That's a shame. I was hoping for more adultish insults from you.....specifically how I still wear godless goggles.
Too bad we'll never know what your expert opinion is.
If nobody asks for my opinion on real issues, then I don't really make a point of putting it out there, although I do it on occasion. Do you make it a point of calling out people for not giving opinions when you don't ask for them?
My opinion is that you are an idiot.
That's because you're a pussy who only wants to belittle others and their opinions.
Secret's out.
If they can't come up with any real sources or research of their own, then they are ass talking and are belittling themselves.
I just help them realize it. Now the secret's out.
Okay Blake, answer me this with only your opinion:
Why do you consider macroevolution a fact/hard science when it has never been observed, can't be repeated, and isn't testable under the scientific method? Try to tie it in with your new hypothesis on 'bisexual reproduction', whatever that is, if you can.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-19-2010 at 05:21 PM.
No other hypothesis has come forward as being a logical conclusion for the appearance of man. I'm not a hands on researcher by any means but the overwhelming consensus in fields such as biological and geological sciences is that evolution is a fact. Their corraborations have fit with each others' theories regarding genetics as well as age of the earth theories.
When I read these theories and conclusions, they make perfect sense and I rarely find anything agenda driven in their research.
When I read posts from phenomanul, all I see is a lot of hot air with no substance and he seems to feel his best argument is to question the scientific community's motives. If anything, it is the 7 day creationist who has the real motive to knock the theory of macroevolution because it makes Genesis a fraud of a book if taken literally.
My own opinion is that people are too afraid to admit to themselves that the Bible, (the Old Testament in particular) is just a book of myths with a few historical records thrown in. Evolution as a theory works for me just as good as continental drift does.
Apparently you forgot why I said the term "bisexual reproduction" that is found in a valid veterinarian's dictionary that I have copy and pasted the definition and the link to.Try to tie it in with your new hypothesis on 'bisexual reproduction', whatever that is, if you can.
Obviously you would rather focus on semantics than the topic. This makes you an idiot.
1) Your critical thinking sucks. I can see why you don't formulate your own opinions often.
You didn't answer either question with more than the vaguest of answers and examples. "When I read these theories.." what theories? What conclusions and theories fitting together make perfect sense?
You say you rarely find anything agenda driven - so you DO find agenda driven science by evolution apologists. When would that be?
You also make an assumption (opinion) about "people (who) are too afraid to admit [stuff about the Bible]," yet that has nothing to do with me or someone else whose religion is not Christianity. How can this be the basis for any sort of informed opinion?
2) Theories and conclusions can "make perfect sense" all they want, without hard evidence they aren't hard science or a fact. Christians who take the Bible literally think all their ideas "make perfect sense", too. A lot of ideas have made perfect sense then been revealed as completely wrong many, many times over the course of classical and modern science.
3) It's a made up word, Blake. Nothing you can copy and paste will change that fact.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-19-2010 at 08:38 PM.
my conclusion is that macroevolution is a relevant theory.
Not surprising I have to spell it out for you in a long winded evolution thread where I clearly have shown this.
It so rarely happens that I can't think of any time that I've actually seen it happen......which again, is why I trust the scientific community.You say you rarely find anything agenda driven - so you DO find agenda driven science by evolution apologists. When would that be?
Not surprising you would ask for something that I admit I rarely come across. If you have come across it, I'd love to see it.
of course, phenomanul is the one in this thread claiming that trusting the scientific community is foolish. If you are truly interested (which I doubt you are) then ask him as I have why he feels do distrustful and to please source his info as to where evolutionists are agenda driven.
The only other "theory" that gets any air time other than evolution is "intelligent design" which has mostly been by Christian Americans who have been constantly trying to shove it into public school classrooms.You also make an assumption (opinion) about "people (who) are too afraid to admit [stuff about the Bible]," yet that has nothing to do with me or someone else whose religion is not Christianity. How can this be the basis for any sort of informed opinion?
Other than Islam and maybe a few staunch Jews, what other religion do you know of whose followers push hard for creation over evolution in classrooms and court rooms?
What's to disagree with any of that?2) Theories and conclusions can "make perfect sense" all they want, without hard evidence they aren't hard science or a fact. Christians who take the Bible literally think all their ideas "make perfect sense", too. A lot of ideas have made perfect sense then been revealed as completely wrong many, many times over the course of classical and modern science.
Christians who take their modern version of the Bible literally may think it makes perfect sense, but unfortunately, that makes them ignorant, IMO.
Evolution makes perfect sense and has yet to be revealed as completely wrong. In fact, as time goes by, researchers make new finds that make more pieces fit.
Your critical thinking skills suck.
