 
Cheddar_bob
Member
Username: Cheddar_bob
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:03 am: |    |
quote:Humans are not animals...If one wishes to classify themselves as an animal, feel free. I don't classify myself as an animal.
Biologically speaking you're wrong. Scientists have already classified you as an animal. Humans fall under the Kingdom "Animalia" in biological classification. The first definition of the term "animal" is a member of the Animalia Kingdom.
Anybody is welcome to say that they are not an animal because sstashmoo says so, but I think I'll take the word of hundreds of years of commonly accepted scientific study from scientists, instead. Sorry, sstashmoo. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8645
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 8:30 am: | |
"Why are so many heterosexuals concerned about homosexuals? Are homosexuals as concerned about heterosexuals?"
Why are so many people who have rights concerned about people who don't have rights? THAT is the real question and perhaps you could wrap your "i got mine" attitude around that and realize that injustice against one affects all of us |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3427
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:11 am: | |
Quote: "Scientists have already classified you as an animal."
And science is never wrong. World flat? Evolution? Modern Ice Age? Global warming? Out of fossil fuel by 1981? |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9589
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:12 am: | |
Evolution was proven wrong?
Remember, if evolution is outlawed, only the outlaws will evolve.
(Message edited by johnlodge on March 10, 2009) |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8650
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:17 am: | |
hmmm...
scientists never thought the world was flat
evolution - they are right
Modern ice age - not exactly an accepted idea in scientific circles, but an acknowledged possible effect of global warming, since a change in the atlantic conveyer caused by melting arctic ice COULD plunge N Europe into a new ice age.
GW -- they are, again, right.
who said we would be out of fossil fuels by 1981? |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3428
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:22 am: | |
Evolution was proven wrong?
Man evolving from Ape... DNA suggests there is no link and there is not one bit of fossil evidence from a transition that would've taken thousands of years. Didn't happen. |
Pam
Member
Username: Pam
Post Number: 5097
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:39 am: | |
quote:Man evolving from Ape... DNA suggests there is no link
Huh? DNA suggests there is a link:
http://news.nationalgeographic .com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_ chimp_genes.html
quote:A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3429
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:43 am: | |
Quote: "scientists never thought the world was flat"
In Medieval times?
"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
Dr Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.""
"Heaven and earth were created all together in the same instant, on October 23rd, 4004 BC at nine o''clock in the morning."
Professor John Lightfoot, Vice-chancellor of Cambridge University"" |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3430
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:48 am: | |
Quote: ""said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.""
Great Frans, where is the fossil evidence? Where are the hybrids? Since we are so identical according to him. Total nonsense. |
Locke09
Member
Username: Locke09
Post Number: 58
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 11:45 am: | |
I am interested in understanding homosexuality because I am interested in understanding everything about the complex world in which we live, especially the complexities of human beings.
I also believe that when I understand someone better I have an opportunity to become less fearful of them (that they or their actions might harm me or my way of living). When I don't fear someone, I am less likely to demonize them. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8652
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 12:44 pm: | |
Stash, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a scientist, calculated the earth's diameter around 250 BCE, and scientists did not forget that, at least they didn't in areas not dominated by the pope
lightfoot was a theologian, not a scientist
Lardner often said such foolish things, the vast majority of the sci/tech community of the day pretty much laughed them off
"Great Frans, where is the fossil evidence? Where are the hybrids"
first, the fossil evidence is profound, as is the genetic evidence. second, a hybrid is like a mule -- the product of mating between two species
your ignorance is quite overwhelming |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3432
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 2:20 pm: | |
Quote: "first, the fossil evidence is profound, as is the genetic evidence."
Oh it is? Where? You know are proclaiming something as monumental as locating the holy grail? Piltdown man and others were hoaxes, I'll save you the embarrassment.
Quote: "your ignorance is quite overwhelming"
"Ignorance" is parroting theory based on assumptions. |
Pam
Member
Username: Pam
Post Number: 5098
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:29 pm: | |
Where's Cheddar Bob when we need him? |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8654
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:34 pm: | |
no, ignorance is being unaware of the evidence/information/etc
just because you can name "piltdown man" as a hoax doesn't mean you know anything. read something besides your superstitious denial literature |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3433
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:50 pm: | |
Quote: "Where's Cheddar Bob when we need him?"
