NationStates Jolt Archive

I asked a question. "Did you observe one" I believe. Interesting, then, that you are so wrapped up in your preconceptions and ignorance that you assume even a neutral question to play into the hands of your silly game.

*Pats NR on head*

That's nice dear. Now then, my point was, I have observed fossils and seen evidence of their dating. Which, in the absence of a time-machine and the destruction of the laws of physics, is the nearest we'll get to seeing an actual dinosaur.

Or perhaps the fossils of the T-Rex and other dinosaurs in museums all around the world are just randomly assembled?

i've seen many hundereds of fossils of dinosaurs.

i guess that counts.

Yes, it means that you have observed fossils. We assume they are dinosaur fossils, because that is what we have been told.

*Pats NR on head*

That's nice dear. Now then, my point was, I have observed fossils and seen evidence of their dating. Which, in the absence of a time-machine and the destruction of the laws of physics, is the nearest we'll get to seeing an actual dinosaur.

Or perhaps the fossils of the T-Rex and other dinosaurs in museums all around the world are just randomly assembled?

*smiles at sign of affection*

Then we can safely assume that dinosaurs do not, in fact, exist. You assume two things: first, that the evidence of dating validates the dating methods themselves, and that these fossils are necessarily remnants of what many consider dinosaurs. I proved to you earlier that assumptions are quite easy to make, and dangerous as well. Until you observe one, however, they do not exist.

Yes, I have played into your game. For the sake of conversation.

It is very comforting that only just over 8% of the people here are the kind of fucktards who will dispute that dinosaurs existed despite all the evidence that they did.

*smiles at sign of affection*

Then we can safely assume that dinosaurs do not, in fact, exist. You assume two things: first, that the evidence of dating validates the dating methods themselves, and that these fossils are necessarily remnants of what many consider dinosaurs. I proved to you earlier that assumptions are quite easy to make, and dangerous as well. Until you observe one, however, they do not exist.

Yes, I have played into your game. For the sake of conversation.

Well, I never experienced the Blitz or the Holocaust, and there's plenty of evidence that those two events occured. Or are you going to say that, since I never experienced/observed them, they never existed?

Until you observe one, however, they do not exist.

Does this apply to everything else too, or just dinosaurs..?

Well, I never experienced the Blitz or the Holocaust, and there's plenty of evidence that those two events occured. Or are you going to say that, since I never experienced/observed them, they never existed?

Not unless you want to subscribe to that philosophy. What is at present is this:
The effect of those two events has no bearing on your present life. You did not observe them, thus they do not exist for you. You could live your life to its fullest, without ever looking back on these events. To those that did witness the events, they do exist. Reality is in perception. I did not say they did not happen. Of course they did, because they were perceived and witnessed. But because you have not experienced them, they do not exist. For you. In your life. In the past, yes. But not now.

As for the dinosaurs, we assume they existed because we have fossils, and our scientific minds tell us that these fossils are the remains of something that once lived. Why? Because today, we observe that when something dies, the flesh and material fades away and leaves behind bones. Working from present observations, we assume that the fossilized record is such because we can conceive of no other logical explanation. We observe the past through the lens of the present, because reality is very much in our perception. What we observe to be true is thus, and that is the only truth. Everything else comes from our reality.

Does this apply to everything else too, or just dinosaurs..?

In this specific context, just dinosaurs. The same philosophy can be applied to everything, however, because you only know to be true what you have observed.

Not unless you want to subscribe to that philosophy. What is at present is this:
The effect of those two events has no bearing on your present life. You did not observe them, thus they do not exist for you. You could live your life to its fullest, without ever looking back on these events. To those that did witness the events, they do exist. Reality is in perception. I did not say they did not happen. Of course they did, because they were perceived and witnessed. But because you have not experienced them, they do not exist. For you. In your life. In the past, yes. But not now.

As for the dinosaurs, we assume they existed because we have fossils, and our scientific minds tell us that these fossils are the remains of something that once lived. Why? Because today, we observe that when something dies, the flesh and material fades away and leaves behind bones. Working from present observations, we assume that the fossilized record is such because we can conceive of no other logical explanation. We observe the past through the lens of the present, because reality is very much in our perception. What we observe to be true is thus, and that is the only truth. Everything else comes from our reality.

Interesting...


...might I borrow some of whatever it is your smoking?

Wow im away from the NS forums for like 3 weeks and I have to come back to this sort of stuff. Nice.

Interesting...


...might I borrow some of whatever it is your smoking?

Here. It's called life. Enjoy it.

Wow im away from the NS forums for like 3 weeks and I have to come back to this sort of stuff. Nice.

Jump in man. The water's warm.

YOU ARE ALL WRONG
REPENT NOW!!!
I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. God (and his permutations) are a lie, so is the "Big Bang" (and its permutations). The earth was created by his Noodlyness, period.
I refer all you apostates to http://www.venganza.org/ and the only true holy text present in the world today, the Gospel according to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No matter your current faith, you MUST read the letter on this debate topic http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

ramen

Italy 1914d
(who is doing its part to fight global warming with state sponsored piracy)

Not unless you want to subscribe to that philosophy. What is at present is this:
The effect of those two events has no bearing on your present life. You did not observe them, thus they do not exist for you. You could live your life to its fullest, without ever looking back on these events. To those that did witness the events, they do exist. Reality is in perception. I did not say they did not happen. Of course they did, because they were perceived and witnessed. But because you have not experienced them, they do not exist. For you. In your life. In the past, yes. But not now.

As for the dinosaurs, we assume they existed because we have fossils, and our scientific minds tell us that these fossils are the remains of something that once lived. Why? Because today, we observe that when something dies, the flesh and material fades away and leaves behind bones. Working from present observations, we assume that the fossilized record is such because we can conceive of no other logical explanation. We observe the past through the lens of the present, because reality is very much in our perception. What we observe to be true is thus, and that is the only truth. Everything else comes from our reality.

Oh good christ. Take that solipsist crap elsewhere please. Unless you want to argue that history is usless as a subject to be researched, in which case make another thread about it.

well obviously pizza and chewing gum cannot possibly exist and must therefore both be complete figments of our immagination since neither of them are mentioned in the christian bible. therefor since neither of these things exist, we can gorge ourselves on them continuously and never gain an ounce.

fascinating diet plan, is it not?

=^^=
.../\...

Did you ever observe one?
Cheese, haven't you heard of Jurassic Park?

Seriously, i've seen enough skeletons to say that they did existed. Ever heard of the Natural History Museum? It was my favorite hang out when i was 10.

We assume they are dinosaur fossils, because that is what we have been told.
Well, if they're not dinosaurs what are them? Big lizards? For cheese's sake mate.

Oh good christ. Take that solipsist crap elsewhere please. Unless you want to argue that history is usless as a subject to be researched, in which case make another thread about it.

Oh good Christ indeed. Or how about: Oh benevolent Allah, good Buddha, terrific Shiva (hmm...maybe a little oxymoronic), awesome FSM? Or any other multitude of deities? I like Zeus, though the ancient Christians call him a demon. The Great Spirit, now that is something.

You obviously have a different perception of reality, of philosophy. If you disagree that we observe the past through what we realize and experience in the present, then by all means debate.

well obviously pizza and chewing gum cannot possibly exist and must therefore both be complete figments of our immagination since neither of them are mentioned in the christian bible. therefor since neither of these things exist, we can gorge ourselves on them continuously and never gain an ounce.

fascinating diet plan, is it not?

=^^=
.../\...

Because...the Bible is the source of everything, and if something is missing, it doesn't exist? Interesting philosophy.

Cheese, haven't you heard of Jurassic Park?

Seriously, i've seen enough skeletons to say that they did existed. Ever heard of the Natural History Museum? It was my favorite hang out when i was 10.
Again, a neutral question. Usually yes or no will do, but it seems many want to excuse themselves from their response. And terrific flic, loved Jurassic Park.

Well, if they're not dinosaurs what are them? Big lizards? For cheese's sake mate.
;)

Dinosaurs, dinosaurs! What is it with these creatures? Dinosaurs are a metaphor. They had to have existed, because what else would have left those bones?

Again, a neutral question. Usually yes or no will do, but it seems many want to excuse themselves from their response. And terrific flic, loved Jurassic Park.
Do you want a straight answer? Fine, yes.

Dinosaurs, dinosaurs! What is it with these creatures? Dinosaurs are a metaphor. They had to have existed, because what else would have left those bones?
My point exactly. Don't you get it, those bones are from big lizard like creatures, no matter what you say. Dinosaur is just a word.

