firework questions.

[RD2191]

Biologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologists) reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor), because it would be virtually impossible that two or more separate lineages could have independently developed the many complex biochemical mechanisms common to all living organisms.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-35)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-36) As previously mentioned the earliest organisms for which fossil evidence is available arebacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria), cells far too complex to have arisen directly from non-living materials.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CowenHistLifeEd3P6-37) The lack of fossil or geochemical evidence for earlier organisms has left plenty of scope for hypotheses, which fall into two main groups: 1) that life arose spontaneously on Earth or 2) that it was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe.

[RD2191]

So, the possibility of God did it is still open.

[xmas1997]

So, the possibility of God did it is still open.

You are grasping for the "seeded theory", right?
Well, if God flew around in an unidentified spacecraft, quite possibly. :lol

[DMC]

Atheists are within their boundaries to have these discussions. Theists aren't. Theists profess a belief in a watchful God, yet many live as if they don't believe it either.

At least the atheist has the courage of his convictions.

[RD2191]

The idea that life on Earth was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe dates back at least to the Greek philosopher Anaximander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander) in the sixth century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era).[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-38) In the twentieth century it was proposed by the physical chemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_chemistry) Svante Arrhenius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius),[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Arrhenius1903-39) by the astronomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer)Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe),[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-HoyleWickramasinghe1979-40) and by molecular biologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biologist) Francis Crick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick) and chemist Leslie Orgel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Orgel).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CrickOrgel1973DirectedPanspermia-41) There are three main versions of the "seeded from elsewhere" hypothesis: from elsewhere in our Solar System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System) via fragments knocked into space by a large meteor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor) impact, in which case the most credible sources are Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42) and Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus);[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-43) by alien visitors, possibly as a result of accidental contamination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contamination) by micro-organisms that they brought with them;[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CrickOrgel1973DirectedPanspermia-41) and from outside the Solar System but by natural means.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Arrhenius1903-39)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42) Experiments suggest that some micro-organisms can survive the shock of being catapulted into space and some can survive exposure to radiation for several days, but there is no proof that they can survive in space for much longer periods.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42)Scientists are divided over the likelihood of life arising independently on Mars,[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-44) or on other planets in our galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy).[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42)

[DMC]

Biologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologists) reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor), because it would be virtually impossible that two or more separate lineages could have independently developed the many complex biochemical mechanisms common to all living organisms.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-35)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-36) As previously mentioned the earliest organisms for which fossil evidence is available arebacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria), cells far too complex to have arisen directly from non-living materials.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CowenHistLifeEd3P6-37) The lack of fossil or geochemical evidence for earlier organisms has left plenty of scope for hypotheses, which fall into two main groups: 1) that life arose spontaneously on Earth or 2) that it was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe.

From your linky..

The most commonly accepted location of the root of the tree of life is between a monophyletic domain Bacteria and a clade formed by Archaea and Eukaryota of what is referred to as the "traditional tree of life" based on several molecular studies starting with C. Woese.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor#cite_note-18) A very small minority of studies have concluded differently, namely that the root is in the Domain Bacteria, either in the phylum Firmicutes[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor#cite_note-19) or that the phylum Chloroflexi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroflexi_%28phylum%29) is basal to a clade with Archaea+Eukaryotes and the rest of Bacteria as proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cavalier-Smith).[20]


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor#cite_note-CS2-20) So then it's commonly thought that we all came from bacteria.

God works in mysterious ways, and Satan must be bleach.

[TE]

The idea that life on Earth was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe dates back at least to the Greek philosopher Anaximander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander) in the sixth century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era).[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-38) In the twentieth century it was proposed by the physical chemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_chemistry)Svante Arrhenius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius),[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Arrhenius1903-39) by the astronomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer)Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe),[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-HoyleWickramasinghe1979-40) and by molecular biologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biologist)Francis Crick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick) and chemist Leslie Orgel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Orgel).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CrickOrgel1973DirectedPanspermia-41) There are three main versions of the "seeded from elsewhere" hypothesis: from elsewhere in our Solar System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System) via fragments knocked into space by a large meteor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor) impact, in which case the most credible sources are Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42) and Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus);[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-43) by alien visitors, possibly as a result of accidental contamination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contamination) by micro-organisms that they brought with them;[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CrickOrgel1973DirectedPanspermia-41) and from outside the Solar System but by natural means.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Arrhenius1903-39)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42) Experiments suggest that some micro-organisms can survive the shock of being catapulted into space and some can survive exposure to radiation for several days, but there is no proof that they can survive in space for much longer periods.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42)Scientists are divided over the likelihood of life arising independently on Mars,[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-44) or on other planets in our galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy).[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42)
What point are you trying to prove by bolding that sentence? I kinda already introduced what you bolded in the other thread btw

[ChumpDumper]

Isn't this guy a faggot?

Not that there is anything wrong with it, jus sayin'...Ad hominem labeler.

Just sayin'.

[silverblk mystix]

Ad hominem labeler.

Just sayin'.

I haven't yet seen you lash out against racist comments like you lash out against bigoted comments - just sayin'

[mouse]

So first came Grunge music?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/are-neanderthals-human/image-03-large.jpg

[xmas1997]

So Grunge music was first?


:lol

[RD2191]

:danceclub

[mouse]

I haven't yet seen you lash out against racist comments like you lash out against bigoted comments - just sayin'

Who in the cubicle at that time are you referring to?

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't yet seen you lash out against racist comments like you lash out against bigoted comments - just sayin'You haven't looked -- just sayin'.

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

[RD2191]

:lmao

[xmas1997]

Uh oh, mouse and chump in the same thread!
This should be very very entertaining!
Thank God, some ribald humor is certainly much appreciated.
Go easy on the unsuspecting masses, guys, for they know not what you do. :lol

[mouse]

I seen this guy on 281 and 1604 asking for money.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2fdwS3Y1VhU/TLvGdSGj2QI/AAAAAAAAoHw/tf1gyjZeabM/s400/australian_aborigines_09.jpg

[mouse]

This man was Bum Fights 2009 winner.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ml4Re-sMwW4/TdWzbWV3YwI/AAAAAAAAANs/5y6jQnWzgUI/s1600/Jimmy+Walkabout+-+Australian+Aborigine.jpg

[xmas1997]

Then he wasn't the one I saw jogging down San Pedro Ave. shadow boxing and arguing loudly to himself, but he sure looks like the same cat! :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you under the illusion that your name calling, condescension and labeling is not making you look stupid?

Serious question.

You can call it an illusion all you like but saying it doesn't make it so. If anything I would attribute mean spirited to it. I admit to a bit of that but I consider your approach to be asinine so I feel a bit of contempt. It is what it is. What it is not is 'stupid.'

On the contrary your circumstance speaks differently. I didn't call you a name. I made the observation that you are saying whatever comes to your head without thinking it through and how that made you look stupid. It also demonstrates sophistry. You are arguing for a conclusion without considering how you get to said conclusion. That is evidenced by the mystic nonsense and double speak you spout.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

I have noticed that you never seem to be able to make an argument on your own. You make claims sure but when you support them it is always youtubes and walls of text. Note the comment in my sig? That is what it speaks to.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Isn't this guy a faggot?

Not that there is anything wrong with it, jus sayin'...

And you whine about name calling? It's hard to take blatant hypocrites seriously. I find my contempt justified.

[ChumpDumper]

And you whine about name calling? It's hard to take blatant hypocrites seriously. I find my contempt justified.No, he just called him that because Ricky Gervais was mean to him in another thread.

And he is not gay btw, so what is SBM's new gambit to distract form the actual conversation?

[silverblk mystix]

And you whine about name calling? It's hard to take blatant hypocrites seriously. I find my contempt justified.


Someone as allegedly superior and smart as yourself just made a ton of assumptions.

#1) You assumed I whined about name-calling but I was just describing what you did.

#2) You assumed I want you to take me seriously.

#3) You assume that justifying your "contempt" makes it any less stupid or contempful. It doesn't.