He "turtles" under pressure..hehe |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3434
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:01 pm: | |
Quote: "ignorance is being unaware of the evidence/"
Again, what evidence? You allude to "profound fossil evidence" of the link between man and ape, I'm simply asking to see it. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8657
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:39 pm: | |
sorry, stash, there are literally volumes of evidence. go to the library. go to a museum of natural history.
and i never said a link between man and ape -- man IS an ape.
for a rather simplistic view, I suggest Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee
for something more challenging, Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is |
Cheddar_bob
Member
Username: Cheddar_bob
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:42 pm: | |
Scientists never thought the world was flat. It was a belief of the uneducated and in "Medievel Times" as you suggested, it was mostly held by christians (big surprise, they are big on fantasy). In fact, recent studies have said that,
"...with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics /history/1997Russell.html
Sstasmoo, there's no two ways about it, you're wrong (as usual).
Evolution has not been proven wrong. Between evoultion and creationism, which one is more based in fact and backed up by scientific study? Since you'll probably guess wrong, I'll tell you the answer is evolution.
Sstashmoo, people are not asking where I am so I can refute your bullshit, they are asking because they want to see me mock your outrageous and outlandish statements of bullshit and outright lies. Speaking of "turtling", you seem to be avoiding my question on another thread about who comes here, gets a free college education, then leaves.
I'll address the rest of your bullshit in a little while, I'm kinda busy right now. |
Classicyesfan
Member
Username: Classicyesfan
Post Number: 641
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:57 pm: | |
cc says "However, if that information can be harmful to them later (hetero or homosexual...it doesn't matter), then it is a consequence of the choice to express that information."
How likely is it that a breeder couple will be beaten up for holding hands? They don't have to think about it. Gays must constantly be vigilant. How is that the "liberty" of which you speak of so often? I think you prefer the liberty of business people to victimize without limits, but you neglect to consider the very basics of human dignity denied a significant number of human beings in this land of freedom.
cc also says: "See? moral absolutes (in this case privacy) transcend party lines. Furthermore, rational arguments...like this one...belong to rational minded people (not liberals)."
Just because kathi in the ozarks displays a fairness (and a gracious thank you to her), it does not mean it is widely held, especially among the conservatives. That degree of tolerance is mor likely among the liberal population. Duh.
The people most likely to physically beat up a gay couple are Neanderthal Rush supporters. Or Archie Bunker who lives next door. That's just the sad reality. The people most likely to beat up a gay couple politcially are Rush supporters or religious zealots. Hence the Republican party has become the haven of intolerance. You certainly don't think that Matthew Shepard was strung up and murdered by democrats, do you?
True there are a handful of exceptional people who "trancend" the party lines, but cc you yourself deal with absolutes. So deal with your bigoted party, would ya?
A real telling incident....
When "Brokeback Mountain" was the hot topic, a caller complained to Rush that the movie "humanized" gays. Imagine, treating gays as if they were "humans" in a movie. That's the tolerance and enlightenment of the religious right wing which is bedding your party, cc! |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3435
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 6:12 pm: | |
Quote: "Scientists never thought the world was flat."
Never? You don't know what you're talking about.
Quote: "I'll address the rest of your bullshit in a little while,"
Thranslated: I'll be back later to recite some other things I memorized from a book and found on a google search. Cheddar, you are parroting theory based on assumption as fact. Face it, you don't know.
Anybody? Got a link to the proof man evolved from ape. I'd settle for pictures of petrified monkeyman fesces. Not all that conclusive, but better than the evidence presented so far. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9592
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 6:15 pm: | |
quote:How likely is it that a breeder couple will be beaten up for holding hands?
I think demeaning a heterosexual couple by comparing them to basically farm animals is derogatory. Never cared for the "breeders" shit. |
Cheddar_bob
Member
Username: Cheddar_bob
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 7:06 pm: | |
Lets settle the first point before we move on. I've got an academic study that says pretty much nobody with an education has considered the flat earth theory as fact for about the last 2,500 years. What have you got, sstashmoo? |
Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 8:25 pm: | |
<crickets> |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3436
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 8:37 pm: | |
He's saying "Never", how the hell could anyone even know that present day or much less pretend to know? History is largely myth agreed upon anyway. He has a webpage written by God-knows-who as his proof. Any idiot can write a webpage. Because it's launched on the web, it immediately becomes credible?
"never say never" as they say.
Let's move on to those fossils.  |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7860
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 8:47 pm: | |
Yes, a blog, but that does not invalidate his arguments:
quote:Debating tricks and defenses in the IDC debate
In the postings this week, I have been looking at the way that IDC people have been using language to blur crucial distinctions and to hide their true agenda.