Oh good Christ indeed. Or how about: Oh benevolent Allah, good Buddha, terrific Shiva (hmm...maybe a little oxymoronic), awesome FSM? Or any other multitude of deities? I like Zeus, though the ancient Christians call him a demon. The Great Spirit, now that is something.

What? Its just an expression man.


You obviously have a different perception of reality, of philosophy. If you disagree that we observe the past through what we realize and experience in the present, then by all means debate.

No, of course I think we observe the past through our investigations that take place today, but just because we havent seen something ourselves doesnt meke it any less real.

Because...the Bible is the source of everything, and if something is missing, it doesn't exist? Interesting philosophy.

kindof goes along with the 'dinosaurs and amoeba thing', does it not?

...

it also occurs to me the since neither "we" nore the phrase "came from" are in any way limited in their diffinition in the question, it is quite possible to interpret it in sufficient number of ways that all four poll options are capable of being simultaniously correct.

now it just so happens that i see no compelling reason to assume the host organism of our awiarnessess could not have come into existence as a resault of single celled organisms having been a step along the way. while at the same time, NOT seeing our host organism as of neccessity or even likelyhood the SOURCE of our existence as awairnessess.

likewise no reason to rule out the possible existence of something big, friendly and nontangable, while at the same time equaly none to expect anything about it, or anything else nontangable, to bear the slightest resemblence to anything any person or belief immagines themselves to know about it.

=^^=
.../\...

I skipped about thirty pages of this thread. However:

2/10 for initial post - fairly transparent, IMO.

Also, I don't think anybody has hailed our true God in this thread. Remember: There is no God but Max Barry, and the Moderators are his Prophets. All Hail to Max!

And yes, Max created the dinosaurs four years ago, but replaced them with Founders in April 2003.

something big, friendly and nontangable
You mean the dinosaurs? :confused:

Wow im away from the NS forums for like 3 weeks and I have to come back to this sort of stuff. Nice.

This is an omen, telling you to never leave again.

Why did so many people bite into this guy's shit? The fucker claims that there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Anyone who's still clinging to young earth creationism is either too brainwashed, too stupid, or too big of a troll for any logical argument or any evidence to persuade him otherwise.

A guy I used to work for had a saying he would use every time he got into an argument with me. "You can't argue with a crazy person". I don't know why NSers keep trying it. I don't really know why he kept trying it either.


Simple really, some pople like playin' with trolls.

Oh good Christ indeed. Or how about: Oh benevolent Allah, good Buddha, terrific Shiva (hmm...maybe a little oxymoronic), awesome FSM? Or any other multitude of deities? I like Zeus, though the ancient Christians call him a demon. The Great Spirit, now that is something.

Horus could easily take Zeus in a fight.

Horus could easily take Zeus in a fight.

Thor, now theres a God.

Thor, now theres a God.

Thor is second on my list, but he'd drop WAY down if he didn't have Mjolnir.

Ah jeez. Somebody's actually contesting whether or not the dinosaurs existed?

...I'm speechless. I am without speech.

I love that quote.

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.

Both Facts

Thor is second on my list, but he'd drop WAY down if he didn't have Mjolnir.

Heh yeah but he's sorted mate, just dress up as a woman and go retreive it

Do you want a straight answer? Fine, yes.


My point exactly. Don't you get it, those bones are from big lizard like creatures, no matter what you say. Dinosaur is just a word.

Then we are in accord.

Horus could easily take Zeus in a fight.

I don't know man...lightning bolts? Come on, not to mention he beat the Titans.

kindof goes along with the 'dinosaurs and amoeba thing', does it not?

...

it also occurs to me the since neither "we" nore the phrase "came from" are in any way limited in their diffinition in the question, it is quite possible to interpret it in sufficient number of ways that all four poll options are capable of being simultaniously correct.

now it just so happens that i see no compelling reason to assume the host organism of our awiarnessess could not have come into existence as a resault of single celled organisms having been a step along the way. while at the same time, NOT seeing our host organism as of neccessity or even likelyhood the SOURCE of our existence as awairnessess.

likewise no reason to rule out the possible existence of something big, friendly and nontangable, while at the same time equaly none to expect anything about it, or anything else nontangable, to bear the slightest resemblence to anything any person or belief immagines themselves to know about it.

=^^=
.../\...

Yeah, what he said!

By the way, insofar as I was able to follow your post, I think that we definitely have some serious agreement going on.

What? Its just an expression man.



No, of course I think we observe the past through our investigations that take place today, but just because we havent seen something ourselves doesnt meke it any less real.

It most certainly does. What we don't know doesn't exist. We only know what we experience. But if, as you claim, you have seen a dinosaur, then it is real.

It most certainly does. What we don't know doesn't exist. We only know what we experience. But if, as you claim, you have seen a dinosaur, then it is real.

The dinosaurs fly south every autumn and north every spring, though some do stay through the winter. And I don't mean the ones in the big RVs on the Interstates, either. :p

The dinosaurs fly south every autumn and north every spring, though some do stay through the winter. And I don't mean the ones in the big RVs on the Interstates, either. :p

Yeah, I have noticed something like that as well. Seems a bit more hotrods and 57 Chevy's on the road than normal...:)

Yeah, I have noticed something like that as well. Seems a bit more hotrods and 57 Chevy's on the road than normal...:)

It's all the gray hair behind the wheel of the hotrods and 57 Chevy's that dismays me. Where did all these old people come from? :eek:

It's all the gray hair behind the wheel of the hotrods and 57 Chevy's that dismays me. Where did all these old people come from? :eek:

Florida?

It's all the gray hair behind the wheel of the hotrods and 57 Chevy's that dismays me. Where did all these old people come from? :eek:

It is a sign of global warming, no hard winters to kill them off.

It's the entity who created the universe, the Earth, and you.

After skimming through this topic, I've learned three things-

You failed science.
You've got an IQ below Room Temperature
And you've somehow managed to use a PC.

I don't have a problem with most christians...but people like you need to be strung up by your genitalia(not sure if you're a guy or girl, but I hope you're sterile either way) and left to hang while people beat you in the face with iron baseball bats. Only when you've had enough sense knocked into you, and you accept scientific fact(you can still believe in god all you want, I don't give a shit if you talk to some invisible man) and just generally gain something resembling intellegence.

After skimming through this topic, I've learned three things-

You failed science.
You've got an IQ below Room Temperature
And you've somehow managed to use a PC.

I don't have a problem with most christians...but people like you need to be strung up by your genitalia(not sure if you're a guy or girl, but I hope you're sterile either way) and left to hang while people beat you in the face with iron baseball bats. Only when you've had enough sense knocked into you, and you accept scientific fact(you can still believe in god all you want, I don't give a shit if you talk to some invisible man) and just generally gain something resembling intellegence.

You must have had a very dissatisfying childhood.

shit, this is still going? :eek: :rolleyes:

(who moved the eek smilie from the list?!!)

I'm not questioning your math, here, seems pretty sound. I am curious, though: to what advantage would 5% of an eye serve an entity? Only the fully developed eye would provide any conceivable advantage. If an eye was developed piecemeal, as you suggest, what natural benefit would a species have for not weeding out the part of an eye that, as it serves no ulterior purpose, since evolution does not have an end-game or goal? Thus, a piece of an eye would be a mutation likely to be flushed out in the next generation unless natural selection did have some ultimate goal (an eye) in mind...

http://www.pbs.org/media/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01_56.mov

there you go: a series of partial eyes.

and please note that along every step of the way, he shows a species of animal that has evolved no farther than that step.

flat patch of light sensitive cells inside a 'cup' shape - flatworms

gradual deepening of the cup shape, till the light came in through a single point - chambered nautilus

simple lens (just two membranes with water in between them) over the opening - you

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."

ah pseudoscience. no roots, no proof, no evidence to be false or correct.

ah pseudoscience. no roots, no proof, no evidence to be false or correct.

it is a nice, simple world, isn't it? I imagine science exams are a breeze.

yeah, i suppose for those who feel strongly about a world built on human belief, but I'd rather let the earth and it's treasures (which have been around billions of years longer) spread it's knowledge to me.

ah pseudoscience. no roots, no proof, no evidence to be false or correct.

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much. I feel that the only leap of faith for most people is whether God, Vishnu, or Allah created the Earth. For this, I refer you to the undisputed word of God, the Bible.

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much. I feel that the only leap of faith for most people is whether God, Vishnu, or Allah created the Earth. For this, I refer you to the undisputed word of God, the Bible.

Irreducible complexity is utter bunk, and calling the Bible the "undisputed" word of God is frankly absurd, as I suspect you know.

