10 things I've learned...

[Avante]

...in 2014.

Jerry Jeff Walker isn't from Texas.

Lauren Bacall was brought to Hollywod because of a magazine cover.

Hercules can be a black/polynesian mix.

Wes Welker is a druggie.

Ray Rice is a thug.

Adrian Peterson is a mental case.

CMPunk is a prick.

RGIII is a china doll, very breakable.

I didn't learn 10 things in 2014.

[spurraider21]

...in 2014.

Jerry Jeff Walker isn't from Texas.

Lauren Bacall was brought to Hollywod because of a magazine cover.

Hercules can be a black/polynesian mix.

Wes Welker is a druggie.

Ray Rice is a thug.

Adrian Peterson is a mental case.

CMPunk is a prick.

RGIII is a china doll, very breakable.

I didn't learn 10 things in 2014.

read a biology book

[Avante]

read a biology book

All the books in the world will never convince me we all came from some sea things. What a joke.

[unforeseen]

All the books in the world will never convince me we all came from some sea things. What a joke.

You believe we came from Adam and Eve?

[Avante]

You believe we came from Adam and Eve?

Of course not.

What it is is we humans have finally come up against something we can't explain. So we come up with The Bible, the big bang bull , evolution. We have no idea how all this came about. All the theories are totally ridiculous.

I have no idea what happened and neither does anyone else, so we pick which bull story we like the best.

[unforeseen]

Of course not.

What it is is we humans have finally come up against something we can't explain. So we come up with The Bible, the big bang bull , evolution. We have no idea how all this came about. All the theories are totally ridiculous.

I have no idea what happened and neither does anyone else, so we pick which bull story we like the best.

You are a wise sage beyond your years.

[spurraider21]

Of course not.

What it is is we humans have finally come up against something we can't explain. So we come up with The Bible, the big bang bull , evolution. We have no idea how all this came about. All the theories are totally ridiculous.

I have no idea what happened and neither does anyone else, so we pick which bull story we like the best.

we pick whichever theory best explains the piles of evidence we have. the scientific model is NOT to come up with a theory first, and discover evidence for it as you go along... that's not at all how it works.

the idea is to look at all the pieces of the puzzle we have available to us, and make a best-educated guess as to what the picture is, even though there are missing pieces. we know there is a whole picture, though

[Blake]

Of course not.

What it is is we humans have finally come up against something we can't explain. So we come up with The Bible, the big bang bull , evolution. We have no idea how all this came about. All the theories are totally ridiculous.

I have no idea what happened and neither does anyone else, so we pick which bull story we like the best.

So a "no" on evolution and a "no" on Adam and Eve.

What's your best guess as to how humans got here?

[The Gemini Method]

So a "no" on evolution and a "no" on Adam and Eve.

What's your best guess as to how humans got here?

Probably by reading weightlifting magazines and fornicating with 15 year old cave girls.

[Avante]

we pick whichever theory best explains the piles of evidence we have. the scientific model is NOT to come up with a theory first, and discover evidence for it as you go along... that's not at all how it works.

the idea is to look at all the pieces of the puzzle we have available to us, and make a best-educated guess as to what the picture is, even though there are missing pieces. we know there is a whole picture, though

BIG BANG....produced DNA as complex as it is.
Little sea things crawled out of the abyss.....many years later we get spiderrs, ticks, eagles, humans, elephants, bees, caterpillars, gorillas, lions, hippos etc etc etc
A Master Designer (Designers ?) decide to build a galaxy
A lone God takes seven days (if a God why this need to rest after six?) to built Eath

Look at all that, one is as hard to believe as the next. We simply don't know and will never know.

[Avante]

So a "no" on evolution and a "no" on Adam and Eve.

What's your best guess as to how humans got here?

Adam and Eve is a man made story not unlike what Homer wrote, mythology. The Bible was man made.

I can believe the Superior Designer theory before I can BIG BANG/evolution. But, there was never Adam and Eve.

Too many things must work in absolute perfection in order to pull this off, no way this all happened by chance. Something had to have designed this. So we get the God/Allah silliness, it's easier to explain things that way. As is BANG/evolution.

I have to go with that Superior Whatever started the human race off with a large number of a lower breed humans, they didn't actually evolve but did change over the eons somewhat.

, just in my lifetime I've seen us humans get bigger and stronger and I;m not talking about athletes. My son is taller than I am.

