Bill Nye slams creationism

[mouse]

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

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

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

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


How much time does the Darwin gang need?

[DMC]

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

That's actually strawmen.

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

Let him mul roll himself to death.

[DMC]

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

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

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


How much time does the Darwin gang need?

You haven't evolved ergo I see your point.

[mouse]

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


mmmm





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


tick tock

[Borat Sagyidev]

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

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

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


How much time does the Darwin gang need?

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

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

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

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

[mouse]

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

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

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

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

in a NUTS your point?

[Blake]

in a NUTS your point?

you're stupid.

[Clipper Nation]

That's actually strawmen.

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

[Agloco]

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

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

[Agloco]

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

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

[Brazil]

in a NUTS your point?

you're stupid

[mouse]

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

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


What's not to get?

[Wild Cobra]

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

LOL...

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

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

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

Care to prove me wrong?

[mouse]

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

[Agloco]

LOL...

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

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

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

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

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

[Agloco]

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

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

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

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

Care to prove me wrong?

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

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

[mouse]

tick tock

[RandomGuy]

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

Bad analogy.

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

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

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

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

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by mouse

Elements don't evolve.

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

Come on mouse, you can do better than this.

He can't really.

He genuinely thinks elements evolved.

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

Also Known as: Ad Populum

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Asked and answered.

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


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

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

"Allah hua akbar", anyone?

[mouse]

He can't really.

He genuinely thinks elements evolved.

I never said Elements evolve.

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

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

[RandomGuy]

I never said Elements evolve.

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

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

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

No credible scientist says that.

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

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

[mouse]

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

No credible scientist says that.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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




What explanation sounds more likely?