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much. I feel that the only leap of faith for most people is whether God, Vishnu, or Allah created the Earth. For this, I refer you to the undisputed word of God, the Bible.

Irreducible complexity is a load of BS. I'm not even going to bother with it here.

You refer to the "undisputed word of God." That's an issue. The Bible is very much the disputed word of what some claim to be their particular invisible friend in the sky. For more, I refer you to the undisputed word of the Spaghedeity, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Irreducible complexity is utter bunk, and calling the Bible the "undisputed" word of God is frankly absurd, as I suspect you know.

He knows, he just wants to see how far he can push this not-that-subtle trolling attempt before the mods slam him down.

Irreducible complexity is utter bunk.

So, one day, as we were crawling along in a primordial (millions of years old, if you believe the pseudo-scientists) as blind insects, suddenly a pair of eyes sprouted in our heads? Lol.

Irreducible complexity is utter bunk, and calling the Bible the "undisputed" word of God is frankly absurd, as I suspect you know.

We've been saying this for 54 pages, don't expect him to listen now.

So, one day, as we were crawling along in a primordial (millions of years old, if you believe the pseudo-scientists) as blind insects, suddenly a pair of eyes sprouted in our heads? Lol.
Case in point.

Irreducible complexity is a load of BS. I'm not even going to bother with it here.

You refer to the "undisputed word of God." That's an issue. The Bible is very much the disputed word of what some claim to be their particular invisible friend in the sky. For more, I refer you to the undisputed word of the Spaghedeity, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Irreducible complexity is utter bunk, and calling the Bible the "undisputed" word of God is frankly absurd, as I suspect you know.

Wow. It's like a double post, but from two different people. Great minds think alike. :D

So, one day, as we were crawling along in a primordial (millions of years old, if you believe the pseudo-scientists) as blind insects, suddenly a pair of eyes sprouted in our heads? Lol.

You know what? Fuck it. I'm not going to feed the troll anymore today.

Wow. It's like a double post, but from two different people. Great minds think alike. :D

Apparently so. :)

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much. I feel that the only leap of faith for most people is whether God, Vishnu, or Allah created the Earth. For this, I refer you to the undisputed word of God, the Bible.

Irreducible complexitiy is utter bunk. It was postulated by a group of lazy scientists who have no use for empirical evidence or actually proving their theories true.

Furthermore, if each organism was irreducibly complex, than they would have to be born the same size and the exact same configuration as when they finally die. BUt that doesn't happen. Organisms grow and change. Life structures are very malleable and can adapt extraordinarily in even one lifetime. Imagine a couple of billion lifetimes and random genetic mutations.

Tada! Evolution.

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much. I feel that the only leap of faith for most people is whether God, Vishnu, or Allah created the Earth. For this, I refer you to the undisputed word of God, the Bible.

Sorry but been there, done that. Science is real, it changes with evidence that is found right beneath your feet, evidence that tangible. I would love to have faith and feel secure in whatever comes after death. But ignoring the facts is just ignorant.

You know what? Fuck it. I'm not going to feed the troll anymore today.

That is because science lacks any concrete proof to support evolution. They cannot answer the "irreducible complexity" question, and they employ circumlocution to weasel their way out. You are simply refusing to answer my query, point-blank.

Do you want a straight answer? Fine, yes.


My point exactly. Don't you get it, those bones are from big lizard like creatures, no matter what you say. Dinosaur is just a word.
Then we are in accord.

So, let me get this straight, you're saying that dinosaurs may not have existed (friggin grammar), but big lizard like creatures have?

So, let me get this straight, you're saying that dinosaurs may not have existed (friggin grammar), but big lizard like creatures have?

Allow me to interject, here. It is possible that small lizard-like creatures existed, but some sort of chemical reaction expanded their bones, making them 10 times bigger.

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much. "Most reasonable people"?
I feel that the only leap of faith for most people is whether God, Vishnu, or Allah created the Earth.Or whether it happened on its own. Also a possibility. For this, I refer you to the undisputed word of God, the Bible.Undisputed?

Allow me to interject, here. It is possible that small lizard-like creatures existed, but some sort of chemical reaction expanded their bones, making them 10 times bigger.

Okay, sorry, but ... what?!?!? :confused: I'd dearly love to see a citation for that.

Allow me to interject, here. It is possible that small lizard-like creatures existed, but some sort of chemical reaction expanded their bones, making them 10 times bigger.

Do you have any sources for this? I doubt that very seriously.

Allow me to interject, here. It is possible that small lizard-like creatures existed, but some sort of chemical reaction expanded their bones, making them 10 times bigger.It is also possible that you are a dexterous chipmunk. It isn't realistic though.

"Most reasonable people"?

Indeed. 90% of the world believes in some sort of religion, and only 10% or so do not. Unless you're saying that less than 1/9 of those 90% are reasonable, then my statement is completely valid.

That is because science lacks any concrete proof to support evolution. They cannot answer the "irreducible complexity" question, and they employ circumlocution to weasel their way out. You are simply refusing to answer my query, point-blank.

GOD is a BETTER answer? Haha. Okay, the "irreducible complexity" is explained with evolution, whether or not you chose to accept it is your problem.

That is because science lacks any concrete proof to support evolution. They cannot answer the "irreducible complexity" question, and they employ circumlocution to weasel their way out. You are simply refusing to answer my query, point-blank.

No, he's given up. The past 54 pages were us explaining why you're spouting gibberish.

So, one day, as we were crawling along in a primordial (millions of years old, if you believe the pseudo-scientists) as blind insects, suddenly a pair of eyes sprouted in our heads? Lol.

You know what I like about this post? I like that, in an attempt to contradict my statement that irreducible complexity (i.e. the belief that organs resembling eyes could not work in anything less complex than their state in humans) is nonsense, you point out that it sounds colossally stupid to imagine that fully-formed eyes just magically appeared on our heads. It's fun when I can agree with you completely without changing my position on an issue by a millimeter. :D

That is because science lacks any concrete proof to support evolution. They cannot answer the "irreducible complexity" question, and they employ circumlocution to weasel their way out. You are simply refusing to answer my query, point-blank.

You only get to say this after you've read through the entire talkorigins archive material on irreducible complexity. And yes, I'm refusing point-blank to answer your question because it appears that even if I built a time machine, sent you back to the Cambrian era, and set the damn thing to fast-forward through 500 million years of biological evolution, you'd still claim that the Earth was 6,000 years old. So, like someone said previously, "There's no point arguing with a crazy person." And I'm done arguing with you.

GOD is a BETTER answer? Haha. Okay, the "irreducible complexity" is explained with evolution, whether or not you chose to accept it is your problem.

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it. I have lived up to the onus of proof, but you have not.

Indeed. 90% of the world believes in some sort of religion, and only 10% or so do not. Unless you're saying that less than 1/9 of those 90% are reasonable, then my statement is completely valid.

90% of the world do not believe that evolution is a myth or that the Bible is indisputable.

But hey, you know that, and you're just tailor-making comments designed to get negative responses cuz you're nothing but a fuckin troll.

And I'm done arguing with you.

No, you are incapable of arguing with me because science cannot explain various incongruences, such as irreducible complexity. Don't worry though; I can't fault you for the failures of science, and I laud you for fighting so valiantly in its defense. Unfortunately, your values are misplaced.

No, you are incapable of arguing with me because science cannot explain various incongruences, such as irreducible complexity. Don't worry though; I can't fault you for the failures of science, and I laud you for fighting so valiantly in its defense. Unfortunately, your values are misplaced.

Do NOT fucking patronize me.

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it.

LOL, yeah, "God created them" is a very plausible answer.

P.S. Or maybe i meant convenient instead of plausible?

90% of the world do not believe that evolution is a myth or that the Bible is indisputable.

But hey, you know that, and you're just tailor-making comments designed to get negative responses cuz you're nothing but a fuckin troll.

I simply claimed that 90% of the world believed in some sort of religion. I never said that 90% of the world had views which coincided exactly with mine. You are simply putting words in my mouth in an attempt to get me to respond to your flame-bait. In fact, I don't like your attitude at all. You seem to be a troll.

Indeed. 90% of the world believes in some sort of religion, and only 10% or so do not. Unless you're saying that less than 1/9 of those 90% are reasonable, then my statement is completely valid.If being religious made you reasonable, then we wouldn't have problems in Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan, or anywhere else where people are killing eachother because of religion.

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it. I have lived up to the onus of proof, but you have not.

There was a link posted on this very thread all of about 20 posts ago which discussed a logical pathway for the evolution of the eye. Read your own freaking thread.

