L O fucking L grandmaster all you have proved is how delusional and closed off your mind is. you cannot ignore the mountain and then call yourself a mountaineer (dont call yourself open minded because it sounds good). i am certain that you would reject ANY reasoning we laboriously put in front of you by simply ignoring the compelling points and asserting groundless opinion indefinitely. whether you realize this or not you are unable to swallow anything that does not fit within your box of thinking--ironically you cannot evolve your opinions or philosophy with reality. 1 more thing. The technology that allows you to read this comment is interlinked with the technology that proves you wrong
AHuman, read and understand this before posting again. Although you won't.. Actually I didn't.. I meant AHuman who's post consist of nothing more than the overly fallacious, predetermined, overly rehearsed wall of text that means absolutely nothing to anyone except his own sub-conscious mind which only means something because it is the self-perpetuation of a fantasy in his own mind to keep himself secure about his irrational thoughts.
its frickin hilarious how creationists are so good at pinpointing their problem ^^^ but as though were in a goddamned tragic comedy they go and blame it on the people who dont get their information from a 2000 year old book of fables and parables. Ohh the irony! Dude name ONE (1) UNO application of religion that has accomplished something tangible. For example 1 application of science is the lightbulb. If people hadnt experimented with electricity my room would be dark right now. Science 1 Religion 0
You made an assumption that I was a creationist to attack a position with the help of a far fetched fallacy that only gives your position no credibility, once again. I didn't say I believe in organized religion either but since you asked.. People's beliefs and ideas are what created your light bulb. And people's beliefs and ideas are driven by a greater purpose. And the greater purpose is what Christian's know as God. And what Christian's know as God, you know as evolution. You're both wrong, one in the same. Science: -1 / Religion: -1
Sigh... Let's get to work here, yet again... 'Fallacious' means what, Herb? Pertaining to a fallacy, right... and what's a fallacy? An improper argument launched not from reason but appeals to superficial agents of logic - for example, argument from authority, argument from emotional appeal etc. I have never done this (prove me wrong), and would contend that you're commiting a logical fallacy in attacking my personal characteristics ('irrational thoughts', 'keep himself secure' etc) rather than my argument itself. This is commonly known as ad hominen, a classic logical fallacy that no sensible person respects as being a real argument. 'Predetermined'... of course it's fucking predetermined, what do you think, I just make up evolutionary theory as I go along?! All of the creationist talking points that I've heard trotted out here are just as predetermined as anything I've said... in addition to this, what's wrong with launched a predetermined argument exactly? How does predetermination make an argument less correct? 'Overly rehearesed' is completely wrong, I write everything here and elsewhere on the city entirely stream-of-consciousness, there's no 'rehearsal'... as if I have fucking time to rehearse arguments given to a bunch of ignorant creationists who aren't going to listen regardless of how well I 'rehearse' it... 'Means absolutely nothing' to anyone is a pile of shit mate, authors like Dawkins, Hamilton, Gould etc have sold millions and millions of copies of their books. There are more evolutionists on this thread than you creationists (this is the Science board after all...), people to whom this stuff certainly doesn't mean 'absolutely nothing'. How very presumptous, obnoxious and rude of you to claim it does. I've gotten 3 lots of rep for these posts... people don't give rep if what they've read means 'absolutely nothing' to them. The part about my 'sub-conscious mind' makes no sense at all... The 'fantasy to keep himself secure about his irrational thoughts' is the icing on the fucking cake. Coming from a religious person who presumably believes in virgin births, resurrections from the dead, talking snakes and all of the rest of it, you should hang your head in shame at trotting out such a disgustingly misleading, shamelessly hypocritical statement. Why did you even comment Herb? What have you added to this thread besides ad homs and negative vibes? At least me and grandmaster were having some kind of reasonable debate and talking our points over, while you've just burst in here waving your fucking self-righteous finger around trying to run me into the dust without refuting my argument in any way at all. You've done this before to me, and I was more tolerant then, but this time I am not and I want to make my point loud and clear - CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING INTELLECTUAL THAT CAN BE RATIONALLY DEBATED OR FUCK OFF. Is that understood? I have no time to waste replying to such trivial shit as this, and won't be in future, so buck your game up or expect to be ignored.
