Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lord Dave

Pages: < Back  1 ... 274 275 [276] 277 278 ... 353  Next >
5501
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
I threw him on ignore.  It seems to help.

5502
Arts & Entertainment / Re: First Look at Ben Affleck's Batman
« on: March 31, 2016, 06:09:28 PM »
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/30/ben-affleck-batman-script?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

I hate to say it, but Batman's murder sprees in BvS have kind of soiled the character for me in this universe. I wish he could make a Batman film that bears no relation to it.
In fairness, batman murdered people in the '89 batman movie.  The entire church scene has him killing several henchmen AND the joker.

Are you implying that Batman fans were okay with that?  They really weren't.  Burton's movies received a ton of criticism from fans for its deviations from the comics, and nowadays is respected more for its historical value (helping disassociate Batman from the lighthearted goofiness of the Adam West series, encouraging studios to create big-budget capeshit films, etc.) than for being a faithful adaptation of the character.
No, just saying its not new.  I had no idea wbat the fan reaction was to the movie.

5503
Arts & Entertainment / Re: First Look at Ben Affleck's Batman
« on: March 31, 2016, 01:21:57 PM »
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/30/ben-affleck-batman-script?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

I hate to say it, but Batman's murder sprees in BvS have kind of soiled the character for me in this universe. I wish he could make a Batman film that bears no relation to it.
In fairness, batman murdered people in the '89 batman movie.  The entire church scene has him killing several henchmen AND the joker.

5504
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy
« on: March 31, 2016, 06:36:36 AM »
Hey, how do I disband the rest of my army?  I could only disband one last round. 

And surrender? How do I do that?

5505
There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.

Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you.  You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority.  We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.

I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority?

You can have this forum, I'm talking about the 85% of Americans that share my view that life is too magnificent, too complex, too improbable to be the result of lightning striking a primordial ooze.

Logical fallacy.  Ad populum.

Quote
You haven't refuted a thing I've said. In fact, throughout this debate I've been the one knocking down any circumstantial wikipedia article you've posted.
If you say so.

Quote
As I said, if you really think you have converted anyone on the fence who would even look at this miserable thread, which no one is, it's just us, then you would be ashamed to find out your conjectures and circle logic failed at making me rethink my position for even one split second.
Yeah, I noticed.  You're one of those people who would proclaim something as fact even if God himself came from heaven and told you otherwise.

Quote
Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."
Oh, it talks about microscopic organisms?  Or is it just "Wash your hands after touching pig shit"?

5506
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy
« on: March 29, 2016, 03:03:24 PM »
Austria will have unchallenged access to all south western Europe.
Yes this is a rage quit but hey, I see no victory for me so why bother going on?  I thought about fighting until the end so everyone else could fight him while he was distracted but you wouldn't.  I suspect you'd all have me removed quickly so I say "Enjoy Parsifal Rule".

Sorry to hear that. I mean, yeah you got fucked over, but someone has to fuck over someone else in this game. I just saw an opportunity and took it.
Yeah well, I just hate being fucked over in the second turn, making the game impossible for me to win.
If we could make units at any supply depot then it would be different.

5507
There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.

Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you.  You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority.  We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.

I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority? 

5508
On mobile, so I wont be able to dissect your post, but just to be clear: there is still no experimental evidence of evolution. Correct?

And about your book metaphor... In actual realistic scenario, who is arranging the words? Who is changing the letters? If left up to time and nature alone, which unequivocally trends towards chaos aka entropy, you will end up with a book full of jibberish. You won't end up with an even more masterful piece of literature. It's more like assuming that given time a Dr. Zuess' Red Fish Blue Fish will become War and Peace.

Don't have the exact link but I've read about a computer simulation running over 15 billion times or something insane, just to properly sequence half of the alphabet in order. I will look for source when I'm on my computer, but you have to agree, extrapolating that to how complicated and precise our DNA has to replicate to result in healthy fertile offspring seems like a tough task.