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it. I have lived up to the onus of proof, but you have not.

eyes are complex, so i don't look to religion to explain it to me "easily". Maybe that is why (dont you think) so many disagree with creation, it is far to simple to say god created all life on earth.

Do NOT fucking patronize me.

I urge you to "chill out," son. I was complimenting you by saying that you debated valiantly. There is no need for such an uncalled-for outburst. Perhaps you need to take a little break.

So, let me get this straight, you're saying that dinosaurs may not have existed (friggin grammar), but big lizard like creatures have?

Nope. Listen to what I'm saying. These bones are proof enough that from our present point of view of how things currently work that some creatures, we call them dinosaurs, walked this Earth some time ago. Because in all our delvings into the improbable, we cannot bring ourselves to accept that everything may not have happened as it does today, or even as we presume.

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it. I have lived up to the onus of proof, but you have not.An explanation is not proof. Besides, science has explained it with more reasonable hypotheses than people hiding their ignorance behind a shield called faith.

If being religious made you reasonable, then we wouldn't have problems in Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan, or anywhere else where people are killing eachother because of religion.

Unfortunately, they believe in the wrong religion. However, they do believe in some religion, which is better than nothing.

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it. I have lived up to the onus of proof, but you have not.

My science isn't blessed, it doesn't need to be, it is backed up with scientific proof, that is testable and falsifiable...unlike yours. And besides as complex as the human eye is, I don't look for religions easy answer to exlplain it to me. You hit it right on the head, it is simply too easy, to believe.

So its better to teach kids that thwe universe and everything in it was created by some guy instead of teaching them that it took billions of years for it to form through chemical and physical processes?

Oh and the earth isn't 6000 years old. For my reasons on this please refer to a process called carbon dating.

I urge you to "chill out," son. I was complimenting you by saying that you debated valiantly. There is no need for such an uncalled-for outburst. Perhaps you need to take a little break.Meh. I'll give you a C-. You can do better at baiting others.

Unfortunately, they believe in the wrong religion. However, they do believe in some religion, which is better than nothing.

And also what makes their religion wrong. Religion is a belief system. There is no right religion....if any.

Unfortunately, they believe in the wrong religion.
And christianity, which have probably spilled more blood than Hitler and Stalin together is the right one. Yeah, right.

Unfortunately, they believe in the wrong religion. However, they do believe in some religion, which is better than nothing.Not really. It isn't what you believe in that makes you reasonable. It's how you act.

Meh. I'll give you a C-. You can do better at baiting others.

What do you mean by "baiting"? I was congratulating him for debating very well, and he completely flipped out on me! Is lauding somebody considered baiting here? Or did you consider my post telling him to calm down baiting? I mean, I was just trying to get him more relaxed.

I simply claimed that 90% of the world believed in some sort of religion. I never said that 90% of the world had views which coincided exactly with mine.

You said

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much.

When Laerod asked what you meant by "most reasonable people," you answered 90% of the world.

Therefore you meant that 90% of the world believes in irreducible complexity and that irreducible complexity proves God.

But believing in a religion =/= believing irreducible complexity =/= believing irreducible complexity proves God.

You are simply putting words in my mouth in an attempt to get me to respond to your flame-bait. In fact, I don't like your attitude at all. You seem to be a troll.


Oh MTAE, how I like it when you call others a troll. It's one of the best ways to troll, isn't it?

What do you mean by "baiting"? I was congratulating him for debating very well, and he completely flipped out on me! Is lauding somebody considered baiting here? Or did you consider my post telling him to calm down baiting? I mean, I was just trying to get him more relaxed.Perhaps your post was a sign of a complete lack of emotional intelligence. It could be that you don't know how to deal with human beings at all. Of course, it could also be that you're attempting to rile people, so responding to a post in which you were explicitely asked not to patronize by patronizing the poster... yeah, that would be baiting.

Therefore you meant that 90% of the world believes in irreducible complexity and that irreducible complexity proves God.

I believe that there was a dangling modifier or something in that sentence. What I meant to say was that "there is an intelligent force at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much." If you're going to argue semantics and minutiae, I won't bother. I'm not that skilled in grammar.

Not really. It isn't what you believe in that makes you reasonable. It's how you act.

Very true. Many people turn to religion for guidance in their lives, but that's just it. Guidance. Ultimately, your actions, not your philosophical subscriptions, determine your lot in life.

Perhaps your post was a sign of a complete lack of emotional intelligence.

I have emotional intelligence! But what did I do wrong? I told someone who was extremely riled up to calm down. Was my phrasing incorrect? Would saying "chill out" just anger him more? That's the exact opposite of what I was trying to do; I was trying to appease him by saying that he took something out of context, but I have him a compliment! Since when do people respond to a compliment with a "fuck you"? :(

This thread is fucking addictive!
I've found myself clicking the refresh button every 5 minutes, hoping to see RC act the fool one more time. LOL. :D

The irreducible complexity of various organs is sufficient to prove that an intelligent force was at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much. I feel that the only leap of faith for most people is whether God, Vishnu, or Allah created the Earth. For this, I refer you to the undisputed word of God, the Bible.

Irreducible complexity is proof of God? I know this is a somewhat flimsy analogy, but if I randomly move a rubik's cube and it gets solved... is that also the work of God?

That is because science lacks any concrete proof to support evolution. They cannot answer the "irreducible complexity" question, and they employ circumlocution to weasel their way out. You are simply refusing to answer my query, point-blank.

They have, many times, but you're not listening to them



Indeed. 90% of the world believes in some sort of religion, and only 10% or so do not. Unless you're saying that less than 1/9 of those 90% are reasonable, then my statement is completely valid.

In my experience, the average person is either ignorant, or a complete idiot. Take your pick.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6781/cidimage020jpg01c694471ot8.jpg

This thread is fucking addictive!
I've found myself clicking the refresh button every 5 minutes, hoping to see RC act the fool one more time. LOL. :D

There's a Twelve-Step Program for this, there must be!

There's a Twelve-Step Program for this, there must be!

Where? I've Googled it, but couldn't find anything! :(

There's a Twelve-Step Program for this, there must be!

I thought that the Twelve-Step Program was for alcohol or drug addicts. The only thing I'm "addicted" to is the Bible, so I don't really see how your comment applies. I can assure you that I don't inject, inhale, snort, eat, or otherwise consume, drugs or alcohol. My body is a temple and a testament to God.

I believe that there was a dangling modifier or something in that sentence. What I meant to say was that "there is an intelligent force at play; most reasonable people will stipulate that much." If you're going to argue semantics and minutiae, I won't bother. I'm not that skilled in grammar.

Oh ho, at first I'm putting words in your mouth, but now I'm not, now there's just a "dangling modifier" and so it's just "minutiae." Let me tell you, you're not that skilled at debate either. Take away your "OMG I'm offensively stupid LOL" operating style and the only thing you have is a belligerent, but passive-aggressive attitude.

I thought that the Twelve-Step Program was for alcohol or drug addicts. The only thing I'm "addicted" to is the Bible, so I don't really see how your comment applies. I can assure you that I don't inject, inhale, snort, eat, or otherwise consume, drugs or alcohol. My body is a temple and a testament to God.

It's all about you, isn't it? I wasn't even talking to you, I was talking to Efenn.

Where? I've Googled it, but couldn't find anything! :(

It's a religious program which seeks to cure recovering alcoholics or drug users. One of its primary tenets is the acceptance of a higher power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program

I thought that the Twelve-Step Program was for alcohol or drug addicts. The only thing I'm "addicted" to is the Bible, so I don't really see how your comment applies. I can assure you that I don't inject, inhale, snort, eat, or otherwise consume, drugs or alcohol. My body is a temple and a testament to God.

LMFAOWBMHAWAHAHA*!








*Laughing My Fucking Ass Off While Banging My Head Against the Wall And Having a Hearth Attack

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it. I have lived up to the onus of proof, but you have not.

I already answered this when somebody else asked it.

here is the quote of the post:

http://www.pbs.org/media/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01_56.mov

there you go: a series of partial eyes.

and please note that along every step of the way, he shows a species of animal that has evolved no farther than that step.

flat patch of light sensitive cells inside a 'cup' shape - flatworms

gradual deepening of the cup shape, till the light came in through a single point - chambered nautilus

simple lens (just two membranes with water in between them) over the opening - you



The biggest difference between science and religion is that when scientists don't know something, they try to find out the answer.

the religious folks just say "god did it" and that's good enough for them.

It's all about you, isn't it? I wasn't even talking to you, I was talking to Efenn.