It is the same thing as "sexual reproduction" but it is still a word. No amount of ignoring my copy and pasting will change that fact.3) It's a made up word, Blake. Nothing you can copy and paste will change that fact.
The reason you can't find it in "dictionary.com" is that it is reference in medical terms. Google "bisexual reproduction".....first link....4th entry.....
alsobisexual
1. having gonads of both sexes.
2. hermaphrodite.
3. having both active and passive sexual interests or characteristics.
4. capable of the function of both sexes.
5. both heterosexual and sexual.
6. a patient which is both heterosexual and sexual.
7. of, relating to, or involving both sexes, as bisexual reproduction.
Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 3 ed. © 2007 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved
le: Bisexual reproduction of a form of Aphis nerii B. de F. ( ptera: Aphididae) from Hokkaido.
Personal Authors: Takada, H., Miyazaki, M.
Author Affiliation: Laboratory of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyoto Prefectural University, Shimogamo, Kyoto 606, Japan.
Editors: No editors
Do ent le: Applied Entomology and Zoology
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abst...No=19931181617My theory that you are an idiot is quickly becoming fact.Optimal rates of bisexual reproduction in cyclical parthenogens with density-dependent growth
Authors: Serra1; King2
Source: Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 12, Number 2, March 1999 , pp. 263-271(9)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00002/art00006
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th...l_reproduction
www.dictionary.com and a random medical dictionary backs it up.
See, you can call semantics all you want, but it's clear you are not aware how very specialized that term is. "sexual reproduction" appears 62 times more often than "bisexual reproduction" (804,000 results compared to just 13,000) on google, but you just happened to Google evolution topics often enough to think that it's the appropriate term, right?I'd like to know the odds on that happening.
You are a very disingenuous person, Blake; I can see why Phenomanul thinks you're godless. There's a reason for the term's rarity; additionally, it doesn't even fit in the context you used it. I'll let you figure that one out.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...&f=5&t=622&m=1 - check this out.
It's one of the first links that shows up for "bisexual reproduction". It is literally a forum poster like myself correcting another forum poster like you on the fact that it's just "sexual reproduction."you'd get owned anywhere with that .
You just can't stand everyone knowing how ignorant you are. You don't know even basic terms and you want to down one's informed opinions on the subject.
I don't need to propose a theory to know why you're considered by many here a re on most topics; that is, beyond the first page of google (and even there you have trouble
I also know you must have a vendetta against people who expose that flaw of yours since you try so hard to project it on to others. Good. The secret's out now.
Now get ready for some unoriginal prosaic post stealing by Blake, followed by a "fail" or "you're an idiot" without actually answering why "bisexual reproduction" doesn't exist by popular standards (and outside of his content). That's his amazingly funny shtick: stealing someone's posting structure for the 5000th time in 7000 posts. When he gets really confused, he'll just say you made a "big worded asstalking." Yes, it's really the best he can do.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-22-2010 at 04:26 AM.
Whether or not Blake fudged his terminology, and whether or not Zosa wants to hang the weight of his argument against Blake on said alleged fudging, it seems that the central absurdity we're encountering is that some people want to interpret a theory as a truth, which, by definition, it is not. This so-called "macro-evolution" can stick in people's craws as much as they want it to, but it still remains the most likely explanation for our understanding of how species came to be, and it continues to be a useful tool in making scientific predictions -- particularly in genetic research.
The reason I, for one, continue to press Phenomanul (and perhaps Zosa?) about providing a compelling theory to challenge the theory of evolution is that listing real or imagined imperfections in a theory is not enough to render a theory implausible. There is no theory that is free of imperfection or uncertainty (one that would be would, after all, no longer be considered a theory), but it has to count for something that the people -- be they sympathetic, or contrary to, evolution -- that have been trying to disprove Darwin's idea since its inception continue to fall short of the mark, or that modern genetics research has -- more often than not -- borne out many of the su ions of evolutionary biologists.
A few pages back, Phenomanul somewhat glibly remarked that elecro-magnetic theory was adequately fleshed-out and could be considered "hard science." But is it? We are able to perform experiments that consistently give us the results we expect, yet we still don't really understand the underpinnings of energy at the atomic level, or at the macro level, for that matter. That's the fundamental cross under which all current physisists labor -- the irreconcilability between the theories of quantum mechanics and astrophysics. That doesn't discount the remarkable things we can do, from nuclear fission to simply using an IC.
By the same token, biologists are able to consistently prove that micro-organisms subjected to various conditions will change in predictable ways. They don't know what "life" is, and I'm sure many of them question the legitimacy of what are admittedly arbitrary taxonomic categories (brought up because of the controversial species change that was observed in laboratory conditions a few years back), but they know how particular types of life will tend to change when exposed to particular chemical agents. That's the basis of modern medicine, and it is absolutely rooted in the common notions of the evolutionary theory.