Oh btw, happy Easter   ;D


How lucky you were on your mobile, because he demolished you, especially your childlike understanding of natural selection and environments.
And the book analogy A bit clumsy but if each of the changed words has to make sense (i.e. promote survival or at least not hinder it) it kind of works.
But still there is a wealth of studies that show evolution in action, the continued examination of ring species like the Ensatina salamander amongst many others.

But you want us to believe that we have always been here (with the dinosaurs?), that sky god pops in every now and then to give us some tablets and to sacrifice someone to prove the point, raise a city or two to the ground to prove some other thing, whilst insisting we worship it or else.
Give me science with its gradual uncovering of the beauty of natures workings over religion and its fear based mutterings any day.

I'm waiting for him to disect my post.  Its been 2 days.

5509
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy
« on: March 27, 2016, 06:22:29 PM »
also roundy quit on us i think.  no moves last turn.
He must be the ass who isn't checking the check box.

Him or Parsifal.

5510
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy
« on: March 27, 2016, 11:51:10 AM »
So, Austria has betrayed me immediately after agreeing to a non-agression pact.

I have lost a supply depot.  With only two depots and two units, I am outmatched more than 2 to 1. 

Therefore, I am surrendering and disbanding all my units.


Austria will have unchallenged access to all south western Europe.
Yes this is a rage quit but hey, I see no victory for me so why bother going on?  I thought about fighting until the end so everyone else could fight him while he was distracted but you wouldn't.  I suspect you'd all have me removed quickly so I say "Enjoy Parsifal Rule".

5511
There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so. The DNA changed due to a mutation damaging DNA replication. Hardly evidence of "natural selection." The term species is actually still debated to this day by biologists, for the simple fact it easier to define in male and female reproductive organisms and harder to define in bacteria etc. You require two animals with identical chromosome count in order to produce a healthy, fertile offspring. Bacterium can reproduce asexually by cell division etc. Still remains the fact that in order for any variants with any adaptions to be labeled a new species, they must be different in chromosome count and unable to reproduce with each other. Which is not the case with variants of a species.
The definition of a species is rather well known aside from some special cases.  As you said, what can reporoduce.  Chromosome count is not the factor, however, otherwise we'd be able to fuck Sable antelope and have kids.  No, it's compatible RNA.

That being said, no, we have not yet witnessed single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms.  Mostly because the experimental work has only been going on for 30 years.  You did know that such complex evolution requires at LEAST a few thousand years, right?  That being said, plenty of evidence to support it and plenty to disprove spontaneous existence.


Quote
You asked for evidence of life existing the same way "a billion years ago" and I gave you evidence of something existing the same way for 360 million years. There is no actual proof of any "evolutionary branch" ever happening. So your conjecture is based no false reasoning to begin with.
No, I asked for proof of HUMANS existing a billion years ago.  Nice try.  I made no argument that everything evolves.  Quite simply, some things never die out because they are so well adapted to their environment and their environment doesn't change. 


Quote
Are you just going to keep diverting everytime I make a logical point?
Your "logical" point was "Humans took a billion years to learn to farm that's why we have no evidence of their existence before hand.  Also, humans don't balance with nature but live outside it.  Also they couldn't take over their habitat."
Yeah, no.  Agriculture allowed for settlements and stability, not increased population. Not the size you're thinking of anyway. Hunter-gatherer could sustain a decent sized tribe.  The native Americans of North America were hunter-gatherers and they have a ton of evidence that they existed.  What?  Did it take humans a billion years to make fire?  Or use pointy rocks?  And how do you know?  What Evidence do you have to show that humans have existed for a billion years?  Or are you arguing from ignorance?

Quote
How about this, if you want to talk about environments let's examine "natural selection." Why do many animals near the equator have such thick fur?
Name 1 because I'm only really seeing the three-toed sloth and that thing uses it's fur (and the algae that grows in it) for camoflague.

Quote
Why do animals in the arctic have bare skin?
Polar bears do not.
Seals, penguins, and other animals that are aquatic do for speed in the water.  Hair makes you slower.

Quote
Wouldn't it be advantageous to develop appropriate protection from the elements?
They did!  The fact that you THINK they don't makes me wonder how you can then accept intelligent design as that clearly shows a lack of intelligence, doesn't it?