I have no problem being called a hypocrite and I have said this many times before;
the only difference between me and the people calling me a hypocrite - is that - at least I am aware that I am one.
No other difference - you are a hypocrite in denial - I am free of that denial.


:lol

[DMC]

I seen this guy on 281 and 1604 asking for money.

So he could make a film of his cousin who was killed by a police officer because he was a thug?

[DMC]

Someone as allegedly superior and smart as yourself just made a ton of assumptions.

#1) You assumed I whined about name-calling but I was just describing what you did.

#2) You assumed I want you to take me seriously.

#3) You assume that justifying your "contempt" makes it any less stupid or contempful. It doesn't.


I have no problem being called a hypocrite and I have said this many times before;
the only difference between me and the people calling me a hypocrite - is that - at least I am aware that I am one.
No other difference - you are a hypocrite in denial - I am free of that denial.


:lol

You whined. I have it in a PM. Want to see it?

[Leetonidas]

:cry ease up on me DMC :cry

[ChumpDumper]

Someone as allegedly superior and smart as yourself just made a ton of assumptions.

#1) You assumed I whined about name-calling but I was just describing what you did.No, you most certainly did whine about name calling.


#2) You assumed I want you to take me seriously.You don't? Let us know.


#3) You assume that justifying your "contempt" makes it any less stupid or contempful. It doesn't.Doesn't make it stupid at all.



I have no problem being called a hypocrite and I have said this many times before;
the only difference between me and the people calling me a hypocrite - is that - at least I am aware that I am one.
No other difference - you are a hypocrite in denial - I am free of that denial.You are in denial about quite a few things.

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJpEQEs-6bs

[ChumpDumper]

Furious Googling is not discussing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone as allegedly superior and smart as yourself just made a ton of assumptions.

#1) You assumed I whined about name-calling but I was just describing what you did.

#2) You assumed I want you to take me seriously.

#3) You assume that justifying your "contempt" makes it any less stupid or contempful. It doesn't.


I have no problem being called a hypocrite and I have said this many times before;
the only difference between me and the people calling me a hypocrite - is that - at least I am aware that I am one.
No other difference - you are a hypocrite in denial - I am free of that denial.


:lol

I never alleged anything nor did anyone else before you. That you allege it for me is more telling though. You don't seem to be a quick or thorough thinker OTOH.

It's a safe assumption that you whine. You complain about it constantly.

You lack honor as well. I can acknowledge that I am not always consistent in my approach etc. I at least try to avoid it, regret when I do it, and try and reconcile the contradiction. Had I believed in the horseshit you do, I would be a better christian than you apparently.

You have heard the story of the boy that called wolf I assume. It's hard for anyone to take you seriously because of how you act. Perhaps you get satisfaction out of getting a rise out of people or other antisocial behavior but your 'I'm rubber your glue" isn't going to change it.

[silverblk mystix]

A lot of hurt by me making a simple observation that Fuzzy's insults didn't make him any smarter...

Why the butthurt - morons?

Truth hurts?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A lot of hurt by me making a simple observation that Fuzzy's insults didn't make him any smarter...

Why the butthurt - morons?

Truth hurts?

That's not all you said but seeing that you don't stand by most of what you say, this just like the rest of it doesn't matter. Congratulations on being meaningless.

I am not hoping to make myself look smarter by insulting you. I am encouraging you to stop being stupid.

[exstatic]

Oh and if early humans mated with Neanderthals then why can't humans fuck a chimp or gorilla and create life?

Do you know they can't?

[silverblk mystix]

That's not all you said but seeing that you don't stand by most of what you say, this just like the rest of it doesn't matter. Congratulations on being meaningless.

I am not hoping to make myself look smarter by insulting you. I am encouraging you to stop being stupid.


Here it is - you never answered my serious question btw;

Are you under the illusion that your name calling, condescension and labeling is not making you look stupid?

Serious question.


Pretty easy question to answer for a guy like you, right?

[ChumpDumper]

A lot of hurt by me making a simple observation that Fuzzy's insults didn't make him any smarter...

Why the butthurt - morons?

Truth hurts?Are you being serious?

Let us know.

[ChumpDumper]

Here it is - you never answered my serious question btw;

Are you under the illusion that your name calling, condescension and labeling is not making you look stupid?

Serious question.


Pretty easy question to answer for a guy like you, right?You aren't being serious.

You just said.

[exstatic]

Yes, the Gorilla and Chimp beat out the Neanderthal who had tools, fire, and could cook. :lol

Not competitors. Not even on the same continent. Neanderthal was in Europe.

Neaderthal was competing with Cro Magnon (us). They lost.

[Clipper Nation]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJpEQEs-6bs

:lol 3ABN
:lol Jeebotard channel

[silverblk mystix]

Are you being serious?

Let us know.


lol "us"


"someone help me fight this meanie"

[The Reckoning]

the human brain will grow too large for a woman to give birth. babies will be incubated outside the womb. our brain growth will supersede our bodies and consciousness will expand.

[ChumpDumper]

lol "us"


"someone help me fight this meanie"You aren't being serious when you say that.

[silverblk mystix]

You aren't being serious when you say that.


Dead serious.

[ChumpDumper]

Dead serious.No you aren't.

You said so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here it is - you never answered my serious question btw;

Are you under the illusion that your name calling, condescension and labeling is not making you look stupid?

Serious question.


Pretty easy question to answer for a guy like you, right?

I did answer your question just not like you wanted me to. If I answer your question as it is, I am granting the premise that I am under said illusion. You really need to try harder. Remember the part where I said


You don't seem to be a quick or thorough thinker OTOH.

Your above post is an example of why I say this. You can try and speak as to my intent but that does not detract from my proof that you are not a "quick or thorough thinker."

[ChumpDumper]

He just isn't serious.

Except when he threatens the families of posters who made him look bad.

He was really fucking serious that day.

Then he chickened out and pretended not to be serious about it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol 3ABN
:lol Jeebotard channel

Hey, CN, wtf is a jeebotard?

[Clipper Nation]

A lot of hurt by me making a simple observation that Fuzzy's insults didn't make him any smarter...

Why the butthurt - morons?

Truth hurts?
Do you even read the shit you type? You whine about "Fuzzy's insults" in your first sentence and then call everyone "morons" in the very next sentence :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Hey, CN, wtf is a jeebotard?
Basically ST's term for Bible-thumpers :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Basically ST's term for Bible-thumpers :lol

right on.

[RD2191]

When have I thumped the Bible? I'm asking questions, that's all I am doing.

[silverblk mystix]

I did answer your question just not like you wanted me to. If I answer your question as it is, I am granting the premise that I am under said illusion. You really need to try harder. Remember the part where I said



Your above post is an example of why I say this. You can try and speak as to my intent but that does not detract from my proof that you are not a "quick or thorough thinker."


You are over thinking such a simple question. Ok - let me dumb it down a little for you - substitute -"think" for illusion...

Do you think that your insults....are NOT making you look stupid?

There you go - easier?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you think that your insults....are NOT making you look stupid?Do you?

[TE]

This thread really died

[The Reckoning]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/06/07/how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/

[Clipper Nation]

When have I thumped the Bible?
Non-stop for the past week, even quoting Bible verses as "unbiased proof" of God existing :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are over thinking such a simple question. Ok - let me dumb it down a little for you - substitute -"think" for illusion...

Do you think that your insults....are NOT making you look stupid?

There you go - easier?

I think the backpedaling and subsequent wording you did there makes you look stupid. That help?

[silverblk mystix]

Do you even read the shit you type? You whine about "Fuzzy's insults" in your first sentence and then call everyone "morons" in the very next sentence :lol


Well, you don't even know the context of this little deal - here you go;

Fuzzy insulted another poster (not me) and was very condescending to that poster -

While he was being a condescending prick - he also called that poster - "stupid"

So I asked him a serious question---


Anything simpler than that?

Someone with any kind of honesty or dignity - would have just answered;

Yeah, you are right - I did resort to name calling and condescension and it probably didn't make me appear smart.