[spurraider21]

BIG BANG....produced DNA as complex as it is.
Little sea things crawled out of the abyss.....many years later we get spiderrs, ticks, eagles, humans, elephants, bees, caterpillars, gorillas, lions, hippos etc etc etc
A Master Designer (Designers ?) decide to build a galaxy
A lone God takes seven days (if a God why this need to rest after six?) to built Eath

Look at all that, one is as hard to believe as the next. We simply don't know and will never know.

some of those actually have evidence which led to those conclusions. creationist ideas have been around for a while, and creationists are TRYING to find evidence and shape the data however they can just to make it fit their archaic theory. their theory is not based on fact.

science only comes up with a theory after looking at evidence. that's how they come up with theories in the first place...

let me make an analogy and hope you can follow. lets say there was a murder. a mother/wife was found dead in her own house. before knowing ANYTHING about the cir stances, somebody with creationist mentality would just come out and say "the husband did it. you can't prove i was wrong." that person would THEN try to investigate the premises looking for pieces of evidence that support their theory. they see the gun owned by the father was used and say "ah HAH!" i was right.

somebody using a scientific model would not draw any conclusions until they have looked at evidence first. they find out the son had come home early from school that day. they find out the son's fingerprint's were on the murder weapon. they found a drop of blood on the jeans the son was wearing. they then come up with the theory/conclusion that the son is the killer.

only AFTER reviewing the available evidence do scientists come up with theories. on the other hand, creationists came up with the theory first and are trying to find facts to support it. if a year later, new DNA evidence somehow exonnerated the son and new forensic data or some unknown surveillance device proved that it was a suicide, the scientist would take that new evidence into consideration and come up with a new theory that better explains the set of facts. in the meantime the creationist-mentality would assume that the video/evidence is fake or sabotaged because it goes against their theory.

as i showed, the scientists could very well be wrong... as we find new evidence, scientific theories could be refuted. but on an intellectual level, its clearly the way to go

[Thread]

1. It ain't the post on the ten yard marker that is 10 yards, it's the last link of chain.

2. JFK Jr., while his dad lay massacred spent grueling hours training for (the salute.)

3. The POTUS is an awful & traitorous man.

4. LBJ hasn't the sack to a shoot a woodchuck.

5. There is not barrel's bottom deep enough for Media to aspire to.

6. Lynching is still legal in America=Donald Sterling--still ain't been cut down in Los Angeles--living proof.

7. "Grandpa" wasn't near as bad as I'd thought.

8. The questions I never asked my parents mount each & every day.

9. Film still remains a powerful aphrodisiac.

10. Music still remains it's identical twin.

[Leetonidas]

some of those actually have evidence which led to those conclusions. creationist ideas have been around for a while, and creationists are TRYING to find evidence and shape the data however they can just to make it fit their archaic theory. their theory is not based on fact.

science only comes up with a theory after looking at evidence. that's how they come up with theories in the first place...

let me make an analogy and hope you can follow. lets say there was a murder. a mother/wife was found dead in her own house. before knowing ANYTHING about the cir stances, somebody with creationist mentality would just come out and say "the husband did it. you can't prove i was wrong." that person would THEN try to investigate the premises looking for pieces of evidence that support their theory. they see the gun owned by the father was used and say "ah HAH!" i was right.

somebody using a scientific model would not draw any conclusions until they have looked at evidence first. they find out the son had come home early from school that day. they find out the son's fingerprint's were on the murder weapon. they found a drop of blood on the jeans the son was wearing. they then come up with the theory/conclusion that the son is the killer.

only AFTER reviewing the available evidence do scientists come up with theories. on the other hand, creationists came up with the theory first and are trying to find facts to support it. if a year later, new DNA evidence somehow exonnerated the son and new forensic data or some unknown surveillance device proved that it was a suicide, the scientist would take that new evidence into consideration and come up with a new theory that better explains the set of facts. in the meantime the creationist-mentality would assume that the video/evidence is fake or sabotaged because it goes against their theory.

as i showed, the scientists could very well be wrong... as we find new evidence, scientific theories could be refuted. but on an intellectual level, its clearly the way to go

you're wasting your time son. his geriatric brain can't grasp that . Plus he basically said no amount of evidence will sway his opinion the fact that he says "many years later..." shows us that he cannot even fathom the amount of time that passed to get where we are now. Which I don't blame the pedo for. Most people are lucky if they live to be 80 so trying to really conceptualize 4 billion years of evolution is difficult for a basic human mind to comprehend

[Avante]

some of those actually have evidence which led to those conclusions. creationist ideas have been around for a while, and creationists are TRYING to find evidence and shape the data however they can just to make it fit their archaic theory. their theory is not based on fact.

science only comes up with a theory after looking at evidence. that's how they come up with theories in the first place...

let me make an analogy and hope you can follow. lets say there was a murder. a mother/wife was found dead in her own house. before knowing ANYTHING about the cir stances, somebody with creationist mentality would just come out and say "the husband did it. you can't prove i was wrong." that person would THEN try to investigate the premises looking for pieces of evidence that support their theory. they see the gun owned by the father was used and say "ah HAH!" i was right.

somebody using a scientific model would not draw any conclusions until they have looked at evidence first. they find out the son had come home early from school that day. they find out the son's fingerprint's were on the murder weapon. they found a drop of blood on the jeans the son was wearing. they then come up with the theory/conclusion that the son is the killer.

only AFTER reviewing the available evidence do scientists come up with theories. on the other hand, creationists came up with the theory first and are trying to find facts to support it. if a year later, new DNA evidence somehow exonnerated the son and new forensic data or some unknown surveillance device proved that it was a suicide, the scientist would take that new evidence into consideration and come up with a new theory that better explains the set of facts. in the meantime the creationist-mentality would assume that the video/evidence is fake or sabotaged because it goes against their theory.

as i showed, the scientists could very well be wrong... as we find new evidence, scientific theories could be refuted. but on an intellectual level, its clearly the way to go

We all get all that, you told me nothing I don't know/get/understand...ok?

