Reply With Quote
Wrong as usual. Christmas started out as a celebration of the winter solstice, the Jesus was added later.
The one that gets me is this....
If we/I say "most" humans belong in some God, it's.."most were wrong about the earth being flat".
Then we read..."that doesn't matter "most" scientists agree that...".......hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong as usual. Christmas started out as a celebration of the winter solstice, the Jesus was added later.
"Most humans" =/= "most scientists"
Where did I say anything about the origins of Christmas? I said that ...I...saw it as a celebration for the MasterDesigner because I do. Yes, just something else added later.
Why not calm down my friend, you are always on edge for some reason.
It's the same thing my friend. I'm not talking about...humans vs scientists....ok?
Try mixing in a little research with your weak comebacks I don't support creation please don't tell me your not another spurraider or Blake and I'm going to have to remind you everytime I respond.
Science is all about trial and error, son. If there's a better theory than evolution that will come up in the future, scientists will quickly debunk the old theory for the new one. Your Master Designer, on the other hand, has been magically creating things without evidence to show for it. Have you seen your Master Designer create a hippo out of nothing?
When your having sex with your stepsister do you see your down syndrome sperm trying to penetrate her crusty eggs?
Did you see Stonehenge being built?
Stop your jr high replies and post some real evidence man evolved from a lizard
When was the last time you picked up a school biology book it doesn't say Scientists "think" the universe is 18 billion years old it says clearly in black and white when and how we got here and with pictures to boot.
perhaps because scientists actually study these things throughout their life, and the masses of the people are just going by what their parents told them about some book
you dance around the question all the time... you claim you don't support creation, you support AD.
but AD implies a designer which you don't support either
you claim to be both theist and atheist at the same time. you won't say there's a designer (an atheist position) and then reject the notion of life being formed without a designer (a theistic position)
I'm not talking about people ve scientists that wasn't obvious? I'm talking about scientists vs scientists.
If I say, 100 scientists believe in intelligent design, you're going to say.....so, the vast majority believe in evolution....right? Totally disregarding just who those scientists are.
If you wanted to know about sprinting/blues, would you ask the masses here or me?
if i wanted to know sprinting/blues, you'd be the man to ask... you have invested a lot of time into blues and its history
if i wanted to know about the merits of evolution, i would ask scientists. they are the ones who have spent their lives studying the topic and discovering new things
now, if i consulted with 10,000 blues experts, and 9500 of them told me Otis Redding was the real deal, and 500 of them told me he was a hack, what would a reasonable man in my position think? when it comes to the scientist, what you are doing is the equivalent one by one posting each of those 500 experts and saying "look, so many of these 'experts' think otis redding sucks... hmmmmm"
many of the videos "debunking" evolution that you have posted haven't even been by scientists, they've just been by some narrator talking over some images with some ominous music in the background. that would be like me posting a video of some dumb kid ranting about how otis redding is garbage. how seriously would you take that kid? not at all
And your mind still can't grasp it.
I wonder how spurraider would survive in China since according to him he would have to eat with chopsticks and live his life according to the majority.
I guess if we drop spurraider on some island were the majority of the natives think sucking another mans is good luck he would just comply without any independent thought?
Many of you in here have no clue that Evolution isn't supported around the world talk about living in a bubble.
Page 113 and still no proof man is here from a goat ing a deer
if you're uneducated, thats on you bud
First off Otis Redding is soul not blues.
The thing is there are just too many who do challenge what you have some need to sell. It isn't real obvious there is some real debate about this going on?
So all those scholars who challenge your belief must be wrong, forget the fact your credentials totally pale in comparision to theirs?
This...uneducated...thing you got going on is annoying. You can't talk to me about a ton of things, go ahead let's talk about the origins of the Gothic novel. how about the first great black jockies? Wanna talk the origins of sword & sorcery in literature, how about those great British sci fi authors? We could talk the first black authors here in America. Let me guess you're...uneducated...when it comes to those topic's...right? How about junior colege track, pre 1960 boxing, pre 1960 pro rasslin', can you talk the old AFL? You can't can you? Yep...uneducated. Wanna talk Eugene Sandow and the origins of body building? How about HBCU football?
Cool this silly talk about educated/uneducated, it's stupid, ok?
Who was the first white artist to cut a record for the Motown label? Who was the first black performer on The Grand Old Opry? Who was that former slave who would fight for the World Championship? Educate yourself...ok? What teenage girl wrote what many consider to be the first sci fi novel?
You tend to confuse education with interest.
Last edited by Avante; 12-13-2014 at 06:11 PM.
just goes to show you are the authority on Otis Redding, not me
there are people who challenge the theory of evolution, some of whom have scientific credentials. however, their work largely fails during the peer review process. i have very limited credentials in the field, i have a bachelors degree in biochemistry, so i'm no evolutionary expert. however i do have a pretty strong understanding of basic scientific principles such as biology and chemistry, which come in very handy when understanding the theory of evolution. mouse likes to yammer on about DNA when i probably know more about it than he does (i say probably because i dont know his education history outside of browsing youtube).
are there people with more credentials than me who disagree with my takes? certainly. if that's just their opinion/view, then there's nothing i can really do about it. but when they go out there to try to disprove evolution with their scientific work, it largely fails during the peer review process. i don't think thats some coincidence either.
as for if they "truly must be wrong"... of course not. there's a possibility than i'm wrong. but as of right now, the evidence doesn't suggest that. when we take into account all the information and evidence we have access to right now, evolution is the best candidate, which is why it is currently the working theory.