Oh! Were you making a joke? I didn't parse the humor in your statement and naturally assumed that it applied to me in some way, as you share the same viewpoint as Efenn, and would not want to refer to him as an alcoholic or drug user.

Oh! Were you making a joke? I didn't parse the humor in your statement and naturally assumed that it applied to me in some way, as you share the same viewpoint as Efenn, and would not want to refer to him as an alcoholic or drug user.

Okay, now I'm speechless. :rolleyes:

Oh! Were you making a joke? I didn't parse the humor in your statement and naturally assumed that it applied to me in some way, as you share the same viewpoint as Efenn, and would not want to refer to him as an alcoholic or drug user.

Holy crap. This is getting ridiculous. You can't seriously...wtf? Dude, seriously, go read a Terry Pratchett novel or something. Get a massage. The Bible's pretty heavy stuff, perhaps its time to live and laugh.

...I'm speechless. I am without speech. :D

Okay, now I'm speechless. :rolleyes:I told you he either has no emotional intelligence or is doing this deliberately.

Holy crap. This is getting ridiculous. You can't seriously...wtf? Dude, seriously, go read a Terry Pratchett novel or something. Get a massage. The Bible's pretty heavy stuff, perhaps its time to live and laugh.I recommend Small Gods. :)

Okay, now I'm speechless. :rolleyes:

Ah, so that was indeed a joke? After re-reading that several times, I noticed the humor. It was my fault that it went undetected and that I responded to it as if it were directed to me. I apologize for my error.

I recommend Small Gods. :)

Heh, good call.

Heh, good call.

Haven't read that one. The one about music with rocks in it was good.

The biggest difference between science and religion is that when scientists don't know something, they try to find out the answer.

the religious folks just say "god did it" and that's good enough for them.

Why do you think the first religions were started? Cavepeople needed a reason that for the sunset, sunrise and all the things inbetween.

I recommend Small Gods. :)

I fear that reading such a book would unnecessarily increase my blood pressure, so I will not take you up on that suggestion, but thanks anyway.

Why do you think the first religions were started? Cavepeople needed a reason that for the sunset, sunrise and all the things inbetween.

Indeed, and the first, original religion accounted for everything. Then people left the caves and began to explore the natural world, discovering natural explanations for phenomena that previously they thought supernatural. So the gods were relegated to the gaps in human knowledge, gaps that grow increasingly smaller and smaller. As we learn more, God's role in creation grows smaller.

this has probably been said before but i don't wanna search 58 pages to find it.

Do mid chlorians count as a unicellular organism?

I think its funny that you listened to the fact men wrote the Bible, but not HOW those men wrote the Bible. Inspired men wrote the Bible. Inspired meaning "God breathed." God used these men to write down what he wanted them to say. Not that he came down and wispered the words in thier ears. If a God can create the world, He, surely, has the power to have men write what he wants them to.

Yes, might be that inspired indiwiduals wrote it...
But, complete idiots translated it. There are so many translation errors just from the greek to the latin version of the Bible to make one wonder.

I fear that reading such a book would unnecessarily increase my blood pressure, so I will not take you up on that suggestion, but thanks anyway.

So touchy ...

I have read through a good portion of many peoples holy books yet a work of fiction is enough to make you submit ... intresting

this has probably been said before but i don't wanna search 58 pages to find it.

Do mid chlorians count as a unicellular organism?

Do you mean mitochondria or are you talking about the things from Star Wars?

thee second one.

a work of fiction is enough to make you submit ... intresting

What do you mean by "submit"? I will not willingly read a book which, basically, scoffs and ridicules me, regardless of whether it changes my viewpoint or not (which it wouldn't; I have a strong conviction in my beliefs).

Do you mean mitochondria or are you talking about the things from Star Wars?

I wondered, too.

Mitochondria most probably were single-celled organisms living independently, way back when. They took up residence in other cells, forming a symbiotic relationship at first and slowly losing all independence. They still have their own DNA, though, outside the nucleus.

lock this fucking thread already :rolleyes:

lock this fucking thread already :rolleyes:

Hey, come on, we're enjoying ourselves. Party pooper.

What do you mean by "submit"? I will not willingly read a book which, basically, scoffs and ridicules me, regardless of whether it changes my viewpoint or not (which it wouldn't; I have a strong conviction in my beliefs).

You're willingly reading this thread aren't you?

Mitochondria most probably were single-celled organisms living independently, way back when. They took up residence in other cells, forming a symbiotic relationship at first and slowly losing all independence.

What proof whatsoever do you have to substantiate this claim? How on earth can you know whether or not mitochondria were independent organisms (millions of years ago, as scientists claim)? Furthermore, given that a cell's DNA does not contain that of a hypothetically symbiotic mitochondrion, how could it reproduce to produce a cell with a mitochondrion inside it? The theory makes absolutely no sense. If I eat a hot dog and then get pregnant, my baby won't be born with a hot dog in his stomach.

You're willingly reading this thread aren't you?

I am only doing so because I am attempting to convert atheists to my vantage point, not because I desire to be ridiculed (which I am, in copious amounts).

What proof whatsoever do you have to substantiate this claim? How on earth can you know whether or not mitochondria were independent organisms (millions of years ago, as scientists claim)? Furthermore, given that a cell's DNA does not contain that of a hypothetically symbiotic mitochondrion, how could it reproduce to produce a cell with a mitochondrion inside it? The theory makes absolutely no sense. If I eat a hot dog and then get pregnant, my baby won't be born with a hot dog in his stomach.

1. ^ a b Henze, K.; W. Martin (2003). "Evolutionary biology: Essence of mitochondria". Nature 426: 127-128.
2. ^ Voet, Donald; Judith G. Voet, Charlotte W. Pratt (2006). Fundamentals of Biochemistry, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 547. ISBN 0-471-21495-7.
3. ^ a b c Alberts, Bruce; et. al. (1994). Molecular Biology of the Cell. New York: Garland Publishing Inc..
4. ^ Huang, K.; K. G. Manton (2004). "The role of oxidative damage in mitochondria during aging: A review". Frontiers in Bioscience 9: 1100-1117.
5. ^ Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). "On Darwin's Shoulders". Natural History 114 (9): 64–68.
6. ^ Kimball, J.W. (2006) "Sexual Reproduction in Humans: Copulation and Fertilization," Kimball's Biology Pages (based on Biology, 6th ed., 1996)]
7. ^ Sutovsky, P., et. al (1999). "Ubiquitin tag for sperm mitochondria". Nature 402: 371-372. DOI:10.1038/46466. Discussed in Science News.
8. ^ Mogensen, H. Lloyd (1996). "The Hows and Whys of Cytoplasmic Inheritance in Seed Plants". American Journal of Botany 83: 383-404.
9. ^ Johns, D. R. (2003). "Paternal transmission of mitochondrial DNA is (fortunately) rare". Annals of Neurology 54: 422-4.

What proof whatsoever do you have to substantiate this claim? How on earth can you know whether or not mitochondria were independent organisms (millions of years ago, as scientists claim)? Furthermore, given that a cell's DNA does not contain that of a hypothetically symbiotic mitochondrion, how could it reproduce to produce a cell with a mitochondrion inside it? The theory makes absolutely no sense. If I eat a hot dog and then get pregnant, my baby won't be born with a hot dog in his stomach.

For the endosymbiotic theory:


Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts and Peter Walter, Molecular Biology of the Cell, Garland Science, New York, 2002. ISBN 0-8153-3218-1. (General textbook)
Jeffrey L. Blanchard and Michael Lynch (2000), "Organellar genes: why do they end up in the nucleus?", Trends in Genetics, 16 (7), pp. 315-320. (Discusses theories on how mitochondria and chloroplast genes are transferred into the nucleus, and also what steps a gene needs to go through in order to complete this process.) [1]
Paul Jarvis (2001), "Intracellular signalling: The chloroplast talks!", Current Biology, 11 (8), pp. R307-R310. (Recounts evidence that chloroplast-encoded proteins affect transcription of nuclear genes, as opposed to the more well-documented cases of nuclear-encoded proteins that affect mitochondria or chloroplasts.) [2]
Fiona S.L. Brinkman, Jeffrey L. Blanchard, Artem Cherkasov, Yossef Av-Gay, Robert C. Brunham, Rachel C. Fernandez, B. Brett Finlay, Sarah P. Otto, B.F. Francis Ouellette, Patrick J. Keeling, Ann M. Rose, Robert E.W. Hancock, and Steven J.M. Jones (2002,) Evidence That Plant-Like Genes in Chlamydia Species Reflect an Ancestral Relationship between Chlamydiaceae, Cyanobacteria, and the Chloroplast Genome Res., 12: pp 1159 - 1167. [3]
Okamoto, N. & Inouye, I. (2005), "A Secondary Symbiosis in Progress?", Science, 310, p. 287
Gabaldón T. et al (2006), "Origin and evolution of the peroxisomal proteome", Biology Direct, 1 (8),. (Provides evidence that contradicts an endosymbiotic origin of peroxisomes. Instead it is suggested that they evolutionarily originate from the Endoplasmic Reticulum) [4]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory"