That would be an honest and dignified response.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you don't even know the context of this little deal - here you go;

Fuzzy insulted another poster (not me) and was very condescending to that poster -

While he was being a condescending prick - he also called that poster - "stupid"

So I asked him a serious question---


Anything simpler than that?

Someone with any kind of honesty or dignity - would have just answered;

Yeah, you are right - I did resort to name calling and condescension and it probably didn't make me appear smart.

That would be an honest and dignified response.Answer that question for yourself.

Be honest and dignified about it.

Seriously.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, you don't even know the context of this little deal - here you go;

Fuzzy insulted another poster (not me) and was very condescending to that poster -

While he was being a condescending prick - he also called that poster - "stupid"

So I asked him a serious question---


Anything simpler than that?

Someone with any kind of honesty or dignity - would have just answered;

Yeah, you are right - I did resort to name calling and condescension and it probably didn't make me appear smart.

That would be an honest and dignified response.

:lol

Well, don't I have you in a little tizzy...

I'm in your room, Raleigh.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Well, don't I have you in a little tizzy...

I'm in your room, Raleigh.He'll say he wasn't serious.

[silverblk mystix]

:lol

Well, don't I have you in a little tizzy...

I'm in your room, Raleigh.


You are flattering yourself - I am having fun with you girls.

[ChumpDumper]

You are flattering yourself - I am having fun with you girls.So you weren't serious?

[RD2191]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/06/07/how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/
Yet modern humans have looked the same for how many thousand of years?

[ChumpDumper]

Yet modern humans have looked the same for how many thousand of years?What does your research say?

[Clipper Nation]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/06/07/how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/
To be fair, actual geneticists completely disagree with that ridiculous idea:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/06/07/no-this-is-not-how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/

[The Reckoning]

then you have this

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking#.Ul3nlFCnqM5



tldr


brain size has decreased since it reached its apex because we have essentially domesticated ourselves.

however, brain size is starting to increase again since colonial times presumably in response to complicated technology.

[The Reckoning]

To be fair, actual geneticists completely disagree with that ridiculous idea:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/06/07/no-this-is-not-how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/


oh good job you clicked on the link to the left of the page

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are flattering yourself - I am having fun with you girls.

It's funny how people use stoicism as cowardice.

[xmas1997]

It's funny how people use stoicism as cowardice.

C'mon, fuzzy, the pissing contests will get you nowhere, dude. I was hoping you were coming back to add to the discussion if you remember, because I thought you had some great posts, but all this is doing is demeaning yourself.
Remember too, these are opinions, not facts.
Just saying we could use some of your wisdom, not your ridicule.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

C'mon, fuzzy, the pissing contests will get you nowhere, dude. I was hoping you were coming back to add to the discussion if you remember, because I thought you had some great posts, but all this is doing is demeaning yourself.
Remember too, these are opinions, not facts.
Just saying we could use some of your wisdom, not your ridicule.

You think your moralism is meaningful to me? It's like you are saying, "Fuzzy please mock me."

[xmas1997]

You think your moralism is meaningful to me? It's like you are saying, "Fuzzy please mock me."

No, you misunderstand me, I was not ridiculing you, not even lecturing you either.
I sincerely enjoyed your posts a few days ago.
My hope was that you would return to that.
That galvan guy is the one IMHO who is egging this contentiousness on, especially in the other thread.
I'm sorry if you feel I was sticking my nose where it does not belong.
But I've read some utterly fantastic and insightful posts from you, and was hoping to get more of that.
So fuzzy, please, do NOT mock me, ok?
And please stop letting SBM get under your skin too. He has some decent things to say dispite whatever happened in the past.
Geez, so does chump.
Now having said all that, is it time to bash Xmas now? :lol

[Clipper Nation]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg
How to make a Jeebotard's head explode: post an article about someone questioning their fairy tales and watch them melt down for a solid week :lol

[RD2191]

:sleep

[Rogue]

humans are just animals at a very basic level because we're still doing things like all animals do. you need to eat and drink to survive, as well as other things that are unnecessary for the support of life (like sex). If humans didn't evolve from animals, but instead were created by God and sent down as a gift to this planet, then why the hell are humans fucking like dogs and most other animals do? You have no right to differentiate yourself from an animal when you're exactly behaving like one, imho.

Rogue has the bragging right over the vast majority of world's human population though. I never do such animal stuffs, I've imagined those shits and written them in my novels but those erotic shits delivered no fun to me tbh.

[TDMVPDPOY]

the future to evolution is either genetic modified born humans or selective breeding where the strong and smartest get together...

but then again if there was no dumbshits, then there wont be people to do the shitty jobs the smart people dont wanna do...

[xmas1997]

the future to evolution is either genetic modified born humans or selective breeding where the strong and smartest get together...

but then again if there was no dumbshits, then there wont be people to do the shitty jobs the smart people dont wanna do...

:lol
Don't know if you meant this to be satire but it sure sounds that way.

[The Reckoning]

the future to evolution is either genetic modified born humans or selective breeding where the strong and smartest get together...

but then again if there was no dumbshits, then there wont be people to do the shitty jobs the smart people dont wanna do...


tbh i still feel that with societal constraints, the whole selective breeding thing will produce more inbreds and the lower classes who are freed by society to breed will come out genetically strongest and take over.

[The Reckoning]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg


http://phys.org/news126955971.html


iirc from my astronomy classes, when a star collapses and forms a black hole, it creates an alternate universe on the other side so to speak. think of it as pulling together matter and energy and shotgunning it through the other side.


quantum mechanics is finally being revisited after einstein failed to decipher them. it should be interesting to hear what physicists have to say about it in the next few years.

[xmas1997]

We are making huge leaps in our understanding of the universe. Einstein unfortunately was a media tool for the most part. It does not surprise me he could not decipher quantum mechanics. His theories were a conglomeration of others before him, but he had his place.
I have actually payed more attention to Tesla from a practical point of view especially after reading about his disagreements with Edison who had employed him for a while and consequently stole some of his ideas, AC versus DC currents.
I wish there was more literature about Tesla, I would devour it. :lol

[RandomGuy]

What's the point? Spending hundreds of thousands of hours to prove evolution is true is leading to what?



No one set out with the theory and then tried to work backward. That is what creationists did and do.

Science works the other way. Evidence --> theory

You look at the evidence and follow where it leads.

There are a number of fields where basic research contributes to the overall evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Physics, chemistry, geology, biology, genetics, etc.

As for the "now what" part, that really hasn't changed. Life is short, limited and precious. Sorry I can't tell you what to do with it. The fun part is figuring that out for yourself, and some never get around to it.

Personally I am very happy to be a father and husband. That alone is worth while to me. Learning, discovering, und understanding that is what life is about, IMO. Helping people.

[bus driver]

wow, education has failed alot of people in this thread. :wakeup

[leemajors]

We are making huge leaps in our understanding of the universe. Einstein unfortunately was a media tool for the most part. It does not surprise me he could not decipher quantum mechanics. His theories were a conglomeration of others before him, but he had his place.
I have actually payed more attention to Tesla from a practical point of view especially after reading about his disagreements with Edison who had employed him for a while and consequently stole some of his ideas, AC versus DC currents.
I wish there was more literature about Tesla, I would devour it. :lol

Edison pretty much ruined his life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOR91oentQ

[cantthinkofanything]

nTHKgdOvFcc

[spurraider21]

nTHKgdOvFcc
badass. saw them live, as they opened for the Scorpions last summer at Staples Center

[spurraider21]

and nevermind that our genetic composition is 99% identical to chimps and bonobos. thats just a fucking coincidence.

[Clipper Nation]

:lmao Dumbfuck who doesn't understand basic science

[RD2191]

:lmao Dumbfuck who doesn't understand basic science
1/10

[mouse]

and nevermind that our genetic composition is 99% identical to chimps and bonobos. thats just a fucking coincidence.


We also share 98% with mice and pigs, not to mention 50% DNA with bananas.

