T1B

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

rozy wrote:

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

Why? Has anyone's mind changed yet?

Diogenes wrote:

rozy wrote:

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

Why? Has anyone's mind changed yet?

Matthew 7:6 comes to mind.

Dinsdale wrote:And while Einstein threw a wrench in the gears of long-distance space travel, it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that something was overlooked, and that whole space/time continuum thing has some complex shit going on that we don't understand now, but we quite possibly will with further technological advancements and research.

rozy wrote:

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

Why? Has anyone's mind changed yet?

Screw_Michigan wrote:holy christ.

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:While science on the other hand, no doubt will change. Hell, any number of major paradigms could change in the next 10-20 years.

How about questioning the basic paradigm that evelotion must have occured without any outside force directing it?

Blasphemy.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:While science on the other hand, no doubt will change. Hell, any number of major paradigms could change in the next 10-20 years.

How about questioning the basic paradigm that evelotion must have occured without any outside force directing it?

Blasphemy.

Depends on how you define "outside force." If there were any natural evidence for an "outside force," it would be seriously considered. Supernatural doesn't count, because by definition, it's not science, Dio.

Neither is Darwinism. Besides ID doesn't deal with the supernatural, just with the world as we see it.

You still keep trying to compare science to religion in terms of "blasphemy," on the science end.

Again, no problem with actual science. Just unproven, unprovable, unfalsifiable dogma like abiogenesis and speciation due to Darwinian forces alone.

Science doesn't work that way. Are there cliques among scientists? Of course. But that's about ego and reputation, not about the "blasphemy" of the scientific method. Huge difference, Dio.

When Gene Shoemaker first proposed that large impacts by asteroids and comets upon the Earth may have led to mass extinctions, including the end of the dinosaurs, were his ideas met with skepticism? OF COURSE. That's the way science works. But I highly doubt even Shoemaker's most ardent critics called him "blasphemous."

Pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

At the time Shoemaker presented his ideas, it was believed other phenomena led to mass extinctions, and that asteroid and comet impacts were RARE upon the Earth. Shoemaker spent YEARS taking samples, all over the world, trying to show -- through measurements of elements that could have only been created by the force of impacts -- that indeed, there is evidence of large impact craters, all over the Earth, before he presented his ideas, and had tons of data to back it up. (not to mention later Satellite images)

Within a few years, the entire paradigm shifted, especially when the comet, partially named after him, slammed into Jupitor. Then we finally began to take NEOs seriously.

Does this in any way shape or form, rattle my faith?

You're joking, right? Why should it?

As far as I'm concerned, his work made us aware of the dangers of NEOs, and gave us a heads up on how to defend ourselves -- possibly the only natural disaster that we actually may be able to avoid, if we have enough time.

That, in and of itself, is pretty awesome.







And here's what's really going to blow your noodle ...

How do we know God didn't inspire Shoemaker, regardless of his personal beliefs?
(I have no idea what they were, btw, nor do I care.)


Here's the deal:

If ID had its way, people like Shoemaker would have to spend equal time with fucking morons who seem to want to say, "well, if it's our time, it's our time."

FUCK that.

God gave us a gift -- our brains. Pearls before swine, indeed, especially in the mirror, imho.

Diogenes wrote:You have it backwards. If the scientific community in Shoemaker's day would have been similar to today's 'scientists', he would have been outcast, smeared, ostricized, and classified as a religious nut.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:You have it backwards. If the scientific community in Shoemaker's day would have been similar to today's 'scientists', he would have been outcast, smeared, ostricized, and classified as a religious nut.

Shoemaker died in 1997, bro., in a car wreck, at age 69.

Dinsdale wrote:You truly are an ignorant twit.


OK... so ID is based on an assumption(which is unprovable, and therefore can never be science) that the concept of spontanious life and evolution and all that jazz are much too complex to be random.

OK.


So at the vore, ID is passing as "science" merely based on astronomic sets of probablilities being virtually impossible without the intervention of some entity that has the ability to ochestrate such things.

OK... let's roll with that.

Memo to Dinstwat, while I believe in evolution, it is nothing more than an "assumption" either. Every scientific theory is based a probondernce of evidence, there are many that give you a propenernce of evidence that "creationism" is a realistic scientific theory.

Please, and I mean with all due respect, please read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Everything" and then attempt to do some free thinking based on numerical and empiracal evidence.