In order to combat this, the scientific people have to be very careful and adopt two strategies. The first is to not let the IDC people control the vocabulary of the debate. The second is to constantly expose the long-term agenda of the IDC people.
In the first case, we should not let the IDC people pretend they are not talking about god when they refer to an 'intelligent designer.' If they claim that what they are proposing is science, we should demand that they, like any scientist who invents a new concept, produce an operational definition for their concept of 'intelligent designer.' Then we can compare their operational definition with that of an operational definition of god to see if we are talking about two different things or the same thing. For a definition of god we can tentatively propose (following the Oxford English Dictionary definition) "A superhuman person….who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind." But is this operational? An operational definition of god might be "an entity who cannot be detected by measuring instruments but is yet capable of influencing events in the natural world." Of course, this definition does not rule out other entities like the devil and other spirits, so it needs to be fine-tuned. I am open to suggestions for improvement.
We should also not let them assert that they are not creationists simply because they do not use that particular word. Again, we need an operational definition of a generic creationist and see if the operational definition of intelligent design does not meet that generic category. I assert that it does because 'creationism' can be operationally defined as the belief that certain things come into being that are outside the workings of natural laws, and IDC definitely makes that assertion. I will use Robert Pennock's label of Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) to make clear that theirs is just a variant of creationism that can be distinguished from young-Earth creationism (YEC), old-Earth creationism (OEC), and extra-terrestrial creationism (ET-IDC) but still falls under the creationist umbrella.
Third, we should reject their attempt to divide science into 'empirical science' and 'origins science' and to use that spurious division to imply that theories that fall into the latter category are evaluated by different means than those in the former category. This strategy enables them to avoid any empirical evidence for the theory of intelligent design. This division is spurious since all science is empirical and all require evidentiary warrants.
http://blog.case.edu/singham/2 005/10/21/debating_tricks_and_ defenses_in_the_idc_debate |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3437
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:17 pm: | |
Sounds to me like that guy had a little bit of trouble combating the truth. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7862
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:23 pm: | |
How do you "combat the truth"? |
Cheddar_bob
Member
Username: Cheddar_bob
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:27 pm: | |
My link provided is not a blog, and it certainly isn't just some "god knows who" idiot with a web page. It's not credible just because it's on a web page, it is credible because it is written by a man in an address to an American Scientific Affiliation Annual Meeting "summerizing his book, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997) pb."
The author, "Jeffrey Burton Russell is Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Besides UCSB, he has taught History and Religious Studies at Berkeley, Riverside, Harvard, New Mexico, and Notre Dame. He has published seventeen books and many articles, most of them in his special field, history of theology. He is most noted for his five-volume history of the concept of the Devil, published by Cornell University Press between 1977 and 1988. He would prefer to be most noted for two more recent books, Inventing the Flat Earth (1991, 1997), which shows how nineteenth-century anti-Christians invented and spread the falsehood that educated people in the Middle Ages believed that the earth was flat, and A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence, Princeton University Press (1997), a study of the history and meaning of heaven in Christian thought from the beginnings to the time of Dante."
While I can't say for sure that sstashmoo has never written published books or papers on the very subject on which we are speaking or he that he isn't a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara like this guy, I think I will have to believe this guy over sstashmoo. I could be wrong and sstashmoo has wrote 17 books and taught at Harvard and Notre Dame, but I'm going to guess that this guy's opinion is more valid than what sstashmoo feels is the case.
So, lets recap. I've given you overwhelming information from highly a credible source that says you're wrong about flat earth theory and you've given us,
quote:History is largely myth agreed upon anyway. He has a webpage written by God-knows-who as his proof. Any idiot can write a webpage. Because it's launched on the web, it immediately becomes credible?
Great contribution there, sstashmoo. While your argument was very compelling I think it is obvious you're going to have to concede this point before we move on. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19323
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:39 pm: | |
Creationism and evolution can logically coexist when religion is recognized as symbolic. "man" referring to modern humans capable of comprehending the concepts behind the symbolic parables put forth by religion. Prior to the existence of this kind of man, creationism refers to the time before man which includes the time referred to as when evolution led to man. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3438
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:09 am: | |
Quote: ". I've given you overwhelming information from highly a credible source that says you're wrong about flat earth theory and you've given us,"
Do you even understand the topic of debate here? It is whether a man of science at any time ever claimed that the earth was flat. I implied that Science doesn't always get it right. And you're attempting to refute. Try to follow along.