Do a little research before you enter a debate cursing like a cab driver.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/humans-share-50-dna-bananas-2482139

[mouse]

:lmao Dumbfuck who doesn't understand basic science

Are you talking about the Science that just the other day said they were wrong about the dinosaurs all along?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224485&p=6934425#post6934425

Or the science that said Asbestos is safe for your kids to play in? maybe you meant the science that said Lucky Strikes cigarets are good for you?

It can't be today's science the one that still can't find a cure for the the common cold is it? please be specific.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol "some scientists were wrong about something, therefore science in general is wrong"
:lol "scientists can't make mistakes ever"
:lol "paleontologists discovered fossils of a new species of dinosaur, therefore science was wrong about dinosaurs"
:lol "since a cure for a virus hasn't been found, all scientists, no matter what field of expertise they are in, are suspect"

Vintage mouse retard logic. The constant use of "science" as some kind of person rather than a system is just the icing on the top.

[silverblk mystix]

:lol "some scientists were wrong about something, therefore science in general is wrong"
:lol "scientists can't make mistakes ever"
:lol "paleontologists discovered fossils of a new species of dinosaur, therefore science was wrong about dinosaurs"
:lol "since a cure for a virus hasn't been found, all scientists, no matter what field of expertise they are in, are suspect"

Vintage mouse retard logic. The constant use of "science" as some kind of person rather than a system is just the icing on the top.


Substitute the word "scientist" with

jeebotard, christian, bible thumper or any religious/spiritual label - and it will sound just as ridiculous -


like i said a million times - no side is superior

[Woo Bum-kon]

jeebotard, christian, bible thumper or any religious/spiritual label - and it will sound just as ridiculous

Yeah, because it probably wouldn't make any sense as a sentence. In regards to religious and spiritual beliefs, you are completely wrong. There either is a god(s) or there isn't. The numerous religions that man created throughout our history can't all be right, but they can definitely all be wrong.

[silverblk mystix]

Yeah, because it probably wouldn't make any sense as a sentence. In regards to religious and spiritual beliefs, you are completely wrong. There either is a god(s) or there isn't. The numerous religions that man created throughout our history can't all be right, but they can definitely all be wrong.

won't waste a lot of time with you - but the idiotic crap you spew -

"if the bible has an inconsistency - it is all garbage" is what I am referring to.

No difference - either side - no one is superior.

[Woo Bum-kon]

"if the bible has an inconsistency - it is all garbage"

Never had I made an argument like that.

If everybody is the same, you should be able to demonstrate that without using strawmen.

Take your time, I'll wait.

[silverblk mystix]

Never had I made an argument like that.

If everybody is the same, you should be able to demonstrate that without using strawmen.

Take your time, I'll wait.



Nothing to demonstrate. No one knows the truth about "god"

Complete and absolute mystery. Only idiots act superior because they think they "know" - one way or the other - and there are idiots on both sides,

Neither side is superior. All of us are blind.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol "some scientists were wrong about something, therefore science in general is wrong"
:lol "scientists can't make mistakes ever"
:lol "paleontologists discovered fossils of a new species of dinosaur, therefore science was wrong about dinosaurs"
:lol "since a cure for a virus hasn't been found, all scientists, no matter what field of expertise they are in, are suspect"

Vintage mouse retard logic. The constant use of "science" as some kind of person rather than a system is just the icing on the top.
He is also either ignorant to the scientific method or chooses to ignore it since it destroys his whole anti-science stance :lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

Nothing to demonstrate. No one knows the truth about "god"

Complete and absolute mystery. Only idiots act superior because they think they "know" - one way or the other - and there are idiots on both sides,

Neither side is superior. All of us are blind.

Cool dodge and pathetic attempt to try and change the subject. I already destroyed you before on this matter, yet you keep coming back for more.

Why don't you use another strawman and start talking about your "mystic" nonsense again? I need a good laugh.

[silverblk mystix]

Cool dodge and pathetic attempt to try and change the subject. I already destroyed you before on this matter, yet you keep coming back for more.

Why don't you use another strawman and start talking about your "mystic" nonsense again? I need a good laugh.


You never learned anything the first time - you are still programmed, still blind, still brainwashed.

How do you tell a man in a dream who is unaware it is a dream - that he is dreaming?

Sorry, you can't.

[Woo Bum-kon]

How do you tell a man in a dream who is unaware it is a dream - that he is dreaming?

I can't because this isn't Inception and I can't go into other people's dreams.

But please continue trying to pass of your gibberish as insightful, though. We all appreciate your pseudo-enlightened shtick followed by calling people who were mean to you on the internet "faggots" and "cucks."

[Blake]

Substitute the word "scientist" with

jeebotard, christian, bible thumper or any religious/spiritual label - and it will sound just as ridiculous -


like i said a million times - no side is superior

Then a million times you've said something retarded.

[Blake]

You never learned anything the first time - you are still programmed, still blind, still brainwashed.

How do you tell a man in a dream who is unaware it is a dream - that he is dreaming?

Sorry, you can't.

:lmao :lmao getting your theory of life from Inception

Damn you're stupid.

[xmas1997]

There are good and bad personalities on both sides of this debate.
But the ONLY truth that both agree on is that neither side can prove or disprove the other.
So, yes, he is correct, in this day and age it is a mystery, and that is WHY it is still called a mystery, by both sides, no, by all sides. Because there are more angles than just "there is or is not a God".

[silverblk mystix]

There are good and bad personalities on both sides of this debate.
But the ONLY truth that both agree on is that neither side can prove or disprove the other.
So, yes, he is correct, in this day and age it is a mystery, and that is WHY it is still called a mystery, by both sides, no, by all sides. Because there are more angles than just "there is or is not a God".

Never try to teach a pig to sing....

it will only leave you frustrated -

and it will irritate the shit out of the pig!

[mouse]

Posters lacking Intelligent conversation skills.



retarded.


internet "faggots" and "cucks."




Vintage mouse retard logic. .

[xmas1997]

Edison pretty much ruined his life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOR91oentQ

Not only Edison, but so did Westinghouse. They both screwed Tesla over to make a buck.

[silverblk mystix]

^ mouse truth^

[Blake]

There are good and bad personalities on both sides of this debate.
But the ONLY truth that both agree on is that neither side can prove or disprove the other.
So, yes, he is correct, in this day and age it is a mystery, and that is WHY it is still called a mystery, by both sides, no, by all sides. Because there are more angles than just "there is or is not a God".

This thread is about evolution.

You're not really into finding truth.

[spurraider21]

We also share 98% with mice and pigs, not to mention 50% DNA with bananas.

Do a little research before you enter a debate cursing like a cab driver.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/humans-share-50-dna-bananas-2482139
The genetic resemblance to other mammals isn't shocking at all. 99% is impossible to ignore

[Woo Bum-kon]

Posters lacking Intelligent conversation skills.

You call me out for lacking "Intelligent conversation skills," then you deliberately take one of my posts out of context. :lol You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.


Never try to teach a pig to sing....

it will only leave you frustrated -

and it will irritate the shit out of the pig!

None of the sayings that you posted in the last hour have made any sense. At all. You're terrible. Stop.



But the ONLY truth that both agree on is that neither side can prove or disprove the other.

The only one who has to prove anything is the one making the god claim. That's it and that's all.


Because there are more angles than just "there is or is not a God".

No there aren't. Either your God exists in reality or it does not. So far, neither you nor any other believer has provided a single compelling reason to believe that the former is true.

[silverblk mystix]

You call me out for lacking "Intelligent conversation skills," then you deliberately take one of my posts out of context. :lol You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.



None of the sayings that you posted in the last hour have made any sense. At all. You're terrible. Stop.




The only one who has to prove anything is the one making the god claim. That's it and that's all.



No there aren't. Either your God exists in reality or it does not. So far, neither you nor any other believer has provided a single compelling reason to believe that the former is true.


All of this and you are still in the same position as before;

no better than anyone else and no closer to "god" "truth" than anyone else either.

Pretty pointless actually - except you claim superiority and in doing so - define yourself as an idiot.