Quote
Why do humans near the equator have darker skin?
Why do eskimos have light skin?
Vitamin D.  It's essential for human survival and it's created by sunlight on the skin.
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/

Light skin allows for the most vitamin D creation while dark skin limits it but protects better from sunburn.  But at the equator, you get a lot more sun exposure (due to it being in the sky longer during the year) so you will get enough vitamin D creation even though it's much less than if you had light skin.  It's basically trading more vitamin D than you need for less severe sun burn.

Quote
Wouldn't it be advantageous to the human to evolve a lighter skin tone to reflect more light in the tropics?
Wouldn't it be advantageous to eskimos to have darker skin, and more hair on their bodies?
You seem to not understand how the human body works with regard to temperature.   Nor how sunlight works, apparently.
SO!  Here's the deal.  Your skin will absorb infrared rays from the sun.  That's what it does.  The color is irrelevant to this.  Your body also produces heat.  A lot of it, actually.  Normally, the heat produced is LESS than the outside temperature so the skin cools.  However, when enough IR has been absorbed, the body will heat up.  The sweat glands then remove said heat by having water evaporate on the skin, which removes heat.

So, where am I going with this?  Well, Eskimos are not a separate species.  Nor did they evolve in the arctic.  They, like most humans, migrated.  Current archeological evidence suggests that humans originated from Africa.  This is why hair was slowly lost over the course of several thousand years: The ice age ended and the planet warmed so the insulating hair wasn't needed as much anymore.  We still have some (chest, genitals, armpits, face, back, head) but not as much as we likely did prior.  Humans then expanded outwards across the world and landed in cold areas.  Hair was very helpful but since most of it was lost prior, they supplemented with animal skins. 

Quote
Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not by changing their DNA. Advantageous translations of DNA provide an answer for variation of species but not outright creation of new species let alone a genera.
I really have no idea how to make you understand this.  You have the pieces yet you just won't put them together.

Ok, lets try this:
Take a book.  Say.. War and Peace.
Change 1 word.
Is it still War and Peace?  I mean, you just changed the word Apple to Orange but the story isn't altered.  It's still the same story, thus, the same book.
Change 1 more word.  Ok, you changed Andrei Nikolayevich Bolkonsky to Andrew Nikolavevich Bolkonsky.   Is it still the same book?  Story hasn't changed, right?  Just one instance of the character's name.  It's just a typo, really.

Keep doing that.  When will it be a different story?

5512
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy
« on: March 26, 2016, 06:06:14 PM »
germany is starting to get the impression that at least one of the other great powers isn't all that interested in this game

There's at least one player who isn't checking the box to "resolve orders once all powers have issued orders". It's probably them.
Fuck them.

Also, WAR!

5513
That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This does not at all show E.Coli becoming a different species of bacteria. At best it shows how mutations can affect an organism over time, but as experimentally proven and described by the author, detrimentally. There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so.
Your definition of what a new species is, is very odd.  It's like you only consider something a new species when you say so.  What criteria do you use, exactly?  Because as the article stated, the dna did change in the e.coli.


Quote
No.
Right now there are only two option for life:  Intelligent Design and Evolution.  Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence.  Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way.  That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Fossil_record

If you can cut through the muck in the article, what it shows is that the earliest fossil of this, dated to 360million years ago lead researchers to believe it was a transitional species to amphibious animals. It was believed to become extinct 66 million years ago. Well, when they found a live one in 1938, and again in the late 90's, it was apparent that over 360 million years they couldn't identify any major changes in the skeletal structure of the fish whatsoever. Why was this fish, once touted as a transitional missing link between fish and amphibians, apparently immune to the effects of evolution? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest anything other than the fact that we were "made this way."
How do you get that leap of logic?  Sharks have been largely unchanged for millions of years.  Doesn't mean everything else is.  You also seem to have this odd idea that evolution is like some kind of switch.  "Oh, we have an evolved form, all old fish will now upgrade."  That's not how it works.  In fact, a species can have an evolutionary branch and still exist.  Just because there's an evolutionary change in a species does not mean the previous species goes extinct.  They can coexist, especially with isolated populations.