For mitochondria (Wiki only gives general references):


Cambell, Neil; et. al. (2006). Biology: concepts and connections. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings. ISBN 0-8053-7160-5.
National Center for Biotechnology Information (March 30, 2004). A Science primer (English). Retrieved on July 9, 2006.
Scheffler, I.E. (2001). "A century of mitochondrial research: achievements and perspectives". Mitochondrion 1 (1): 3–31. PDF

What proof whatsoever do you have to substantiate this claim? How on earth can you know whether or not mitochondria were independent organisms (millions of years ago, as scientists claim)? Furthermore, given that a cell's DNA does not contain that of a hypothetically symbiotic mitochondrion, how could it reproduce to produce a cell with a mitochondrion inside it? The theory makes absolutely no sense. If I eat a hot dog and then get pregnant, my baby won't be born with a hot dog in his stomach.

Your analogy fails because you do not undergo mitosis to reproduce (Well, that's debatable I guess).

Hey, come on, we're enjoying ourselves. Party pooper.

sorry, i enjoyed this thread yesterday.... now its just stupid ;)

I am only doing so because I am attempting to convert atheists to my vantage point, not because I desire to be ridiculed (which I am, in copious amounts).

The chance of you converting us is about the same as the chance of us converting you. You could be doing something productive with your time. Like converting impressionable youth instead.

Like converting impressionable youth instead.

Yes, I also try to preach the Bible to the younger generation. In general, I try to balance both tasks in an equitable manner so as to minimize the amount of souls that are lost. I have not had much success on these boards (yet), but I have had much more success face-to-face with children.

Yes, I also try to preach the Bible to the younger generation. In general, I try to balance both tasks in an equitable manner so as to minimize the amount of souls that are lost. I have not had much success on these boards (yet), but I have had much more success face-to-face with children.

And yet you persist, do you realise that you are doomed to failure. You may have limited success but in the end is it worth all the time that you have put into it? Like I said you could "save" more people elsewhere, here you're wasting your time. That said, your patronage is appreciated please come again.

What proof whatsoever do you have to substantiate this claim? How on earth can you know whether or not mitochondria were independent organisms (millions of years ago, as scientists claim)? Furthermore, given that a cell's DNA does not contain that of a hypothetically symbiotic mitochondrion, how could it reproduce to produce a cell with a mitochondrion inside it? The theory makes absolutely no sense. If I eat a hot dog and then get pregnant, my baby won't be born with a hot dog in his stomach.

Just because you don't understand something or can't think of a reason why something happens doesn't make it impossible. I don't really understand how the LCD monitor I'm looking at works, but that doesn't mean I think that God is creating the images I see.

And yet you persist, do you realise that you are doomed to failure.

As somebody once said, "Evil can only prevail when good men do nothing." Well, I'm doing something, and you can't persuade me to stop, so you might as well quit trying.

Yes, I also try to preach the Bible to the younger generation. In general, I try to balance both tasks in an equitable manner so as to minimize the amount of souls that are lost. I have not had much success on these boards (yet), but I have had much more success face-to-face with children.
...

You're one of those "if you don't believe this you're going to hell" christians, aren't you? I bloody hate those kinds...

Eitherway, you do realise that Moses could've never "Written" the bible, right? Paper wasn't in enoguh suply back then, it's simply impossible.

As somebody once said, "Evil can only prevail when good men do nothing." Well, I'm doing something, and you can't persuade me to stop, so you might as well quit trying.

But what is good and evil but different points of view?

Mmmm...



Primordial Soup....


[drool]

Yes, I also try to preach the Bible to the younger generation. In general, I try to balance both tasks in an equitable manner so as to minimize the amount of souls that are lost. I have not had much success on these boards (yet), but I have had much more success face-to-face with children.

Not surprising, since children also believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy.

Haven't read that one. The one about music with rocks in it was good.Small Gods was the first one I read. It'll blow your mind on religion if you have it opened enough.

Not surprising, since children also believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy.

Fortunately, religion is not a fairy tale to be outgrown; in fact, it is something which sticks with you for all your life (and if not this one, certainly the next one).

Small Gods was the first one I read. It'll blow your mind on religion if you have it opened enough.

Oh, I expect it'll breeze right on through my mind, I'm very open that way.

You might try "Waiting for the galactic bus". I forget the author, but it has a nice little take on religion and stuff.

And the Bible wasn't even written by the people who supposedly witnessed these "events". It was written by a bunch of guys who probably knew less than half of what really happened with Jesus and whatnot.

Not surprising, since children also believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy.

lol, i like you :D

How is your "blessed" science able to explain the development of eyes? Religion can easily explain it. I have lived up to the onus of proof, but you have not.

I already answered this when somebody else asked it.

here is the quote of the post:

http://www.pbs.org/media/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01_56.mov

there you go: a series of partial eyes.

and please note that along every step of the way, he shows a species of animal that has evolved no farther than that step.

flat patch of light sensitive cells inside a 'cup' shape - flatworms

gradual deepening of the cup shape, till the light came in through a single point - chambered nautilus

simple lens (just two membranes with water in between them) over the opening - you


I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

did you even read it?

or watch the video?

Fortunately, religion is not a fairy tale to be outgrown; in fact, it is something which sticks with you for all your life (and if not this one, certainly the next one).

Really? It is? I was a christian for 13years....and I'm now a near-atheist. That's bollocks. I don't care if you've got an ivisible man you think you can talk to, I really don't...but let the children decide for themselves. Is that to much to ask?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

did you even read it?

or watch the video?

He doesn't need to do any of that. He's not here to learn, he knows.

As somebody once said, "Evil can only prevail when good men do nothing." Well, I'm doing something, and you can't persuade me to stop, so you might as well quit trying.

You can't persuade us either, that's why I suggest going to people that aren't surrounded by others who will cry BS at your every remark and prevent you from acheiving anything. In private you may find success, but here, in full public view of rabid atheists you will have limited success... at best... after toiling many days and many nights.

He doesn't need to do any of that. He's not here to learn, he knows.

He can't even spell parrot. :p

He can't even spell parrot. :p

I missed that. Doesn't matter, God won't mind.

I missed that. Doesn't matter, God won't mind.

...than God should have higher IQ standards for those he lets into heaven...

...than God should have higher IQ standards for those he lets into heaven...

Shh!! God's Listening!

...than God should have higher IQ standards for those he lets into heaven...

I could make a joke about the intelligence of fundamentalist christians but it's just too easy.

Shh!! God's Listening!

All Ur Base R Belong 2 God!

If God's listening to anything, then it should hear RuleCaucasia giggle in trollish delight.

You can't persuade us either, that's why I suggest going to people that aren't surrounded by others who will cry BS at your every remark and prevent you from acheiving anything. In private you may find success, but here, in full public view of rabid atheists you will have limited success... at best... after toiling many days and many nights.

He's right, Mr. Caucasia. I think it's you who should quit trying.

I could make a joke about the intelligence of fundamentalist christians but it's just too easy.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it. It just isn't as satisfying.

I missed that. Doesn't matter, God won't mind.

You missed Jesussaves?

I went to the archives. :p

All Ur Base R Belong 2 God!

If God's listening to anything, then it should hear RuleCaucasia giggle in trollish delight.

you make no sense

...then God should have higher IQ standards for those he lets into heaven...

Doesn't seem to, though, does he?

My objection to Intelligent Design or Creationism is that they're cop-outs, escapes for the intellectually lazy. "This is so complex, I can't figure it out. It must be irreducibly complex, yeah, that's the ticket, so there's no way I can figure out how this came to be. I'll just say that it was done by an intelligent designer, or when I'm hanging out with Behe and the guys, just God."

Believe what you like. I won't persecute you no matter how much I disagree. But please keep your beliefs in your home and in your church, and out of the science books and out of my face. It's just simple courtesy, really.

What kind of parrot was that, anyway?

You missed Jesussaves?

I went to the archives. :p

Jesussaves was before my time.

Who else here is an Atheist?

did you even read it?

I read your post, and I don't find that the burden of proof has been met. No evidence was cited for a "gradual deepening," only the end result.