[Woo Bum-kon]

If nobody knows the truth, the reasonable thing would be to not believe until the truth comes out, right? Oh wait, "god is unknown and unknowable." Therefore, we should all just not believe, right?

[silverblk mystix]

If nobody knows the truth, the reasonable thing would be to not believe until the truth comes out, right? Oh wait, "god is unknown and unknowable." Therefore, we should all just not believe, right?

Actually, the reasonable thing to do - at least in my opinion and in my experience -

is to enjoy every moment and every breath that you take.

The rest is for idiots to worry about.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Actually, the reasonable thing to do - at least in my opinion and in my experience -

is to enjoy every moment and every breath that you take.

The rest is for idiots to worry about.

Not only does this post lack any substance whatsoever, it also contradicts damn-near all your other posts on this forum. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't actually be having this discussion with me right now. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't be so caught up in your e-wars with half the posters in The Club. Until you stop saying one thing then doing another, you should stop giving out life advice.

[xmas1997]

You call me out for lacking "Intelligent conversation skills," then you deliberately take one of my posts out of context. :lol You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.



None of the sayings that you posted in the last hour have made any sense. At all. You're terrible. Stop.




The only one who has to prove anything is the one making the god claim. That's it and that's all.



No there aren't. Either your God exists in reality or it does not. So far, neither you nor any other believer has provided a single compelling reason to believe that the former is true.

Because you fail to understand simple logic dose not give your argument any more validity or basis in reality.
Not trying to persuade you of anything. That is for you to do. And the only thing you will ultimately "believe" as being truth will be your own personal subjective experience. That, neither science, nor mysticism, nor philosophy, nor any of your senses, nor anyone's reasonable logic, will be enough for you. Only "your own personal experience" will suffice.

So sorry to inform you, but the theist has no more burden of proof than the atheist does. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. Nor does one view supersede the other.

And yes, there are many more angles than you are capable of understanding than a purely black or white perspective concerning "is or is not a God", there is much more gray area than you are willing to acknowledge because you first have to realize that nothing exists in reality that is solely and simply only one or the other. There are exceptions to every rule in the universe.

[Clipper Nation]

Not only does this post lack any substance whatsoever, it also contradicts damn-near all your other posts on this forum. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't actually be having this discussion with me right now. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't be so caught up in your e-wars with half the posters in The Club. Until you stop saying one thing then doing another, you should stop giving out life advice.
His response will be "at least I admit I'm a hypocrite!" as if that lets him off the hook for being one or makes the rest of us hypocrites in any way :lol

[Clipper Nation]

So sorry to inform you, but the theist has no more burden of proof than the atheist does.
Sorry, but theists are the ones putting forth the claim, therefore, theists have the burden of proof....

[clambake]

someone saw god in a screen door.

[clambake]

a screen door.

[clambake]

a

screen

door

[Woo Bum-kon]

Because you fail to understand simple logic dose not give your argument any more validity or basis in reality.

Yes it does, because logic and reality are directly related.


Not trying to persuade you of anything. That is for you to do. And the only thing you will ultimately "believe" as being truth will be your own personal subjective experience. That, neither science, nor mysticism, nor philosophy, nor any of your senses, nor anyone's reasonable logic, will be enough for you. Only "your own personal experience" will suffice.

My own personal experience doesn't dictate truth.


So sorry to inform you, but the theist has no more burden of proof than the atheist does.

In regards to the god claim, yes they absolutely do. The one making the claim provides the proof. It's that simple.


One is not mutually exclusive of the other.

Uh, yes they are. By definition, they are mutually exclusive.


And yes, there are many more angles than you are capable of understanding than a purely black or white perspective concerning "is or is not a God", there is much more gray area than you are willing to acknowledge because you first have to realize that nothing exists in reality that is solely and simply only one or the other. There are exceptions to every rule in the universe.

No, there aren't any more angles. If you can show me something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, then I will concede your point. Until then, it is either one or the other.

[clambake]

Yes it does, because logic and reality are directly related.


My own personal experience doesn't dictate truth.



In regards to the god claim, yes they absolutely do. The one making the claim provides the proof. It's that simple.



Uh, yes they are. By definition, they are mutually exclusive.



No, there aren't any more angles. If you can show me something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, then I will concede your point. Until then, it is either one or the other.
stfu until you've seen god in a screen door.

a screen door

a

screen

door

[xmas1997]

Sorry, but theists are the ones putting forth the claim, therefore, theists have the burden of proof....

Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.
So the real truth is they neither have the burden of proof, or if you prefer, disproof.
Just because you say they do does not make it so. And the same is true that just because they may say it does, equally does not make it so.


someone saw god in a screen door.

:lmao

[Clipper Nation]

Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.
Well, no, atheists aren't the ones who have to provide proof because we'd be proving a negative, tbh....

Due to the lack of physical, tangible, visible evidence of a god, as well as the existing evidence for things such as evolution, theists need to put forth actually compelling proof that a god does indeed exist in order to be taken seriously, tbh.... and no, Bible verses don't count....

[Woo Bum-kon]

Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.

Of course, atheists aren't putting forth the claim there isn't a god, because that's not what atheism is.

The default position is non-belief. Every single person who was ever born was born an atheist. The believer has chosen to not to take the default position, so they therefore have the burden of proof. That is literally what burden of proof is.

[mouse]

The genetic resemblance to other mammals isn't shocking at all. 99% is impossible to ignore

lug nuts from a Chevy would screw onto a Pontiac that doesn't mean they both evolved from a skateboard.

Similarities only confirm there was a common designer. Besides that if you was really intelligent you would not want to have any Ape in your DNA. Why are you so excited to have it?


Evolution is not a scientific law.

Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
Scientific disagreement

There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Evolution is “pseudo-science”

Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1997, p. 52).

[xmas1997]

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

[Clipper Nation]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".
Atheists are the critics, theists are the ones asserting the claim that God exists, therefore theists have the burden of proof.....

[AntiChrist]

We still can't create one living cell without borrowing DNA from another. Maybe one day...

[xmas1997]

Atheists are the critics, theists are the ones asserting the claim that God exists, therefore theists have the burden of proof.....


No more so than the atheist is claiming the belief that God does not exist.
You want one to go first?
Then toss a coin.
Then you can have your pro and con and your burden of proof.
It is too easy for you to say the belief "in" is more or less compelling than the belief "against."
Both are equal in assertion.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

And no, we still aren't on equal footing. The default position is non-belief. Period. The theist is the one who makes the claim that there is a god. Therefore, the theist has burden of proof.

You brought up the study of knowledge, so let's go with that. The reason why I brought up the fact that we are all born atheists is because knowledge--justified, true, belief--is gained through logic and reasoning. When one is presented with a claim, they examine the evidence, then come to a conclusion based off said evidence. That's the best way to find out whether something is true or not. The claim is that a god exists, and the evidence doesn't support the claim. If the evidence does not support the claim, the one should not believe in that claim. If you care about what is true, you wouldn't be a theist.

[mouse]

We still can't create one living cell without borrowing DNA from another. Maybe one day...

And when that day comes you become a "creator" so at the end Science only proves creation? :lmao

[xmas1997]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

And no, we still aren't on equal footing. The default position is non-belief. Period. The theist is the one who makes the claim that there is a god. Therefore, the theist has burden of proof.

You brought up the study of knowledge, so let's go with that. The reason why I brought up the fact that we are all born atheists is because knowledge--justified, true, belief--is gained through logic and reasoning. When one is presented with a claim, they examine the evidence, then come to a conclusion based off said evidence. That's the best way to find out whether something is true or not. The claim is that a god exists, and the evidence doesn't support the claim. If the evidence does not support the claim, the one should not believe in that claim. If you care about what is true, you wouldn't be a theist.


I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?
In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition. Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.
I quoted it verbatim.
If you want to do it that way then your definition has no more validity than opinion, or as I said before, your own personal subjective experience. And if that is the case then it falls into the gray areas that I was referring to.