Job 26: 7- 'He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing' Verse 10- 'He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, to where lights ends in darkess' Obviously stating the earth is floating amidst in space, not being held up by turtles backs which was widely believed back then and also states the earth is round, not just a flat piece of land. And also may I note they didn't actually have a word for sphere, so it has translated to circle. Job 36: 27- 'For he draws up the drops of water, they filter as rain for his mist, (28) So that the clouds trickle, they drip upon mankind abundantly.' Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind is going to the south, and it is circling around to the north. Round and round it is continually circling, and right back to its circlings the wind is retuning. (7) All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth. This is an obvious example of showing that we had knowledge of a water and wind system literally thousands of years before mankind ourselves would be able to discover with the use of modern technology. Also the opening line in the bible in Genesis 1:1 which many take for granted, 'In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth,' Which simply states that the universe and everything in it had a beginning, which the big bang has done nothing more than proving so. It also states in Genesis the order which god created all living things, first with the sea creatures, then the birds, then land animals, then lastly humans. Which has been shown my science.. Now I'm not claiming the bible is a science book, but it includes science which can be proven to this day. May I hear one good explanation as to how these people were able to make all such accurate statements without it being 'what a lucky guess.' They foretold things that simply were not able to be perceived back then. If you start to connect all the dots it starts to make sense. And watch this video, very informative and puts up good questions [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og-ll0SZXNk&feature=related"]YouTube - Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution Disproved, Refuted by Biologists and Scientists from Cambridge, Chicago, Munich universities ! Creation proved by Scientists ! Part 3 / 7[/ame]
I'm sorry that you do not know the definition of fallacious, fallacy, or ad hominem but I'm sure you can find a dictionary as I'm not going to define them for you. I'm not a creationist so great job at another fallacious assumption. The authors are believed by you and your group because you fail to come up with a figment of a rational conclusion on life and, therefore have resulted in the default in which life is meaningless. You've gotten reputation on the internet and seem to be happy about it. This points to a conclusion that you get little of such in real life. Once again, I'm not religious yet you so deeply try to assume the unassumable with a conjunction of predetermined, rambling, irrational, and, mainly, over-rehearsed speech that is quite incoherent and biased. And again as you 'presume' my beliefs. I advise you take your own advice before spewing non-sense everywhere. And my game needs no bucking as you seem to be pretty irritated and raged. I suggest Youtube meditation videos because nothing you said was understood. Good straw-man though. I thank you for once again proving to be an ass to the community and fighting against positions I do not even stand for. It really gives your word and thought credibility.
Herb, since you seem to be so wise, why don't you explain the diversity of life we see on Earth? It would be much more of a contribution to this thread compared to whatever it is you're doing now.
I'm not doing anything, actually. Simply responding to a very angry troll. Never said I was wise, never implied it. The diversity of life on Earth cannot be explained as our, personal existence does not range this far so speaking upon such a subject would be nothing more than a thought, theory, or opinion no matter how it is looked at. Science teaches us that no theory will ever become a fact as none have in the past. They are only theories with highly majorital rates of belief such as evolution or creationism.
AHuman is certainly not a troll, and you have offered nothing--no arguments, no evidence--that discredits anything he has said in support of evolution. You just keep attacking him personally, as you did in this post as well. It's honestly hard to take you seriously at all given the content of your posts, which are laden with poorly constructed sentences and misused vocabulary. Coupled with your antagonistic attitude and blatant ignorance on the topic of evolution I can see why AHuman would choose to stop responding to you. Why did you even bother posting in this topic if you weren't going to actually debate the topic at hand? Posters like you really bring down the quality of GC.
Who said I'm arguing against evolution? I've yet to attack him personal but rather, responded to his personal attacks although you choose to do such right now. Your illiteracy amazes me. I was surprised to be you can actually work your way up to five lettered words although they remain incoherent and inconsistent in thought, construction, and conception. Coupled with an ever so large ego and self-proclamation of godliness, you've done nothing but prove to be an ass who wants nothing more than a good, ol' e-thug fight behind your keyboard. Seeing as you've posted another jumbled, rambled wall of rage that was nothing more than a conjunction of predetermined, rambling, irrational, and, mainly, over-rehearsed speech used to troll with, I will discontinue with you. That being said, you are shut down. Why are you posting now? You're bringing down the quality of GC.