It may yet turn out that "macro-evolution" doesn't operate according to the same mechanics that "micro-evolution" does, but I'm inclined to say that the burden of proof falls upon those who argue that the "dots" have been connected wrong, not the people whose theory has an explanation for how the dots are connected, and each day amass more data to support themselves. , I'd even go so far as to say that I have no doubt the theory of evolution is incomplete and stands on much that will one day be proven false... but to dismiss its usefulness outright because the scientific record contains some bone-headed assertions here and there seems to completely miss the point of what science is, how it operates.
What argument? My point, which hasn't been altogether subtle, is that Blake doesn't know what the he's talking about past what he can quickly google. He doesn't overcome opposing arguments or positions, he simply insults them from his own. That's not worth anyone's time.
As for your post, you're right in most regards. Problem is, you can't assert macroevolution is hard science (like mainstream scientists and media do so well) simply because it's the best explanation.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-22-2010 at 10:20 AM.
I don't know what the obsession with "hard science" is with you guys... it's a theory for Pete's sake. A rather young theory, I might add.
I don't blame the majority of scientists for accepting evolution as a given since they have no real reason not to, and plenty of practical reasons to do so. It's a useful tool. As for the media... they have no reason to doubt it because the scientists tell them so, and, for good or ill, the media (like the rest of us) has begun to take science as the gospel of our modern age.
This notion that "macro-evolution" isn't a scientifically valid position because it can't be proven strikes me as intellectually dishonest, honestly. As your opinion, I respect it, but what it tells me is that you don't think science has the right to follow a pattern (what you call "micro-evolution") to its logical conclusion. Why would evolution occur only in bacteria and then cease in larger organisms? Even when these same larger organisms are clearly composed of what amounts to bacteria? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's like saying space is finite and there's a wall at the edge of it beyond which is... what? More space? This is why I can't help but feel the burden of proof necessarily falls on people who maintain your position -- you're asking me to reject or doubt an idea that interrupts the pattern I see in nature already ("micro-evolution") and that is not contradicted by logic or experience... all without providing the grounds to justify this skepticism.
Don't get me wrong: I think skepticism is healthy... but within reason. It can just as easily lead to absurd positions like Berkeley-style solipsism, which, while irrefutable, can be viscerally grasped as asinine and literally megalomaniacal.
It's not random. It's an actual published dictionary that is used as a source at freedictionary.com:www.dictionary.com and a random medical dictionary backs it up.
I have no idea what you are babbling about.See, you can call semantics all you want, but it's clear you are not aware how very specialized that term is. "sexual reproduction" appears 62 times more often than "bisexual reproduction" (804,000 results compared to just 13,000) on google, but you just happened to Google evolution topics often enough to think that it's the appropriate term, right?
Clearly "sexual reproduction" is the general term used and would be listed more often . Since I was referring to "asexual reproduction" I also mentioned "bisexual reproduction" for clarity sake. Although it is seldom used, it was appropriately used.
I have also posted various points of reference including a medical dictionary and several research articles showing how the term is properly used. I really cannot make it any clearer for you.
Obviously you are trying so hard to win a meaningless semantics battle, and you are failing miserably.
I am betting you will again call it a fake word and I am curious how long you can go at purposely ignoring published works that clearly show this to be a real term.
I make points and back them up with real sources. You purposely ignore a term that is published in a real dictionary most likely because you are butthurt about being shown up. You are very clearly the one that is being disingenuous.You are a very disingenuous person, Blake; I can see why Phenomanul thinks you're godless. There's a reason for the term's rarity; additionally, it doesn't even fit in the context you used it. I'll let you figure that one out.
Phenomanul thinks I am godless because I believe the theory of macroevolution is relevant and he somehow connects that to me "hanging out with atheists buddies."
There is a good reason why it's rare to find evolutionists with agendas against creationism. I have already figured out why that is.
I have already posted enough sources to show that the word is legit and that I did not make it up. An obscure post from an obscure poster from an obscure messageboard does not make you correct. All it does is show desperation on your part.http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...&f=5&t=622&m=1 - check this out.
It's one of the first links that shows up for "bisexual reproduction". It is literally a forum poster like myself correcting another forum poster like you on the fact that it's just "sexual reproduction."
You are either an idiot with an extremely low reading comprehension level or you are desperately trying to still win this argument, which the longer it goes, the worse it gets for you.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just an idiot still trying to win a winless semantics argument that really has little to do with the context of the this thread.
You are still clinging to this failed attempt to show me up.You just can't stand everyone knowing how ignorant you are. You don't know even basic terms and you want to down one's informed opinions on the subject.