Quote: " I think it is obvious you're going to have to concede this point"
Why? You haven't proven anything. You are citing a website with theory loosely based on questionable conclusion. These are the same ilk that find three bones and build an entire Mammoth or Tyrannosaurus from them (whatever they have room for). |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8660
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 8:53 am: | |
|
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3439
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:35 am: | |
Similarity does not equal related.
http://www.allaboutscience.org /evolution-of-man.htm
""Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.
One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.
Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.
Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.""
Level of complexity revealed..
""Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6] ""
(Message edited by Sstashmoo on March 11, 2009) |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8664
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:03 pm: | |
gee, stash, no surprise there -- you get all your misinformation from an "ID" website.
virtually everything you cut-n-pasted above is either outright wrong or purposefully misleading to all the scientific illiterates out there
example 1:
"Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms" ...
"Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing
yes, convergence does exist. Fish and cetaceans are similar from a superficial standpoint, but the argument they make is extremely simple-minded and false. the second part of that argument is what many call the "god of the gaps" argument. the fact is that many intermediate fossils HAVE been found - a surprisingly full fossil record considering the odds. If a scientist finds a fossil developmentarilly intermediate between two known fossils, he didn't fill the gap, he created TWO gaps. the whole argument they are making is not based on fact at all.
all the "irreducible complexity" crap is just that -- crap. If the eye is such a brilliant example of "intelligent design" why does it send images to the brain upside down?
further, to show you the basic dishonesty of those to whom you turn for information, the complete Darwin quote is:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound"
(Message edited by rb336 on March 11, 2009) |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9593
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:12 pm: | |
There are all sorts of levels of complexity for eyes, from photo-sensitive cells to the advanced eyeball.
Enjoy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolut ion/library/01/1/l_011_01.html |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8665
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:25 pm: | |
he'll just go into the bacterial flagella next, another non-irreducibly-complex item
http://www.newscientist.com/ar ticle/dn13663-evolution-myths- the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irr educibly-complex.html |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3440
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:42 pm: | |
Quote: "all the "irreducible complexity" crap is just that -- crap. If the eye is such a brilliant example of "intelligent design" why does it send images to the brain upside down?"
Let me guess, because we evolved from Bats? |
Cheddar_bob
Member
Username: Cheddar_bob
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:07 pm: | |
Rb, it's obviously no use reasoning with this guy. He's denying such commonly held scientific knowledge as Biologoical Classification, for christ's sake. And when you beat him over the head with facts and the truth, he will still just deny it or gloss over it. Fuck, he's denying thousands of years of scientific study. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3441
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:24 pm: | |
"Missing" is missing.
I think we as humans are programmed if something eludes us, it is because we have failed to find it. In reality it just may not exist. Evolution and origins of life discussions usually produce more questions than answers. In the case of the origins of life, there is only theory and none are very well supported, and are debunked quite easily. When one factors in the "Law of diminishing returns" the something from nothing explanations become even less practical. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8667
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 2:06 pm: | |
so tell me what proof you have for "intelligent design"?
is it the brilliant intellect that put the hole through which we eat and the hole through which we breathe so close that tens of thousands of innocent children choke to death every year? or the one that designed our immune systems to systematically attack our joints, crippling us? or the one that puts a gland right next to the urethra in males, then arranges for that gland to swell up in such a way that it makes it very difficult to rid the body of the toxins and waste filtered out by the kidneys?
oops, wrong "whole"
(Message edited by rb336 on March 11, 2009) |
Pam
Member
Username: Pam
Post Number: 5103
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 2:24 pm: | |
quote:Rb, it's obviously no use reasoning with this guy.
He's not even consistent. He claims to not be an animal but in the Octo-mom discussion he was going on about "maternal instinct". Sounds like something animals have. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 3442
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 2:45 pm: | |
Rb,
Seems like evolution would have corrected these things. Even a T-rex and every other like species had it's nostrils within proximity of it's mouth.
Quote: ""maternal instinct". Sounds like something animals have."
And where did the Animals get it? |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8670
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 3:44 pm: | |
Natural Selection |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9594
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 4:39 pm: | |
Obviously the human form evolved from apes, but higher level thinking was given to us by aliens around 8000 B.C. as evidenced by multiple unconnected tribes around the world transitioning from nomadic to agrarian in a relatively short amount of time. Join me in petitioning our school boards to include Alien Design Theory as mandatory study. |
Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:44 pm: | |
Johnlodge, have you been listening to Art Bell and Whitley Streber again? |
Pam
Member
Username: Pam
Post Number: 5105
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:48 pm: | |
quote:Obviously the human form evolved from apes
JL you should know better. Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19348
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:28 pm: | |
True, but still evolution. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.