To your second argument, some of what you say is true except you leave much out. It is true, knowledge is gained "partly" through logic and reasoning, but that is not the sum total. Rather it is also gained through experience, intuition (the "hunch"), imagination (the conception of an idea), study, scientific method (replication), and the examination of evidence, etc.
And I must respectfully disagree with you when I state that the truest best way to know something is to experience it for yourself. This is why it is commonly said that experience is the best teacher. This is also why we learn the greatest lessons in life, and they make the greatest imprint upon our psyche, from our own mistakes.

My point is that neither can the theist prove his belief of the existence of God, any more than the atheist can prove his belief that there is no God.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?

1.) Words tend to be defined differently from source to source.
2.) A basic definition often doesn't capture the intricacies and baggage that comes with some terms. There are far better sources for the definition of atheism than dictionary.com.


In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition. Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.

I didn't establish myself as a source. Look at the second definition from your source. That is the definition I provided.


To your second argument, some of what you say is true except you leave much out. It is true, knowledge is gained "partly" through logic and reasoning, but that is not the sum total. Rather it is also gained through experience, intuition (the "hunch"), imagination (the conception of an idea), study, scientific method (replication), and the examination of evidence, etc.

All of which fall under logic and reasoning. Thank you for agreeing with me.


And I must respectfully disagree with you when I state that the truest best way to know something is to experience it for yourself.

And I must state that you are utterly wrong. The best way to find out the truth about something is to have independent verification. People have their own biases, delusions, etc. An independent source's corroboration is far more conducive towards discovering what is true than personal anecdotes.


My point is that neither can the theist prove his belief of the existence of God, any more than the atheist can prove his belief that there is no God.

Your point is tired and stupid. The time to believe is when there is a sufficient amount of evidence for that belief. Anecdotes mean shit. We aren't on the same footing. If something is true, it should be able to be verified by others. The fact that your god has not be verified means that you shouldn't believe in it. You, however, are just content with belief because it comforts you.

[xmas1997]

1.) Words tend to be defined differently from source to source.
2.) A basic definition often doesn't capture the intricacies and baggage that comes with some terms. There are far better sources for the definition of atheism than dictionary.com.
I didn't establish myself as a source. Look at the second definition from your source. That is the definition I provided.
All of which fall under logic and reasoning. Thank you for agreeing with me.
And I must state that you are utterly wrong. The best way to find out the truth about something is to have independent verification. People have their own biases, delusions, etc. An independent source's corroboration is far more conducive towards discovering what is true than personal anecdotes.
Your point is tired and stupid. The time to believe is when there is a sufficient amount of evidence for that belief. Anecdotes mean shit. We aren't on the same footing. If something is true, it should be able to be verified by others. The fact that your god has not be verified means that you shouldn't believe in it. You, however, are just content with belief because it comforts you.


For someone who has much to say but little to stand behind, you have given me no "facts" whatsoever, just more of your self proclaimed opinions. Opinions do not make something a fact. They are subjective in nature.

And if you want to make up your own dictionary definitions using such intangibles as "intricacies" and "baggage", then there is no common ground in fact, rather it is of your own fancy. No one can debate your fancy.
Thus you have not disputed anything I've said, rather you have strengthened my argument, which I do believe was not your intention to do.

So you are mistaken in saying I agreed with you because my own statement was obviously to the contrary.
Reread what I said. You draw erroneous conclusions at your peril.

And furthermore you create your own unverifiable definitions to suit your own unverifiable purposes.
If we are not able to begin the debate on some common ground of commonly accepted definitions then we cannot debate. It would be the same as saying I am talking about apples and you about pears.

You are welcome to thank me all you want, but the only one you are deluding is yourself.
No, instead you revert back to lame accusations in an attempt at an even lamer diversion by using "tired and stupid" as the crux of your point. These have no more merit in fact than does the price of tea in China. And are more of your opinions at best.

You had best reexamine your definitions of "logic" and "reasoning", unless you wish to make up your own definitions of those as well because any grade schooler can tell you that they are not inclusive of the modes to arrive at truth.

The only thing I agree with (pay attention) is that I quote, "we are not on the same footing", and that is about the only valid thing you have had to say IMHO, because after all, that is all you have given me so far, your opinions.
We can discuss opinions, but we certainly can't debate them. That would be illogical IMHO.
:lol

[spurraider21]

No more so than the atheist is claiming the belief that God does not exist.
You want one to go first?
Then toss a coin.
Then you can have your pro and con and your burden of proof.
It is too easy for you to say the belief "in" is more or less compelling than the belief "against."
Both are equal in assertion.
Atheists aren't making a claim. Atheism is the absence of a claim. Atheists don't "believe" that god doesn't exist. They just see no reason to believe in it

[spurraider21]

lug nuts from a Chevy would screw onto a Pontiac that doesn't mean they both evolved from a skateboard.

Similarities only confirm there was a common designer. Besides that if you was really intelligent you would not want to have any Ape in your DNA. Why are you so excited to have it?


Evolution is not a scientific law.

Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
Scientific disagreement

There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Evolution is “pseudo-science”

Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1997, p. 52).
Gravity is also a theory :lol

[xmas1997]

Atheists aren't making a claim. Atheism is the absence of a claim. Atheists don't "believe" that god doesn't exist. They just see no reason to believe in it


Spurraider, it would be nice to say that, and if it were true, or at least the dictionary definition, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but the fact is that it isn't. I quoted the definition of both atheist and theist.
You have only to take it or leave it.
It is what it is.
Maybe you would prefer gnostic versus agnostic instead?
In either case you are stating "your opinion" of an established definition.

[mouse]

Gravity is also a theory :lol


There are Two Types of Theory

Scientific Theories and Unscientific Theories

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)

[mouse]

What does your research say?

D2koWcJnuFY

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.
So the real truth is they neither have the burden of proof, or if you prefer, disproof.
Just because you say they do does not make it so. And the same is true that just because they may say it does, equally does not make it so.



:lmao

Philosophy minor that is clueless in logic or is he just full of shit?

You do not have a burden to prove a negative. Thus they call the two sides of an argument the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative has the burden of proof. Welcome to human culture.

The Christian god has been thoroughly disproven to the point where you have people disavowing what it says and making up shit to substitute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

We do not accept your label. We are claiming that there is no basis for the belief and we default to skepticism.

Take your label and shove it up your ass.

[Woo Bum-kon]

And if you want to make up your own dictionary definitions using such intangibles as "intricacies" and "baggage", then there is no common ground in fact, rather it is of your own fancy. No one can debate your fancy.

Again, look at the second Dictionary.com definition of atheism. I didn't make up my own definition of anything.


So you are mistaken in saying I agreed with you because my own statement was obviously to the contrary.
Reread what I said. You draw erroneous conclusions at your peril.

Wrong. Experience, intuition, imagination, examination, and replication all directly relate to logic and reasoning, so you trying to set them apart makes no sense.


And furthermore you create your own unverifiable definitions to suit your own unverifiable purposes.
If we are not able to beginthe debate on some common ground of commonly accepted definitions then we cannot debate. It would be the same as saying I am talking about apples and you about pears.

:lol Apparently, the first definition of atheism that you come across is the only definition there is, and anybody who uses a slightly different definition is making up their own definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lack%20of%20belief%20in%20gods

i didn't make up anything.


You had best reexamine your definitions of "logic" and "reasoning", unless you wish to make up your own definitions of those as well because any grade schooler can tell you that they are not inclusive of the modes to arrive at truth.

Already addressed this. Logic and reasoning shaped the scientific method. Logic and reasoning tells one to draw from experience. Logic and reasoning are directly related to finding out the truth.


The only thing I agree with (pay attention) is that I quote, "we are not on the same footing", and that is about the only valid thing you have had to say IMHO, because after all, that is all you have given me so far, your opinions.
We can discuss opinions, but we certainly can't debate them. That would be illogical IMHO.
:lol

You having no good reason to believe in a god is not just a mere opinion. You have none and you have presented none so far. Are you going to keep pretending that I am making up definitions and not providing proof that a god exists?