Doesn't seem to, though, does he?

My objection to Intelligent Design or Creationism is that they're cop-outs, escapes for the intellectually lazy. "This is so complex, I can't figure it out. It must be irreducibly complex, yeah, that's the ticket, so there's no way I can figure out how this came to be. I'll just say that it was done by an intelligent designer, or when I'm hanging out with Behe and the guys, just God."

Believe what you like. I won't persecute you no matter how much I disagree. But please keep your beliefs in your home and in your church, and out of the science books and out of my face. It's just simple courtesy, really.

What kind of parrot was that, anyway?

I don't remember exactly what the wording was, but there was a troll around here named jesussaves (guess who he reminds me of)

someone said he was just a parrot, and his response was that they didn't even know how to spell parrot. (which, in fact, they did)

This thread is getting too annoying. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to hang out with a very, very distant relative of mine...



...my fish. :)

Who else here is an Atheist?

*puts hand up*

I don't remember exactly what the wording was, but there was a troll around here named jesussaves (guess who he reminds me of)

someone said he was just a parrot, and his response was that they didn't even know how to spell parrot. (which, in fact, they did)

*smirk* Oh. Seems I heard Jesussaves was Drunk Commies Deleted, but I could be wrong.

I read your post, and I don't find that the burden of proof has been met. No evidence was cited for a "gradual deepening," only the end result.

simple: as the light sensitive patch becomes more and more concave, it allows the creature to detect direction of movement and light better and better, giving them an advantage over those with less concave eyes.

get a flashlight and a bowl and try for yourself. see where shadows fall in the bowl as the light moves around it compared to where shadows fall on a flat desk, for example.

I am only doing so because I am attempting to convert atheists to my vantage point, not because I desire to be ridiculed (which I am, in copious amounts).
I'm a pagan, not an atheist, and you will never convert me to your hypocrite religion. NEVER. I'd rather burn in hell (not that i believe in such thing) than compactuate with your lies.

Who else here is an Atheist?

me too!


I have yet to see any evidince that:

A) a supernatural being exists in the first place

or

B) why one supernatural being exists rather than another

or even

C) why I should worship such a being in the first place.


A creature who has the power to change this world for the better but chooses not to is worthy of nothing but contempt

I'm a pagan, not an atheist, and you will never convert me to your hypocrite religion. NEVER. I'd rather burn in hell (not that i believe in such thing) than compactuate with your lies.

So I'm not alone? YAY! I'm a Wiccan, nice to meet someone else who's something else short of Atheist or Christian...

compactuate

That is not a word in the English language, sadly.

*smirk* Oh. Seems I heard Jesussaves was Drunk Commies Deleted, but I could be wrong.

This was months beofre my time on here, but Jesussaves was Drunk Commies Deleted's puppet (this was at the time when he was just Drunk Commies). Somebody called Jesussaves a parody and Jesussaves said "you can't even spell parrot".

Wish he was still around.... :(

*smirk* Oh. Seems I heard Jesussaves was Drunk Commies Deleted, but I could be wrong.

Was he a sock puppet, or an alternate, but valid, account?

(Ie: did JS and DCD ever 'debate' eachother in such a way that made DCD look superior)

Was he a sock puppet, or an alternate, but valid, account?

(Ie: did JS and DCD ever 'debate' eachother in such a way that made DCD look superior)

A troll puppet. Drunk commies got the Deat and is now known as Drunk Commies Deleted.

This was months beofre my time on here, but Jesussaves was Drunk Commies Deleted's puppet (this was at the time when he was just Drunk Commies). Somebody called Jesussaves a parody and Jesussaves said "you can't even spell parrot".

Wish he was still around.... :(

Was he a sock puppet, or an alternate, but valid, account?

(Ie: did JS and DCD ever 'debate' eachother in such a way that made DCD look superior)

There you have it, thanks, Pancake. I guess that's why he's Drunk Commies Deleted, huh?

This was months beofre my time on here, but Jesussaves was Drunk Commies Deleted's puppet (this was at the time when he was just Drunk Commies). Somebody called Jesussaves a parody and Jesussaves said "you can't even spell parrot".

Wish he was still around.... :(

That was it...

knew I had forgotten some details.




Ah, well...

I remember Jesussaves from when I was here a long time ago (anyone remember a rabid communist by the name of Dementedus_Yammus ? yea, that was me)

I left a while ago, and lurked around until a few months ago

A troll puppet. Drunk commies got the Deat and is now known as Drunk Commies Deleted.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Someone should write a history book.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Someone should write a history book.

Someone should. I'd start things off with a take on Genesis but RuleCaucasia would see it and start in about religion and all, and I have to go home now, couldn't stay to watch.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Someone should write a history book.

The Book of NSG! :D

I read your post, and I don't find that the burden of proof has been met. No evidence was cited for a "gradual deepening," only the end result.That's funny, because you don't require any proof for other things, merely silly assumptions.

That's funny, because you don't require any proof for other things, merely silly assumptions.

The word of God should be proof enough for any man; indeed, there can be no higher truth than that which comes from the hand of God himself.

The word of God should be proof enough for any man; indeed, there can be no higher truth than that which comes from the hand of God himself.

So Pi=3?

The word of God should be proof enough for any man; indeed, there can be no higher truth than that which comes from the hand of God himself.

well, since you're apparently still here, perhaps you could be so good as to respond to the posts which argue against you, instead of taking the easy way out and just responding to the posts that mock you.

you know: the one I made about gradual development of an increasingly concave eye

So Pi=3?

No. Pi=3.14157681846237463247829374236547832547826348927597458428346273647832647823647823647326478236478 62378428374627864872634782634872637846239784627836478.

Or something like that. :p You know, just to confuse him.

The word of God should be proof enough for any man; indeed, there can be no higher truth than that which comes from the hand of God himself.

God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him. - Friedrich Nietzsch

God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him. - Friedrich Nietzsch

God is being skull-f#@$ed by worms and maggots!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Someone should write a history book.

Well, there is the Nationstates Wiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) Though it tends to be the domain of the RPer...

God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him. - Friedrich Nietzsch

Now that that's done... If you'll excuse me I'm off to get run over at a zebra crossing.

The word of God should be proof enough for any man; indeed, there can be no higher truth than that which comes from the hand of God himself.

*sigh* We've been over this whole "written by the hand of God himself" nonsense before. The Bible was written by people, compiled by people, edited by people, translated by people, and printed by people. People =/= God. This really shouldn't be confusing.

*sigh* We've been over this whole "written by the hand of God himself" nonsense before. The Bible was written by people, compiled by people, edited by people, translated by people, and printed by people. People =/= God. This really shouldn't be confusing.

Ah, but the Bible SAYS it was written by God, and that seems to be all the proof some people need.

Ah, but the Bible SAYS it was written by God, and that seems to be all the proof some people need.

See, that baffles me. I know plenty of extremely religious people, and I've never heard any of them pretend that the Bible wasn't written by human beings, or that earthly politicking didn't play a major role in which parts various denominations chose to include or exclude, or that different translations can't radically change the meanings of certain passages, or that different congregations don't interpret certain passages in entirely different ways, and so on. These things are just plain fact, and there's no reason for belief in God or Jesus to preclude accepting facts.

well, since you're apparently still here, perhaps you could be so good as to respond to the posts which argue against you, instead of taking the easy way out and just responding to the posts that mock you.

you know: the one I made about gradual development of an increasingly concave eye

I will first investigate the course of action which you have described (regarding the fish bowl) prior to making another post on the subject.

These things are just plain fact, and there's no reason for belief in God or Jesus to preclude accepting facts.

God dictated to the men what to write. The hand of God guided their pen, and the word of God was transcribed onto the pages of the Bible.

God dictated to the men what to write. The hand of God guided their pen, and the word of God was transcribed onto the pages of the Bible.

So Pi=3?

Ok, I'm back. Any developments?

God dictated to the men what to write. The hand of God guided their pen, and the word of God was transcribed onto the pages of the Bible.

...

So God is a dictator...always thought so..

Anarchy ftw.

God dictated to the men what to write. We have been over this before.

Do you think that the Bible is still completely intact? God may have written it, but then man copied and translated it. We humans aren't very good at perfection you know.

So God is a dictator...always thought so..
Or maybe he's into S&M...;)

So Pi=3?

I don't see where in the Bible it states that. Can you cite a source?

God dictated to the men what to write. We have been over this before.

Indeed we have, and once again I'll ask the same question I did before: which versions of the Bible were dictated by God, and which were not?