Quote
Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans?  Why is our history so small?  If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years.  Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years.  Right?  Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?
Because technology didn't exist for humans to thrive the way they do today. The agricultural age brought about the ability to support more human life on this planet than the previous hunter gatherer paradigm could. Our history only dates to what we can find, and what was written. Oral history certainly goes back further than written history, but how could you possibly date it? Also, just because a species exists for a long time doesn't particularly mean it is suited to "take over" it's habitat. Humans are pretty much the only animal on this planet that live outside of any kind of meaningful ecosystem. The rest of nature displays a delicate balance, the likes of which we don't have the self-discipline or the foresight to subject ourselves to.
There is no evidence humans ran with the T-Rex. Not even oral stories.
And what about plate techtonics and environment?  Antarctica didn't always uses to be so cold.  Did penguins always live there?  What about polar bears?  Were they always around? 

5514
The existence of these hoaxes demonstrates the strength of science, not its weakness.  They show that scientists, far from being yes-men who just go along with current trends, thoroughly investigate potential new evidence and discount it if it doesn't hold up.  Which is what happened with every single one of these hoaxes - they were exposed for what they were by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists.  Creationists, or skeptics standing on the sideline complaining that science is unreliable and evolution is all a lie, have never managed to disprove or debunk anything in evolutionary science.  It's always scientists who correct the mistakes of earlier scientists.

Why would you have to debunk something that hasn't been adequately proven in the first place? There is no concrete "scientific" evidence of any species becoming any other species. Evolution can not be replicated, in any form or shape, in any experimental sense.
Isn't that what science is? You can not tell me, with a straight face, that the theory of evolution complies with any aspect of the scientific method.
That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Quote
Regardless, there are Christian Scientists, as stated in my OP, 15% of scientists apparently believe in some form of God. The consensus among them? Evolution is just as faith based as belief in a benevolent creator.
And?  They have their opinions.  Now let them prove it.

Quote
Even the staunchest atheist evolutionists admit that you can not prove there is no God. However, it is evolutionists prerogative, at all costs, to reject any evidence suggesting the existence of a supernatural Creator; yet they cling to an unproven, pseudo-scientific worldview as the only alternative.
Correct, you can't prove God exists or doesn't exist because by definition, God can simply alter any experiment to avoid detection.  Similarly, we don't know of anything reliable that will make God do something that we can attribute to God.  Prayer doesn't do anything.  Killing people doesn't do anything.  War, famine, disease, none of it causes God to intervene.  God is the equivalent of a unicorn.  We have pictures and an idea of a horse with a horn but no other evidence exists nor can we prove one never existed before.

Quote
Bottom line, if you're an atheist, evolution is your religion. You are just as attached to your philosophical worldview, and predisposed to be existentially uncomfortable with anything that points to the contrary, as a bible-thumping soccer mom in Texas.
No.
Right now there are only two option for life:  Intelligent Design and Evolution.  Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence.  Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way.  That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.

Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans?  Why is our history so small?  If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years.  Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years.  Right?  Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?

5515
Quote from: Random People on Wikipedia
Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.

If there was a place to clearly clarify that it is strictly hypothetical, the introductory paragraph would've been the right place to do it.
Why?  The intro is defining what Abiogenesis is, which is a fact.  The idea that life arose on Earth from abiogenesis is a hypothesis.  Hence why they wrote "It is thought to have occurred..."


Quote
Example of cherry picking is trying to refute my point about the unreliable, untrustworthy, and fairly recent phenomenon know as the study of fossils BUT you never address the reality of the numerous "paleontologists" found to be complete hacks and frauds. You conveniently don't address any of the highly plausible reasons for skepticism, you just gloss over looking for a convenient place to interject your wikipedia information. This whole thread you have glossed over a paragraph of my reasoning to attack a few words or a sentence and ignoring the rest.
I point out when you have incorrect information.  If you'd LIKE praise for having one correct statement then fine.
Yes, there are frauds.  You'll find frauds everywhere.  What is your point?  They are frauds and through scientific discovery, they were found to be frauds.  Science checked itself.  Not sure what "numerous" is supposed to mean.  10?  20?  50?  Or are you implying that a large chunk(25%?) of paleontologists are frauds?