First thing, grandmaster, is that video - Youtube is consistently failing for me (I get a screen alternating between a shot of a man and a green screen), so all I could do was listen to the audio... but the second they started going on about bacterial flaggeller motors (flaggular maybe?), I knew where this is going - irreducible complexity and whatnot. Irreducible complexity, if a real example could be ever found, would indeed deliver a harsh blow to evolution - wouldn't KILL the theory, because parts that seem irreducibly complex can easily be made up of vestigial structures that have simply been 'modified' to create the so-called irreducibly complex organ, but it would none-the-less present a challenge to the central pillar of gentle, gradual modification as according to environmental pressures. However, no such thing has ever been found. The bacterial flaggeler motor example was SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES, almost literally - Michael Behe tried to use it as an example at a Denver high-school case on teaching evolution in high school, and it was completely and utterly dismissed by a biologist of whom I can't remember the name of. Basically, it was a case of what I said before - the 'irreducibly complex' organ (the flaggeler motor) was simply another organ (I forget the details, but it's that widely known that I have no doubt you could find about on wikipedia) that had been repurposed. Far from all the parts required spontaneously assembling as a flaggeler motor with no prior evolutionary history, they too had gradually formed by evolution - just not as a flaggeler motor, as seperate components that had gradually began to work with each other for a purpose they hadn't originally served... that of driving the 'motor'. Here's a link - Evolution of Bacterial Flagella The Michael Behe case was a tremendous embarrassment for creationists. As I recall it, Michael Behe claimed that the immune system could NEVER have evolved, ever, and that scientists had no explanation for it. A scientist proceeded to dump 50 or 60 huge thick essays on the desk that all explained its evolution perfectly, papers that Behe was supposed to have read but had to admit that he had done no such thing. The first line has no meaning that I can gather, but I can see how you'd take the second one to represent the earth being round. I interpret it differently though - 'a circle upon the face of the waters' is the sun setting over the sea, which fits in with the 'light ends in darkness' bit too since the light naturally ends in darkness when the sun has proceeded to go below the horizon. This one is more like it! This does say indeed something about the water cycle, evaporation and such... however, we've got no way of knowing whether this was purely a Christian 'discovery' or whether everyone knew about the 'water cycle'. I go with the latter, from personal experience - I live in Australia, but have a Comanche Indian father who has an old piece of ledger art in his possession that shows rain going INTO the clouds. Not rain coming down, but rain very clearly flying upwards into them. I hadn't thought much of it until now, but it's just dawned on me (through this conversation with you... thus you deserve some credit in this discovery ) that it could very well represent evaporation. Of course, it's hard to know whether this did represent evaporation because the Comanche have no written history, but there are a few neighbouring tribes who do (Caddo, for example), and many other tribes who do also. If you were to scour their literature and pick the brains of elders/those who know tribal mythology, I have little doubt that you'd probably find something that could similarly be used just as easily to support the case that ancient people 'knew' about modern 'science' such as the water cycle. Interesting perspective on it... the general effect of this quote is the exact same for literally billions of other religions though too True, they did indeed evolve in that order. Well, to be true, they didn't - land animals preceeded birds by far, but generally that's not far off the mark. Nothing about creating the dinosaurs though... The explanation is the same as how ancient people were able to accurately formulate a calander, navigate by the stars and perform other feats of ancient 'science' - the reason is that they lived off the land and thus relied on the land/nature, and as such they grew to know a lot about nature through observation. They knew about the water cycle because they observed rain falling but the sea not overflowing, as that Bible verse says. Simple observation and inference, which is similarly the basis of science...
overly fallacious? How can you say that with a straight face? I was actually gonna ask you whether or not you were a creationist but after rereading this I was motivated to jump the gun. There is someone in this thread not naming names with a multitude of false premises all supporting the conclusion that evolution isnt real but you are getting mad at ahuman for his fallacious arguments? This is unreasonable. I have read ahumans posts and almost all the conclusions he derives are based off what science has to offer. Additionally "self-perpetuation of a fantasy in his own mind to keep himself secure about his irrational thoughts."? Hold your horses buddy you are implying that what he is supporting is a figment of the imagination. You go on to describe exactly the state of mind most religious people are in and then turn the tables on him. Now clearly I am not ahuman but i think his posts speak loudly enough either YOU are making the false assumptions, have taken a course in logic but not evolution and like to argue, or are defending creationism by unduly attacking its critics. Either way im sorry to bring this argument back up, lets try to keep this thread more on evolution
You're childish slander and intolerance is not needed here. If you want to argue, become a lawyer. If you wish to carry on such an argument that is so far off-topic, then private message me and save the Science and Nature forum, along with this thread, a lot of trouble. And evolutionism is creationism is religiousism.