There are plenty of facts to prove you are acting like a re in this topic.I don't need to propose a theory to know why you're considered by many here a re on most topics; that is, beyond the first page of google (and even there you have trouble
Clearly you are the one having trouble with page one when googling "bisexual reproduction".
I have no vendettas against anyone on a message board. It's no secret.I also know you must have a vendetta against people who expose that flaw of yours since you try so hard to project it on to others. Good. The secret's out now.
Apparently you have a vendetta against me and the term "bisexual reproduction." Since you have brought it up in another thread that has nothing to do with this one, the secret has been out for a few days now.
Bisexual reproduction doesn't exist by popular standards because it is more of scientific term used to be extremely specific instead of using the general term "sexual reproduction".Now get ready for some unoriginal prosaic post stealing by Blake, followed by a "fail" or "you're an idiot" without actually answering why "bisexual reproduction" doesn't exist by popular standards (and outside of his content).
Your failure to realize this and keep hanging on to this very minor argument makes you an idiot.
Last edited by Blake; 02-22-2010 at 11:25 AM.
This post is reserved for a bravo on overcoming my objection with only your opinion and without insult. A sound logical retort, if I may. You reference both of our positions in relation to each other and treat my side of the spectrum with respect. Blake, take some notes son.
Do you make it a point to discount all scientific theories that you don't see as being "hard science"?
It's not random. It's an actual published dictionary that is used as a source at freedictionary.com:
i have no idea what you are babbling about.
Clearly "sexual reproduction" is the general term used and would be listed more often . Since i was referring to "asexual reproduction" i also mentioned "bisexual reproduction" for clarity sake. Although it is seldom used, it was appropriately used.
I have also posted various points of reference including a medical dictionary and several research articles showing how the term is properly used. I really cannot make it any clearer for you.
Obviously you are trying so hard to win a meaningless semantics battle, and you are failing miserably.
I am betting you will again call it a fake word and i am curious how long you can go at purposely ignoring published works that clearly show this to be a real term.
I make points and back them up with real sources. You purposely ignore a term that is published in a real dictionary most likely because you are butthurt about being shown up. You are very clearly the one that is being disingenuous.
Phenomanul thinks i am godless because i believe the theory of macroevolution is relevant and he somehow connects that to me "hanging out with atheists buddies."
there is a good reason why it's rare to find evolutionists with agendas against creationism. I have already figured out why that is.
I have already posted enough sources to show that the word is legit and that i did not make it up. An obscure post from an obscure poster from an obscure messageboard does not make you correct. All it does is show desperation on your part.
You are either an idiot with an extremely low reading comprehension level or you are desperately trying to still win this argument, which the longer it goes, the worse it gets for you.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just an idiot still trying to win a winless semantics argument that really has little to do with the context of the this thread.
You are still clinging to this failed attempt to show me up.
There are plenty of facts to prove you are acting like a re in this topic.
Clearly you are the one having trouble with page one when googling "bisexual reproduction".
i have no vendettas against anyone on a message board. It's no secret.
Apparently you have a vendetta against me and the term "bisexual reproduction." since you have brought it up in another thread that has nothing to do with this one, the secret has been out for a few days now.
Bisexual reproduction doesn't exist by popular standards because it is more of scientific term used to be extremely specific instead of using the general term "sexual reproduction".
Your failure to realize this and keep hanging on to this very minor argument makes you an idiot.
That's his amazingly funny shtick: Stealing someone's posting structure for the 5000th time in 7000 posts. When he gets really confused, he'll just say you made a "big worded asstalking." yes, it's really the best he can do.that's not worth anyone's time.
There have been plenty of logical, sound retorts made in this thread that are similar to that one. I have taken note of your failure to read those other posts carefully and have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot, son.
You referenced evolution/my position first in the other thread
Projection sucks.
Hug it out, guys.
na, I referenced your butthurtness in the other thread.You referenced evolution/my position first in the other thread
Projection sucks.
You referenced "bisexual reproduction."
Denial sucks.
Blake really does need a hug. The dude has thousands of posts calling people idiots, telling them they fail, stealing their post structure to be lame and annoying, and calling basically anyone out anytime when he knows he can belittle them and get a reaction.
Your classic e-tough guy is just like any other bully; hurting on the inside and in need of affection.
hugging it out isn't any fun. Watching z0sa continue to cry about bisexual reproduction not being a real word is.
Na, I don't need a hug. I have thousands of posts calling idiots like you idiots.
I don't call anyone out just for the of it. It's usually just people like you or phenom that make claims with nothing but ass cheek to back it up with.
Your classic e-tough guy is just like any other bully; hurting on the inside and in need of affection.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