lets say you're a detective and you just arrived at a murder scene, and you found a suspect who owned the weapon, had his fingerprints on it, had a motive, and was present at the scene around the time of the murder. but your partner says "actually, i think the killer is this other person." would that make him wrong? technically no, and maybe ultimately he will be correct. but given what is known, it wouldn't be the rational conclusion to arrive at
i will acknowledge that i'm very uneducated and uninformed on those topics. anybody can learn a set of facts. i can go back and read articles after article, magazines, periodicals about old sprinters and become learned in that field. scientific study is more than just learning lists of facts though. somebody can learn a good amount of science by reading on the internet, if they are careful about their sources. but i wouldn't just take somebody's word for it if they said "i'm an expert in this field of science, because i've read extensively about it on the internet."
i don't see what's silly about it. evolution isn't just some folktale that we are arguing about. it involves complex science. genetics. biology. i think having studied those fields would make the conversations more meaningfulCool this silly talk about educated/uneducated, it's stupid, ok?
i dont know. i haven't read about those things. i'm uneducated when it comes to those topicsWho was the first white artist to cut a record for the Motown label? Who was the first black performer on The Grand Old Opry? Who was that former slave who would fight for the World Championship? Educate yourself...ok? What teenage girl wrote what many consider to be the first sci fi novel?
no i don't. people tend to educate themselves on their interests. somebody with an interest in blues will probably go out of his way to learn a lot about it. somebody with an interest in football will learn a lot about it.You tend to confuse education with interest.
All that is fine but being it is what it is and there is no actual concrete proof of anything, and yes I've read all that stuff with all it's...maybe...could have..might have...going on, we must leave at ....we really don't know for sure, but a lot or evidence points in that direction.
It's 1952, white American Lindy Remigio wins the Olympic 100m, in 1956 white American Bobby Morrow wins the Olympic 100m, in 1960 the German Armin Hary wins the Olympic 100m. Pretty safe to say what the evidence tells us isn't it? As we would find out later, black sprinters are far superior to white ones. So much for the evidence.
Last edited by Avante; 12-13-2014 at 06:29 PM.
almost all the evidence we have right now points to it. vestigial structures like the appendix, whale species with underdeveloped legs... genetic records, fossil records, genetic mutation. common organ and organ systems among animals, nearly identical cellular respiration among lifeforms.
that doesn't make it a definite yet. new evidence could change it. but right now it pretty much all leans one way, and i reckon most of the resistance comes from people with strong religious backgrounds
jesse owens was already established before then. how many black sprinters participated in the olympics during those years as a whole compared to their white counterparts?It's 1952, white Amerucan Lindy Remigion wins the Olympic 100m, in 1956 white American Bobby Morrow wins the Olympic 100m, in 1960 the German Armin Hary wins the Olympic 100m. Pretty safe to say what the evidence tellws us isn't it? As we would find out later, black sprinters are far superior to white ones. So much for the evidence.
of course, if the evidence changes drastically, it would change the way we think. but for most of this thread you have been entirely dismissive of evolution, which is just turning a blind eye to what (based on essentially all the evidence we have now) is the most rational conclusion
Whites won the...1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, would have won in 40 and 44 with Hal Davis the fastest man in the world, no Oly because of the war....1952, 1956 and 1960. Black sprints won in 32, 36 and 48. So the evidence pretty much told us something we'd find out simply isn't true. And there were just as many black sprinters running as white ones, the Big10 was full of them as was the Caribbean.
Like I said earlier I do think there was some evolution going on, I think most would agree with that. But to think we all came from the sea, that's where the problem begins. It make far more sense that volcano pools gave us the origins of life on earth.
I do not believe in Adam and Eve and all that Biblical silliness.
in your opinion, what changed since then? did blacks suddenly become faster or were we just missing something?
yeah thats another alternative. we also have life way at the bottom of the sea by the magma vents too. chemistry 101 tells us heat is a catalyst. early life would need to have a LOT of chemical reactions going on for it to actually become something meaningful, so a high temperature source is likely. the sea-to-land thing simply makes sense when we are able to go back and date remains, as well as the genetic treeLike I said earlier I do think there was some evolution going on, I think most would agree with that. But to think we all came from the sea, that's where the problem begins. It make far more sense that volcano pools gave us the origins of life on earth.
As far as the sprinting thing goes....
In 1916 Howard Drew pulled a muscle in the heats he would have been the first black to win an Olympic gold, he was a World Record holder. From 1920 we sw three great white sprinters in Charles Paddock, Harold Abrahams and Percy Williams. From 1932 to 1948 blacks did win. In 1952 Remigion barely beat the Jamaican Herb McKenley and to this day many think McKenley won it. In 1956 Jim Golliday a black 9.3 guy out of Northwestern was injured. In 1960 the great black American sprinter Ray Norton had the worst meet of his track career. Then in 1964 here comes that big fast black sprinter Bob Hayes and that was it for white sprinting in the USA, blacks have totally dominated ever since.
I failed to mention the injuries and that close call, so the evidence you saw didn't have all the facts. Is that possible with other things, sure it is.
Notice how you never talked about the volcano pool theory thinking I wasn't aware of it? This is how this stuff goes.
Check this one out...
Whike I'm no Bible thumper he does makes sense.
Last edited by Avante; 12-13-2014 at 07:17 PM.
read this and tell me what you think about this guy. do you think he is qualified to make the assertions he is making?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