Or maybe he's into S&M...;)

What do you mean by that acronym? I looked it up in a reference source (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=S%26M&Find=find&string=exact), but my query returned a plethora of results. Do you mean "smoke and mirrors" or "science and mathematics?" In fact, a lot of them seem to fit in some way or another except Serbia and Montenegro and sadism and masochism.

What do you mean by that acronym? I looked it up in a reference source (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=S%26M&Find=find&string=exact), but my query returned a plethora of results. Do you mean "smoke and mirrors" or "science and mathematics?" In fact, a lot of them seem to fit in some way or another except Serbia and Montenegro and sadism and masochism.

...

Sadism & Masochism

S&M

LOL! I meant Sadism & Masochism. And I tought i was the stupid one.

Indeed we have, and once again I'll ask the same question I did before: which versions of the Bible were dictated by God, and which were not?

I'm quite curious myself. Do you know there are 450 english translations of the bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible)?

LOL! I meant Sadism & Masochism. And I tought i was the stupid one.


I tought tat two!


This thread deserves to die.... but I'm going to poke it with a stick for a bit longer.

LOL! I meant Sadism & Masochism. And I tought i was the stupid one.

Unfortunately, that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of God. Were you joking or making an ironic post? I seem to be missing a lot of "humorous" posts today.

Unfortunately, that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of God. Were you joking or making an ironic post? I seem to be missing a lot of "humorous" posts today.
...

You're dense, and you're a fundamentalist christian. But alas, I repeat myself..


Here's a good idea: Look up what S&M is on Wikipedia...

I tought tat two!
Ya calling me stupid, punk? :mad:

P.S. I'm obviously kidding, mate. :D

Unfortunately, that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of God. Were you joking or making an ironic post? I seem to be missing a lot of "humorous" posts today.

If you want to see the humour, all you have to do is...

Open your eyes!

Unfortunately, that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of God. Were you joking or making an ironic post? I seem to be missing a lot of "humorous" posts today.

You need to get laid...NOW!
Oh, i forgot, you're a christian.:D
*Drums*

Open your eyes!

Well, no shit my eyes are open. Do you think I'm reading your posts psychically or something?

Well, no shit my eyes are open. Do you think I'm reading your posts psychically or something?

Alright buddy, I see your problem. Go out, get laid, come back and you won't be anywhere near as pissy.

Ya calling me stupid, punk? :mad:

P.S. I'm obviously kidding, mate. :D

As was I

You need to get laid...NOW!
Oh, i forgot, you're a christian.:D
*Drums*

I get the feeling I'm gonna like you :D

no shit
ZOMG! You said sh*t!!!!! Now you're going to have to whip the heck out of yourself just like that crazy mothafucka in The DaVinci Code!

You need to get laid...NOW!
Oh, i forgot, you're a christian.:D

Ah! It is an excellent point which you have brought up and I am proud of you for making that connection. Yes, it is immoral to have sex before marriage, since the solitary purpose of sex is reproduction and producing a viable offspring to parent. However, it is also acceptable to have intercourse of a sexual nature with partner after marriage even if you do not want it to result in the production of a child.

the solitary purpose of sex is reproduction and producing a viable offspring to parent. However, it is also acceptable to have intercourse of a sexual nature with partner after marriage even if you do not want it to result in the production of a child.
Why? :confused:

I get the feeling I'm gonna like you :D
Thanks mate, you seem to be cool too! :D

ZOMG! You said sh*t!!!!! Now you're going to have to whip the heck out of yourself just like that crazy mothafucka in The DaVinci Code!

I see no problem with using profanity in moderation, just like I see no problem with drinking in moderation. The only thing forbidden to me is excessively using such terms. However, I apologize for losing my temper, but such an inane and obvious suggestion really infuriated me. It's no better than giving someone advice such as "breathe" or "continue existing."

Ah! It is an excellent point which you have brought up and I am proud of you for making that connection. Yes, it is immoral to have sex before marriage, since the solitary purpose of sex is reproduction and producing a viable offspring to parent. However, it is also acceptable to have intercourse of a sexual nature with partner after marriage even if you do not want it to result in the production of a child.

...

Everyone reading this, read it as: Fuck as many people as ya' want, just be happy.

However, it is also acceptable to have intercourse of a sexual nature with partner after marriage even if you do not want it to result in the production of a child.Please, elaborate.

Please, elaborate.

It is not immoral to marry someone (and not a Vegas marriage, either; a normal, same-sex marriage performed by a church) and then have sex with them even if the aim of such an act is not the production of a child.

There you are...
have sex with them even if the aim of such an act is not the production of a child.
But why? :confused:

Believe it or not, I was, at one point, a unicellular organism.

It is not immoral to marry someone (and not a Vegas marriage, either; a normal, same-sex marriage performed by a church) and then have sex with them even if the aim of such an act is not the production of a child.
Wow...

oki But can we ravage them after they are married to us? You know, the old marriage-rape? The one you advocated before you got tossed out of this site..?

Well, no shit my eyes are open. Do you think I'm reading your posts psychically or something?

'no shit'? No 'pardon my French'? Your persona is slipping.

C'mon RC, i wanna laugh!
Don't make me start with the dirty christian jokes! :rolleyes:

'no shit'? No 'pardon my French'? Your persona is slipping.

I don't always preface my profanity with "pardon my French" although I have been known to sometimes employ that phrase. As a general rule, I only use that when I'm calm; if I'm "pissed off," I often skip it.

I don't see where in the Bible it states that. Can you cite a source?

1 Kings 7:23

‘And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.’

You know, the old marriage-rape?

Of course not! Rape is a terrible crime. Don't even think such things!

‘And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.’

That can also apply to an oval (or some other round shape), can it not?

Rape is no laughing matter...Unless you're raping a clown. :D

Rape is no laughing matter...Unless you're raping a clown. :D

I don't think a clown would laugh whilst being raped; he would be petrified of what was happening to him or her, just like any other person. You shouldn't discriminate against someone on the basis of their employment. That said, I agree with the first part of your statement.

That can also apply to an oval (or some other round shape), can it not?

No.

I don't think a clown would laugh whilst being raped; he would be petrified of what was happening to him or her, just like any other person. You shouldn't discriminate against someone on the basis of their employment.
Dude, you can't be serious...
Did God forgot to give you a sense of humour when he created you?

No.

Why not? The quote you cited lends itself to that possibility.

Dude, you can't be serious...

Yeah, I know. That quote can definitely apply to an oval, not just a circle.

Why not? The quote you cited lends itself to that possibility.

No, it doesn't. Otherwise it wouldn't be from "from one brim to the other". Unless you're saying the "word of god" is vague and open to interpretation.

Yeah, I know. That quote can definitely apply to an oval, not just a circle.

Read again.

Well lads, i'm going to sleep now. But before:

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS MEXICAN
His first name was Jesus
He was bilingual
He was always being harassed by the authorities

This horrible joke is brought to you by an angry dude who is going to burn in hell, thank you very much.

It is not immoral to marry someone (and not a Vegas marriage, either; a normal, same-sex marriage performed by a church) and then have sex with them even if the aim of such an act is not the production of a child.

I cannot BELIEVE no one else noticed this. Quoted for sig.

Well, there is the Nationstates Wiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) Though it tends to be the domain of the RPer...

Not the original intention of NSwiki. We could use more articles on non-RP topics, to be honest.

Goobergunch
NSwiki Founder

I am not trying to be more "crazy" than you, but simply to elucidate people to the word of God and perhaps save their immortal souls.

Ever considered we don't want to be saved by your precious 'God'? I don't want to dedicate myself to a jerk who managed to con an entire country into believing he was the Messiah and slowed scientific evolution for years to come. Evolving from unicellular organisms is a lot more possible than some omnipotent being creating Adam and Eve.

Whats most ironic is that nowadays, if anyone starts a new religion they get persecuted by Christians. Isn't that quite similiar to Jesus and the Romans?

Or maybe he's into S&M...;)

Frankly, we'd rather not be associated with god, thanks.

I cannot BELIEVE no one else noticed this. Quoted for sig.

Well, that was a really bad mistake to make. I meant to say "non-same-sex" but I was typing too fast. I guess that slip will not go away easily. :(

Well, that was a really bad mistake to make. I meant to say "non-same-sex" but I was typing too fast. I guess that slip will not go away easily. :(

You know have an open wound, it will now be opened further. There is no way to stop this. :D

How many quotes have been pulled out of this thread and sigged? My count is 3 but I may be off.

Just out of curiosity, why DID you mean non-same-sex?

Just out of curiosity, why DID you mean non-same-sex?
:headbang:

What have you done, man?

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1166468327-cathulhu.jpg