If life just happened like a rainstorm in the afternoon or a dumbass posting on a wishless board then why haven't we seen it on any other place in our nearest realm?

I don't know if it's God as you seem to think He is, but man this shit we call life is a miracle no matter where you think it came from. The numbers and the odds just play themselves right out.

The next clear night, go look at the sky. See all of those stars? Many of them may well represent solar systems similar to ours -- the technology to locate and determine such things is new, and still emerging.

BUT... we're using YOUR argument, based on probablilities.


There's likely billions upon billions of other solar systems out there. Billions. So, what's the probablility that one among those billions formed in a way that's quite similar to ours?

I'll answer that for you -- quite high, from a mathematic standpoint... quite high, in fact.


Now, look at the scientific progress manking has made in the last 50 years -- previously, a journey to the moon was absolutely unimaginable. Yet it was done almost 40 years ago. And while Einstein threw a wrench in the gears of long-distance space travel, it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that something was overlooked, and that whole space/time continuum thing has some complex shit going on that we don't understand now, but we quite possibly will with further technological advancements and research.


Now, with the age of the universe in the buhzillions of years(sorry, thumpers, it's true), what are the odds that something similar didn't happen a 100 gazillion light years away, 50 gazillion years ago? When you start talking about billions of systems over billions of years, a reasonable person would conclude that the probability is quite high.


And with the advancements we've made in both space travel and the general understanding thereof, it's not unreasonable to conclude that if beings on another planet had say, an extra thousand... ten thousand... hundred thousand years to refine their space travel, traversing galaxies might not be such a huge obstacle.


Keep in mind, these are all just extensions of the same "probablility" that the ID proponents espouse.


And since many scientists here on earth think it's quite possible that we could seed another planet with the neccessary organism to eventually create an atmospere, it's more than reasonable to consider the possibility that other beings did that here.


And studying whether that happened, and if so, how, would be "science." It would be some quite laborous, tedious science that any inroads could take literally centuries to make, but it would be science, nonetheless.


But on the other hand, saying "shit's way too complicated to understand, so it must be an intangible man in the sky" isn't science -- it the complete freaking abandonment of science, by its very definition.


If you steer your "science" towards the idea that a concrete, tangible entity had a hand in creating life on earth... that's science. Sure, with the tools we have at present it might be dead-end science, but science. Crediting it to a supernatural, omnipotent being is "religion."

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

warren wrote:Longwinded I may have been but spelling smack and using the monitor reference to get across the point that I don't give a fuck wether it was pizza, pancake or the pope's hat was the intended barb.

No warren, you can't spin your way out of it that way. So you can't tell a pizza from a pancake, no big whoop. Trying to slither around by playing the "I didn't give a fuck" card makes you a liar however.

I will concede that the homo-smack is both tired and the refuge of the ignorant and lazy, yet I find it not surprizing at all, that you boomeranged it right back to yourself by going all "warrenette" up on me and suggesting I go to homo-sites to ply my wares. It's kind of IRONIC wouldn't you say?

Yes, it is tired and very much the fallback of the lazy, which is exactly why I held up that cliched mirror in your ignorant face. No irony involved here sport. You spew it you view it.

I'll really try to put more effort into dismantling you and your gang of internet warriors.

You'll need to. If this effort of your is an example, you've got a lonnnnng way to go.

The last thing I have to take umbrage with you and your "I'm atheist, I'm cool, and I'm proud" posse is that you and your ilk are the one's that keep bringing the religion bit into the fray.

I haven't said anything to this point concerning religion. And I am also not an atheist. Nor agnostic. Keep guessing.

I have gone out of my way to state that I have a belief system but I reserve judgement on anyone for any of their creed, yet you use the "Christer" game plan at least as much as I used the homo stank.

Example? Link? Oh yeah, you just made that one up. Or you have me confused with someone else. Keep your damn spreadsheets up to date there warren, you suck at this.

I hope you can wrap your obviously brilliant head around the fact that you critisized me repeatedly for slamming your significant other by using derogatory homosexual references and then found it neccessary to go "steers and queers state."

My critque of you was honest and fair. Once again, you went to the ingnorance of gay-smack. You got a little taste of your own medicine and now your trying to suggest that two annonymous posters are "significant others". Bravo sport. There's your pot and kettle right smack in your greeel.

Pot meet the kettle bitch.

Well, I have met you, in a manner of speaking, and found you to be quite the kettling bitch with a potty mouth.

