Reply With Quote
he's too old for you.
So tell me a little about yourself, did ya play any sport?
he's too old for you.
Do your parents know you act this way on their computer?
I talk about my wife Judy occasional, so I'm now a got......hahaha~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom...so tell me a little about yourself Joe, play any sports?
Joe...what are you gay?
Then you little s wonder why I laugh at ya.
Last edited by Avante; 03-23-2016 at 12:58 AM.
You're still wondering why a hundred different people laugh at you every day.
So tell me a bit about yourself.
If you hear an argument between two opposing viewpoints, and one side proves consistently to be utter bull , and one seems to have better proof, would you still assign equal chances that the two sides are right?
At what point would you start sliding the odds in favor of the non-bull side?
Relax half pint, ok? You appear to struggle being cool, why?
As you know most people have a God, right?
Last edited by Avante; 03-22-2016 at 02:47 PM.
Right there, you have no clue what a logical fallacy is and that you used one.
You're a mental weakling.
So you get off following around a clown, why?
That coming from a guy who honestly thought giving me the average of a FROSH FROSH FROSH running back was some example of anything. Dude, what in the were you thinking? So he'd nevrer play another game? And, notice how you never ever..."yep, ya nailed it"....which I did.
Blake, it's comical as watching a idot like you trying with all your might to..."I smart".....hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
So those little fishies that left the ocean to become........spider/eagle/rhino....now stay put?
Where are all those stages of evolution for the red ant?
I like this one (of many)
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.
***** Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof*********
If you hear an argument between two opposing viewpoints, and one side proves consistently to be utter bull , and one seems to have better proof, would you still assign equal chances that the two sides are right?
At what point would you start sliding the odds in favor of the non-bull side being correct?
Your stupidity is hilarious.
but it wasn't illegal for us sailors to be with underage girls in Olangapo in the 70s
Lol trying to deflect.
You still don't understand what "appeal to the masses" means.
Because you're mentally frail.
Mentally frail is totally refusing to explain why you were telling me about what Chubb averaged in.......A........ONE..........game. Dude, what in the were you thinking. Now how about actually explaining to me what that was all about, ok? Don't be so damn mentally weak ya have to keep running from it like you've been doing.....ok?
This would work....
I do everything I can to discredit you and make you look bad, it pisses me off that you know all this stuff....ok? That was just me doing what I always do, totally ignoring the things ya nail like Henry/RW/Chubb and trying to find anything I can criticize, it's what I do.
I think I nailed it.........right?
More copy pasta, probably from the same source that got its facts wrong earlier?
Sokay.
As I said, I enjoy reading about this stuff.
The author here does not understand evolution either, and gets some very basic things wrong.
One, there is no consideration of mutation. Mutation, or the change of genes through replicative errors, will alter traits, through the altering of alleles. When the author talks of a "DNA limit" he implies that mutations don't happen. This is factually wrong. Mutations are both well-do ented and well-understood. DNA gets both added and subracted through mutation. There is no such thing as a "DNA limit".
secondly, he doesn't display a meaningful understanding of the term "species". The term is elusive, even to biologists themselves, who debate just exactly what the term means. Biologists generally agree on what a "species" is, enough to meaningfully study organisms, but this gentleman never bothers providing even a vague definition.
Yes, new species have been developed in the lab. Further, the emergence of new species has been observed in nature, now that we are looking. To claim neither has occurred is provably ignorant/dishonest.
Mutation is scientifically provable and has been proven. Emergence of species is scientifically provable, and has been proven.
The only thing even mildly interesting here is the discussion of "left" and "right" handed protiens, which oddly enough, I was recently reading about, and was going to post here, since consideration of that unique feature of biochemistry supports evolution. Evolution predicts certain things about this unique feature of biology that have been borne out through experimentation.
Turns out, that evolution would predict that almost all life on the planet would have one or the other type of protiens ("right" or "left"). Especially if life decended from a common ancestor.
A creator, on the other hand, would not be bounded by such considerations. It would be free to create organisms in ecosystems that are interdepedent and that had either "right" or "left". The easiest way to disprove evolution then, would be to show this happening.
What we see, however, is that life on our planet is almost universally one type of protein.
When you create proteins in the lab, you invariably get equal numbers of right and left molecules. Turns out, though, at a very small level, there is an ever-so-slight difference in decay rates between the two. Life on our planet favors the kind of protein that is very very slightly less likely to decay.
This is exactly what one would expect with self-replicating molecules competing for resources (basic amino acids) over a very long time. That tiny difference would eventually cause one type to dominate, as simple geometric progression takes care of the rest.
So, we have, once again, utter bull , provably false.
Leading to the question that even someone who isn't interested in this stuff can and should answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you hear an argument between two opposing viewpoints, and one side proves consistently to be utter bull , and one seems to have better proof, would you still assign equal chances that the two sides are right?
At what point would you start sliding the odds in favor of the non-bull side being correct?
Neither of the above questions involves evolution specifically, but are general questions about how one should approach figuring out what is true or not.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-23-2016 at 11:48 AM.
No. Let's look back at what you keep crying about regarding Nick Chubb:
Let me know when you've finally picked up the 5lb dumbbell fallacy of appealing to the masses, old weakling.
Lightning Hopkins was a superior artist overall to John Lee Hooker.
Both on a technical level in terms of complexity of composition and difficulty of play, and at the level of song-writing, Hopkins out-shines Hooker, whose fame was more than accidental.
No contest.
The poetry of the man's lyrics lends itself to deeper reflection that Hookers often juvenile-seeming prose.
Bam.
True or not?
I'll try.
Lot's of people believe 9-11 was an inside job, does that mean it was?
This has been pointed out repeatedly to Avante. Either he is not smart enough to finally drop the idea, or he is just trolling.
The bottom line is how tiny you are about these things. It wasn't real obvious I saw Chubb as doing just fine in place of Gurley and look what he did, he set records. Something you would never comment on.....why? A smart guys gives its few games, then if Chubb bombs....THEN....ya comment on it. You came off looking stupid guy, and ya know it.
You're way to ready to pounce on things Blake, that tells me your mentally weak.
No, you're just easy to troll. Because you're a mental patsy.
All anyone has to do is say "pedo" and you meltdown with a long winded rant about your sailor days in Olangapo and that all the sailors were having sex with pros utes etc etc
All I have to do is say "Avante curse" and you cry in thread after thread about Nick Chubb
Nothing juvenile about whiskey and wimmen and hard times. Hooker the classic Mississippi Delta bluesman, something Hopkins wasn't.
In them blues ya go with regions....
St.Louis...Peetie Wheatstraw
Alabama...Ed Bell
Texas...Blind Lemon Jefferson
Louisiana...Papa Charley Jackson
Memphis....Furry Lewis
Mississippi....Robert Johnson
Georgia....Blind Willie McTell
Piedmont/East Coast....Blind Blake
...and rural/urban, and instruments.
You can compare within a region but it stops there. Obviously we have the famous (in the blues world) like Hooker/Hopkins and the obscure like Bobby Grant, Bo Jones, John D. Fox (a ton of them) who recorded but one record. Hooker and Hopkins the two most prolific recording artists in them blues.
If I;m in the mood for dark low down in the alley blues, it's John Lee Hooker. If I need a lighter more stylistic listen, yep, Lightnin' Hopkins.
You look for this from John Lee Hooker
Last edited by Avante; 03-23-2016 at 12:39 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