[Woo Bum-kon]

Spurraider, it would be nice to say that, and if it were true, or at least the dictionary definition, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but the fact is that it isn't. I quoted the definition of both atheist and theist.
You have only to take it or leave it.
It is what it is.
Maybe you would prefer gnostic versus agnostic instead?
In either case you are stating "your opinion" of an established definition.

:lol This dude really thinks that the first bare bones definition from dictionary.com is the only definition of atheism there is. First of all, dictionary.com is not the first and last authority on what atheism is. It is not an infallible source that overrides every other source. Second, the second definition matches exactly the one I provided.

Not only are you being extremely stupid by accepting the first definition of a word that you come across, you are being extremely lazy by not even bothering to read the second one from your own source.

[RandomGuy]

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

... and all I have to do to sidestep that is simply reject the claim that there is a God.

Your concept of atheist “belief” is flawed.

You may use the dictionary to define something, but the problem with that is that dictionaries tend to follow the generally understood meanings of words, and there is something of a lag, and it is quite possible for the general meaning to be flawed as well.

I reject the dictionary definition, as would a lot of people who call themselves atheist.

An atheist is simply someone who has rejected the claim “God exists”.

I don’t have the burden of proof for that, it is simply the logical default, until a reasonable amount of evidence supports that. There is none.

Now, if you want to shoehorn me, or any other atheist into the “but you BELIEVE there is no God” that is your logical fallacy, i.e. a strawman. There is a spectrum of opinion even within the loose grouping of atheists.

I can’t, and won’t try to disprove “God exists”. That is simply trying to prove a negative, and that is generally silly, as you well know. There are atheists who will argue there is no God, and they have a burden of proof that they cannot meet either.

I have no burden of proof, please stop trying to say any atheist does. I have now given you enough information for a rational person to abandon that claim, without qualifying it markedly.

You are simply wrong here. Either you are rational enough to admit that, and can learn from that mistake, or you are not.

[RandomGuy]

In short:

An online dictionary cannot tell you what I believe. Only I can do that.

Fallacy: Straw Man


Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[xmas1997]

:lol This dude really thinks that the first bare bones definition from dictionary.com is the only definition of atheism there is. First of all, dictionary.com is not the first and last authority on what atheism is. It is not an infallible source that overrides every other source. Second, the second definition matches exactly the one I provided.


Do I now?
Seems to me you are engaging in a deliberate attempt to dissemble the facts in order to justify your argument instead of facing the fact that you cannot win an argument based purely upon opinions.

And now typically Fuuzzy has chimed in with his deliberate "baiting" tactics again hoping to show he may be somewhat intelligent, but cannot face the fact that insults do not, nor will they ever, be conducive to a proper debate, nor endow one with innate intelligence. Rather it is the common tactic of the pseudo-intellectual. :lol

But since you brought it up, let's examine the definitions to see if you are right.
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(Dictionary.com)

Let's take another.
Atheism: in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,
in a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
(Wikipedia)

So how many do I have to go through before you realize what I have been saying?
Is your only intention to sidetrack the issue?
Shall I continue?

Logic: it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity,
it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof.
(Wikipedia)

But let's get another one.
Logic: 1. the science that investigates the principals governing correct or reliable inference,
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation,
3. the system or principals of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study,
4. reason or sound judgement, as in utterances or actions,
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness.
(Dictionary.com)

Do you want more?
Where does it end, where it meets your particular definition? That is absurd.
I took the most concise definition available, but that did not suit you, so you chose to obfuscate the issue.

Should I define "Reasoning" for you as well?
No, because unless you agree to some common ground, as I stated before, we are debating "opinions", there can be no clear cut definitive outcome unless you debate "facts", which you still fail to produce.

I will give you one thing though, you have successfully sidetracked the topic of this thread. :lol




Not only are you being extremely stupid by accepting the first definition of a word that you come across, you are being extremely lazy by not even bothering to read the second one from your own source.


This, above, is a clear cut example of how you debate or discuss an issue, slinging insults for lack of facts, and substituting "opinions" instead of "facts".
These are Fuuzzy' tactics, and they do not fly in a true discussion or debate.
Go back and try again.
:lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

I didn't obfuscate shit, moron. I stated the simplest definition of atheism there is, then you tried to argue that the only real definition of atheism is the first one found on dictionary.com. You were wrong.

Now I don't even know what kind of stupid point you are trying to make. The scientific method was formed through logic and reasoning. It is not independent of it; it is a result of it. And like I said before, if you wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be a theist, because the god claim has not satisfied it's burden of proof. It simply is not a matter of opinion. The way to discover the truth is by examining the evidence, then working our way to a conclusion. That's not an opinion. The theist has not practiced a sufficient amount of skepticism.

If I am wrong, then prove it by presenting adequate evidence for the existence of your god. If you can't, then you have no reason to believe.

[spurraider21]

There are Two Types of Theory

Scientific Theories and Unscientific Theories

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)
scientific would be study of fossil records, genetic research, etc.

unscientific would be "but the big book says so!"

[xmas1997]

Plus there is much validity in evolution theory, however, much of it cannot be replicated using scientific method.
Even so, that does not make it false.
Glad we are back on topic.

[xmas1997]

We do not accept your label. We are claiming that there is no basis for the belief and we default to skepticism.

Take your label and shove it up your ass.


I didn't obfuscate shit, moron. I stated the simplest definition of atheism there is, then you tried to argue that the only real definition of atheism is the first one found on dictionary.com. You were wrong.

Now I don't even know what kind of stupid point you are trying to make. The scientific method was formed through logic and reasoning. It is not independent of it; it is a result of it. And like I said before, if you wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be a theist, because the god claim has not satisfied it's burden of proof. It simply is not a matter of opinion. The way to discover the truth is by examining the evidence, then working our way to a conclusion. That's not an opinion. The theist has not practiced a sufficient amount of skepticism.

If I am wrong, then prove it by presenting adequate evidence for the existence of your god. If you can't, then you have no reason to believe.


Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.
(Benjamin Franklin)

[xmas1997]

Philosophy minor that is clueless in logic or is he just full of shit?

You do not have a burden to prove a negative. Thus they call the two sides of an argument the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative has the burden of proof. Welcome to human culture.

The Christian god has been thoroughly disproven to the point where you have people disavowing what it says and making up shit to substitute.


When it's (the soul's) gaze is fixed upon an object irradiated by truth and reality, the soul gains understanding and knowledge and is manifestly in possession of intelligence. But when it looks toward that twilight world of things that come into existence and pass away, it has only opinions and beliefs which shift to and fro, and now it seems like a thing that has no intelligence . . .
(Plato)

[xmas1997]

Wrong. Experience, intuition, imagination, examination, and replication all directly relate to logic and reasoning, so you trying to set them apart makes no sense.
i didn't make up anything.


There are two modes of knowledge, through argument and experience. Argument brings conclusions and compels us to concede them, but it does not cause certainty nor remove doubts in order that the mind may remain at rest in truth, unless this is provided by experience.
(Roger Bacon)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.
(Benjamin Franklin)

We are telling you what our position is. What our interpretation of the word means. Pretty much every 'atheist' on the planet takes this same position yet you feel obligated to label what they think as something else. Given that your quote is the ultimate in irony.

Like I said take your pigeonholing label and try and learn a different perspective. Otherwise shove your strawman up your ass.

[xmas1997]

We are telling you what our position is. What our interpretation of the word means. Pretty much every 'atheist' on the planet takes this same position yet you feel obligated to label what they think as something else. Given that your quote is the ultimate in irony.

Like I said take your pigeonholing label and try and learn a different perspective. Otherwise shove your strawman up your ass.

Hmm, so you are saying that not only am I full of shit, but so are Benjamin Franklin, Roger Bacon, and Plato, among other great thinkers?
Let's quickly examine your contentious and fallacious post, shall we?
I wasn't labeling anything or anyone.
I was quoting recognized authorities on the word "atheism".
More of your pseudo-intellectualism on display.
You are the guys who were making up your own definitions as if you were both authorities.
The record of posts will show and prove this.
Maybe you should go to work for Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or Wikipedia, since apparently you think you know more than they do.
:lol

[Jake the Muss]

We are telling you what our position is. What our interpretation of the word means. Pretty much every 'atheist' on the planet takes this same position yet you feel obligated to label what they think as something else. Given that your quote is the ultimate in irony.