Not so pleased to meet you.

smackaholic wrote:I hate it when somebody just quotes something and leaves out a witty or even not so witty response.

I'll blame it on the diazepam or maybe it's that damn computer virus that hits the send button on you inadvertently.

poptart wrote: Genesis 5:4 says that Adam has sons and daughters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that G-d created man, in the likeness of G-d made He him;
2 male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.
4 And the days of Adam after he begot Seth were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters.
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enosh.
7 And Seth lived after he begot Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters.
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9 And Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Kenan.
10 And Enosh lived after he begot Kenan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begot sons and daughters.
11 And all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12 And Kenan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel.
13 And Kenan lived after he begot Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years, and begot sons and daughters.
14 And all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15 And Mahalalel lived sixty and five years, and begot Jared.
16 And Mahalalel lived after he begot Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters.
17 And all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety and five years; and he died.
18 And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and begot Enoch.
19 And Jared lived after he begot Enoch eight hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years; and he died.
21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begot Methuselah.
22 And Enoch walked with G-d after he begot Methuselah three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years.
24 And Enoch walked with G-d, and he was not; for G-d took him.
25 And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begot Lamech.
26 And Methuselah lived after he begot Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begot sons and daughters.
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years; and he died.
28 And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begot a son.
29 And he called his name Noah, saying: 'This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh from the ground which HaShem hath cursed.'
30 And Lamech lived after he begot Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begot sons and daughters.
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years; and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:

poptart wrote: Genesis 5:4 says that Adam has sons and daughters.

It also says he lived to be 936 years old. Seems that good healthy living went along way back then ...

Diogenes wrote:
All of the antediluvian lifespans were longer than those after. Increased solar radiation led to devolution in action.

Diogenes wrote:Gen 1:7, Gen 7:11.

Diogenes wrote:Still nothing to do with ID.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Still nothing to do with ID.

then why did you bring it up......

88 wrote:http://in.news.yahoo.com/071210/137/6oa5z.html

Diogenes wrote: I didn't. I was responding to the previous post.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: I didn't. I was responding to the previous post.

so you're arguing the points of Creationism....

gotcha....

Diogenes wrote:
If you want to talk Creationism, start a new thread.

88 wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

88 wrote:http://in.news.yahoo.com/071210/137/6oa5z.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 120507.php

The researchers in this study seem to take benificial mutations as an assumption, whereas differences in population groups would explain their findings just as readily. And be more
likely.

Says who? And when did the Grand SuperDuper Creator create all these different population groups that you wish to rely on?

88 wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And nobody disputes micro-evolution. There is just no evidence for macro-evolution. Except for the True Believer, of course.

Now that is plain stupid. If you understand and acknowledge that micro-evolution is occurring, then add about 5 billion years and you've got macro-evolution, if that's what you want to call it. It's the same thing.

88 wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

88 wrote:http://in.news.yahoo.com/071210/137/6oa5z.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 120507.php

The researchers in this study seem to take benificial mutations as an assumption, whereas differences in population groups would explain their findings just as readily. And be more
likely.

Says who? And when did the Grand SuperDuper Creator create all these different population groups that you wish to rely on? You got some data for that one, Sparky?

Diogenes wrote:And nobody disputes micro-evolution. There is just no evidence for macro-evolution. Except for the True Believer, of course.[/b]

Now that is plain stupid. If you understand and acknowledge that micro-evolution is occurring, then add about 5 billion years and you've got macro-evolution, if that's what you want to call it. It's the same thing.

Diogenes wrote:

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:

poptart wrote: Genesis 5:4 says that Adam has sons and daughters.

It also says he lived to be 936 years old. Seems that good healthy living went along way back then ...

All of the antediluvian lifespans were longer than those after. Increased solar radiation led to devolution in action.

warren wrote:

88 wrote:

Diogenes wrote: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 120507.php

The researchers in this study seem to take benificial mutations as an assumption, whereas differences in population groups would explain their findings just as readily. And be more
likely.

Says who? And when did the Grand SuperDuper Creator create all these different population groups that you wish to rely on? You got some data for that one, Sparky?

Diogenes wrote:And nobody disputes micro-evolution. There is just no evidence for macro-evolution. Except for the True Believer, of course.[/b]

Now that is plain stupid. If you understand and acknowledge that micro-evolution is occurring, then add about 5 billion years and you've got macro-evolution, if that's what you want to call it. It's the same thing.