The intellectual level...??? You mean that level that treated black people like animals, that smoke knowing it could kill them? That level that has had how many drug addicts, alcoholics, child abusers, suicide bombers?

Look at you, I gave you facts.....Raiders can't win on the east coast.....what did you do with those facts? You disputed them, and now you are telling me I need to go with a theory because it's the intellectual thing to do while you totally ignored....facts. Wow!!!

[spurraider21]

We all get all that, you told me nothing I don't know/get/understand...ok?

The intellectual level...??? You mean that level that treated black people like animals, that smoke knowing it could kill them? That level that has had how many drug addicts, alcoholics, child abusers, suicide bombers?

Look at you, I gave you facts.....Raiders can't win on the east coast.....what did you do with those facts? You disputed them, and now you are telling me I need to go with a theory because it's the intellectual thing to do while you totally ignored....facts. Wow!!!

by intellectual level i simply mean how we approach questions. you either form a theory first and try to force the facts to fit it, or you take account for all the facts and derive a theory from those.

its not like one day somebody said "there must have been a big bang" and we are trying to force the evidence to fit it. the evidence came first. we see that the universe is expanding. we are getting farther and farther from the stars, and they are all getting farther and farther from each other. if everything is expanding and moving away from a "center" then its reasonable to expect that there was an origin point.

[Avante]

you're wasting your time son. his geriatric brain can't grasp that . Plus he basically said no amount of evidence will sway his opinion the fact that he says "many years later..." shows us that he cannot even fathom the amount of time that passed to get where we are now. Which I don't blame the pedo for. Most people are lucky if they live to be 80 so trying to really conceptualize 4 billion years of evolution is difficult for a basic human mind to comprehend

Dummy, we all understand what a billion is...ok stupid?

The bottom line is real simple, this is somerthing totally out of our relm of comphrehension. So we try and come up with explanations. None of which come close to what really went down.

[Avante]

by intellectual level i simply mean how we approach questions. you either form a theory first and try to force the facts to fit it, or you take account for all the facts and derive a theory from those.

Do me a favor, ok? Stop telling me things that are obvious...ok? Especially since you ignore/argue with me when I tell you facts.

[Blake]

Adam and Eve is a man made story not unlike what Homer wrote, mythology. The Bible was man made.

I can believe the Superior Designer theory before I can BIG BANG/evolution. But, there was never Adam and Eve.

Too many things must work in absolute perfection in order to pull this off, no way this all happened by chance. Something had to have designed this. So we get the God/Allah silliness, it's easier to explain things that way. As is BANG/evolution.

I have to go with that Superior Whatever started the human race off with a large number of a lower breed humans, they didn't actually evolve but did change over the eons somewhat.

, just in my lifetime I've seen us humans get bigger and stronger and I;m not talking about athletes. My son is taller than I am.

Ok, so what's your best guess as to how the Superior Whatever came into existence?

[spurraider21]

Do me a favor, ok? Stop telling me things that are obvious...ok? Especially since you ignore/argue with me when I tell you facts.

ok, so you understand this.

now answer which line of thinking is more logical? inventing a theory and trying to force the facts to fit? or using the facts to come up with a theory?

option A or option b. which do you think is more practical

[Avante]

Ok, so what's your best guess as to how the Superior Whatever came into existence?

This is where we humans come up real short. We try to explain things in human terms, that won't work here. We ....must..have a beginning and an end, everything has to fit inside our human perimeters. Well this doesn't and we don't know what to do abouit it. There is no....came into existence...here, because "it" was always here but we being limited to beginnings/ends can;t fathom that. That's why we struggle so with this, we try to use our human limitations in trying to explain/understand something far far far beyond that.

[Avante]

ok, so you understand this.

now answer which line of thinking is more logical? inventing a theory and trying to force the facts to fit? or using the facts to come up with a theory?

option A or option b. which do you think is more practical

Why are you limiting things to just A and B?

[spurraider21]

Why are you limiting things to just A and B?

if you have method C i'd love to hear it

[Avante]

if you have method C i'd love to hear it

C...don't try and explain anything using a theory.

[Avante]

, I just learned something today, most those famous serial killers were gay.