Like I said take your pigeonholing label and try and learn a different perspective. Otherwise shove your strawman up your ass.



Mate, this is really unnecessary. Have a little class.

[clambake]

you need to take that screen door on tour.

[Blake]

Hmm, so you are saying that not only am I full of shit, but so are Benjamin Franklin, Roger Bacon, and Plato, among other great thinkers?

you're full of logical fallacies such as this one.

basically why you suck at debating.

[silverblk mystix]

you're full of logical fallacies such as this one.

basically why you suck at debating.


I don't think xmas really meant to call you a cuck - take it easy.

You are a cuck - but I don't think he meant that.


:lol

[xmas1997]

Mate, this is really unnecessary. Have a little class.

I really don't think it is possible for him to do that, that takes some mental effort, something apparently he does not have enough of to expend.
Plus people are not born with "class", they have to spend the time to develop it, and usually by your middle 20s, you either have it, or you never will.
About the only time he posts anything of relevance is when fuuzzy talks about the Spurs, and when he does that, it is usually a concise, civil, and knowledgeable post.
But about anything else, uh uh, not going to happen. It is beyond his intellect IMHO.
That is why I encourage him to stick to Spurs related material, or try joking a little bit.
:lol

[xmas1997]

you're full of logical fallacies such as this one.

basically why you suck at debating.

What?
Neither you, nor fuuzzy, nor woo, can take a little constructive criticism from some of the wisest men of our ages?
That is a sad legacy IMHO.
:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Mate, this is really unnecessary. Have a little class.

Hey at lest you stopped calling people, chap, which is not how kiwis speak.

[xmas1997]

Hey at lest you stopped calling people, chap, which is not how kiwis speak.

Oh. And now you are an authority on New Zealanders too?
Your ego knows no bounds!
:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmm, so you are saying that not only am I full of shit, but so are Benjamin Franklin, Roger Bacon, and Plato, among other great thinkers?
Let's quickly examine your contentious and fallacious post, shall we?
I wasn't labeling anything or anyone.
I was quoting recognized authorities on the word "atheism".
More of your pseudo-intellectualism on display.
You are the guys who were making up your own definitions as if you were both authorities.
The record of posts will show and prove this.
Maybe you should go to work for Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or Wikipedia, since apparently you think you know more than they do.
:lol

Quoting them does not mean you applied what they said to the situation. I applied your Franklin quote to yourself. You applied it to nothing. The Plato nonsense is 'the hidden world' bullshit which again there is no basis for much like the notion of 'god.' You didn't even demonstrate how it applies.

Words have more than one definition.

You are a charlatan.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh. And now you are an authority on New Zealanders too?
Your ego knows no bounds!
:lol

I'm on a ventrilo server right now with 7 aussies and a kiwi. They say that 'chap' if anything is a brit thing and they say people do not talk like that.

My ego? GFY.

[Blake]

I don't think xmas really meant to call you a cuck - take it easy.

You are a cuck - but I don't think he meant that.


:lol

You're full of unintelligence.

[Blake]

What?
Neither you, nor fuuzzy, nor woo, can take a little constructive criticism from some of the wisest men of our ages?
That is a sad legacy IMHO.
:lol

Oh look. Another logical fallacy.

Keep em coming.

[xmas1997]

Quoting them does not mean you applied what they said to the situation. I applied your Franklin quote to yourself. You applied it to nothing. The Plato nonsense is 'the hidden world' bullshit which again there is no basis for much like the notion of 'god.' You didn't even demonstrate how it applies.
Words have more than one definition.
You are a charlatan.


And this is more of the same ol, same ol straight out of the brain of pseudo intellectual.
You do not understand so you try ridicule or obfuscation, or both.
And all of that fails because none of your arguments have any basis in reality, or at least the reality that most of us commonly share, consequently that is why I quoted those sages.
But it apparently went right over your head.
Instead you counter with more baseless accusation, ridicule, and baiting, none of which has anything to do with the central point, and thus weakens your premiss, if you ever had one in the first place.
You cannot arbitrarily set yourself up as an authority on something, and especially not on definitions where established authorities already exist, and are in disagreement with you.
Nor can you arbitrarily set yourself up as an authority on people from foreign places like N.Z.
That is the epitome of egotistical arrogance, nothing less, nothing more.
:lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

Funny how Xmas dodged my post.

So where's that proof of God?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

blah blah blah blahl

What precisely of what I am saying is pseudo-intellectual?

When I say you are a pseudo-intellectual I point to two things.

1) Using a quote finder to find quotes from various philosophers and spamming them
2) Trying to conflate parallel universes and string theory claiming it is mathematically justified

Those are both examples of someone trying to sound like they are intelligent when in truth they are talking out of their ass.

Now dodge this with some more dissembling and ignore WBK trying to bring something substantive to the discussion.

You are a charlatan.

[xmas1997]

Again, one last time, you cannot arbitrarily set yourselves up as authorities on any subject where established authorities already exist.
Until you first understand this, then we can proceed from there in having a competent intelligent and fruitful debate.
If you can't, then there is no point in going any further.
You have to have a premiss that is backed by established authority.
Simple debate mechanics.
Until you start there, then there is no point in going further.
Get back to me when you are ready to begin at the beginning.
You cannot put the cart before the horse, either of you.
Good luck.
Oh, and enjoy your baiting.
:lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

Funny how Xmas dodged my post.

So where's that proof of God?

[xmas1997]

I addressed you both in the plural, or did you conveniently miss that fact?
So, you are wrong again, I neither acknowledged nor dodged you.
If you had been paying attention you would have seen this.
Reread my last post before this one.
Then let me know.
We can go from there.
Or continue on the fruitless path you are already on and see what it brings you.
You might also bring a little humor to the table as well.
:lol

[Jake the Muss]

I'm on a ventrilo server right now with 7 aussies and a kiwi. They say that 'chap' if anything is a brit thing and they say people do not talk like that.

My ego? GFY.


No offense mate, but Jakey is a lovable chap and your friends sound like a bunch of wankers. Mate, seriously, why are you wound so tight? Jake likes to hit the speed bag and it keeps the stress away. Try it mate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's a coward wbk. He won't address anything head on and tries this dissembling nonsense. You are wasting your time.

[xmas1997]

He's a coward wbk. He won't address anything head on and tries this dissembling nonsense. You are wasting your time.


Why?
Because I refuse to succumb to your feeble attempts to bait me into fruitless pissing contests?
It is ironic that what you accuse me of is the very tactic you are engaged in yourself.
And you want my participation?
Don't be silly.
I've done my time here making a fool of myself.
Now it's your turn.
You are doing an admiral job of it so far IMHO.
:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No offense mate, but Jakey is a lovable chap and your friends sound like a bunch of wankers. Mate, seriously, why are you wound so tight? Jake likes to hit the speed bag and it keeps the stress away. Try it mate.

Much offense, bloke. Mate, you are not from down under, bloke. Wankers are bloke mates shrimp on the barbie. wallabies and joey crocodile hunters.

See. I'm from Australia!

[xmas1997]

Much offense, bloke. Mate, you are not from down under, bloke. Wankers are bloke mates shrimp on the barbie. wallabies and joey crocodile hunters.

See. I'm from Australia!

C'mon, fuuzzy, that is an epic fail.
This is further proof of your pseudo intelligence at work.
You should really stop, because you are making a gigantic fool of yourself.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I addressed you both in the plural, or did you conveniently miss that fact?

You addressed me but not the points I made in my post. Or did you conveniently miss that fact?


So, you are wrong again, I neither acknowledged nor dodged you.

lol you addressed me but didn't acknowledge me. Cool contradiction.


blah blah blah

Neat. So, where's that evidence for God?

[Woo Bum-kon]

dp