Dude you are so right, however you and the other atheistic people on here keep failing to get the point that the Bible was written by people that were trying to invoke some motivation for some other folks that were being put upon by some rather sadistic people.

I consider myself a Christian, but I don't buy into any flood and animals that got underway on the USS Ark, I don't believe in any burning bush, other than when I set dinsdales old lady's unshaved clam on fire through friction for splendid satisfaction, but I DO believe that in God's time we were designed and that design came through evolution.

Adam and Eve didn't fuck and make us all, we were developed through a Darwanistic natural order, and I prefer to believe in an afterlife because it comforts me and prevents me from hunting down and destroying many of the cocksucking population that frequent this zone. How else would I have any reason not to smash and grab, and look creeps right in the eye and clank the click?

The reason is I believe in humanity, my jobs and military career have shown me the worst of it all, but I, for one, am going to believe in the best of it all.

Merry Christmas from the A#1 Christer!

Diogenes wrote:]All of the antediluvian lifespans were longer than those after. Increased solar radiation led to devolution in action.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote: It also says he lived to be 936 years old. Seems that good healthy living went along way back then ...

All of the antediluvian lifespans were longer than those after. Increased solar radiation led to devolution in action.

Increased solar radiation to modern day levels shortens life spans from 900 plus years to less than 100? Riight.

smackaholic wrote:

warren wrote:

88 wrote: Says who? And when did the Grand SuperDuper Creator create all these different population groups that you wish to rely on? You got some data for that one, Sparky?

Now that is plain stupid. If you understand and acknowledge that micro-evolution is occurring, then add about 5 billion years and you've got macro-evolution, if that's what you want to call it. It's the same thing.

Dude you are so right, however you and the other atheistic people on here keep failing to get the point that the Bible was written by people that were trying to invoke some motivation for some other folks that were being put upon by some rather sadistic people.

I consider myself a Christian, but I don't buy into any flood and animals that got underway on the USS Ark, I don't believe in any burning bush, other than when I set dinsdales old lady's unshaved clam on fire through friction for splendid satisfaction, but I DO believe that in God's time we were designed and that design came through evolution.

Adam and Eve didn't fuck and make us all, we were developed through a Darwanistic natural order, and I prefer to believe in an afterlife because it comforts me and prevents me from hunting down and destroying many of the cocksucking population that frequent this zone. How else would I have any reason not to smash and grab, and look creeps right in the eye and clank the click?

The reason is I believe in humanity, my jobs and military career have shown me the worst of it all, but I, for one, am going to believe in the best of it all.

Merry Christmas from the A#1 Christer!

That was a very well put explanation of religion. basically, we are all self centered pieces of shit and complete anarchy would exist were it not for some fear of a nasty but fukking in the mouth in the here after if we don't atleast put in an effort to not be a complete asshole.

I'm impressed, warren. When does the nastyass texas redneck ass kickin' warren check back in? Or it it just totally random?

Diogenes wrote:
Consider it devolution in action. Still mure likely than speciation due to undirected natural causes or abiogenesis.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Consider it devolution in action. Still mure likely than speciation due to undirected natural causes or abiogenesis.

so you come up with some hairbrained postulation and you're argument for this is "it's more likely to have occurred than evolution"......

and you wonder why people laugh at your ilk.....

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Consider it devolution in action. Still mure likely than speciation due to undirected natural causes or abiogenesis.

so you come up with some hairbrained postulation and you're argument for this is "it's more likely to have occurred than evolution"......

and you wonder why people laugh at your ilk.....

Diogenes wrote:
Mental migets often laugh at what they can't comprehend.

warren wrote:
Let's hear your gameplan genius.

What has ruined this forumn is critisizm, spelling smack, and no actual, literal and academic opposition. It is so freaking easy to call people gay, which I have done but will not do, except for this pointing out this man ass pumping felix, and no actual theory for the opposing point.

Some believe that God has to be responsible for this miracle and will grant not only me, but even this chocolate tounging douchebag felix a place beyond this Earthly realm, and some think that this is it, there are no social morays to behold.

If I bought into that I would be Clyde and I'd find the hottes Bonnie and chain her to my truck until I brainwashed her ass into helping rape, rob and pillage.

You fuckers that don't believe in the here and the after have to be the biggest pussy's on the planet. If I felt no repercutions then I would be getting paid and laid and you would all be afraid.