As for your "highly plausible reasons for skepticism", well, I fail to see why you shouldn't be skeptical.  If you aren't going to test science over and over again, there's no point in doing it.  Just do it with the correct facts, alright?


Quote
Let me be clear: I am not an authority on all things evolution. I am not an authority on all things creation. I'm not particularly, or do I want to be an authority on much. I'm perfectly fine knowing that I can't know everything, and accepting that some things most likely will never be known. It's when bullshit hypothesis are taught in our schools, and passed off as fact (as it was presented to me during my middle school and high school education) that I see a problem. The only reason I researched flat earth in the first place is because the irony involved in the fallibility of our science. Every hundred years or so conveniently sweeping under the rug all the shit that was proven to be fallacy, and pretending like it didn't happen. Like Geocentrism. Knowing the Earth was flat, brilliant minds believing in the Aether.
Wow, a lot to take in.
Ok, first off, a hypothesis (if you were taught correctly) is an idea that has no supporting data but is testable.  Evolution has supporting data.  Thus it's classified as a theory.  Well... it has been proven to happen, just not on the long term, complex organism scale.
Secondly, the term Evolution exists.  You can't say it doesn't.  Now, I don't know what kind of teachers you had so I'm just going to assume poor or bad textbooks or you just didn't pay attention enough.  Doesn't matter.  So here's the laydown.

The Theory of Evolution states that complex life arose from simple life through natural selection and genetic mutation over long spans of time.  There are numerous supporting data for evolution of various species throughout the history of the planet but we have yet to observe one species of animal changing into another.  Mostly because we haven't existed long enough.

Secondly, science has not "swept under the rug" it's failures.  Schools still teach that geocentrism existed, for example.  Science doesn't forget the lessons of the past.  But the Earth being flat?  We've known that since before the scientific method existed.  Not to mention the 4 humors of the body and what-not.  It was wrong, sure.  And what we know today may be proven wrong.  But you wanna know what won't prove it wrong?  Religion.

Quote
But here is Lord Dave with all the fucking answers, praise be to science and hail hydra!
I don't have all the answers.  I just link to basic information you seem to be wrong on.  Maybe you should do some reading and pay attention in science class more?

5516
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
So?  From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 102,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist.  Probability is often misleading.  Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.

The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.

1040 is still less than the number of planets in the universe.  After all, there's roughly 1028 Stars in the universe.  That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?

Quote
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.
Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates.  Like Triolbites.  Plants are also pretty common.

Quote
It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?
Woah now.  Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life.  He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle. 

You've got a lot of wrong information.  No wonder you're so confused.

Quote
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
Barely represented?!
How do you figure that? 

Quote
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
1. 3 Billion years is a long time.  The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis and is not the same as Evolution.  It's less understood, actually.

Dave, I'm done with you man. All you did is cherry pick things I say and address it whatever way makes you feel superior. Doesn't change the validity of my arguments in any meaningful way whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. I'm so wrong and confused but you said probability of something happening is 1. Since you have such a firm grasp on evolutionary science, and pretty much every god damn thing else, I really hope you are doing well for yourself in some kind of professional sense.

It's actually called "abiogenesis" btw, and your wikipedia article is exactly what is wrong with science and, in general, the dissemination of unproven hypothetical concepts as facts.
Cherry pick?  I literally went point by point.  I did not take a sentence, I took the whole post.  So no, I did not cherry pick.

Secondly, your arguments are based on wrong information yet you think its still valid?  How is that?

Third: yes.  Mispelling on my part.  And yes, abiogenesis is unproven.  Nothing in that article says otherwise.  Care to explain where it says "Abiogenesis is a fact."?

5517
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
So?  From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 102,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist.  Probability is often misleading.  Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.

The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.

1040 is still less than the number of planets in the universe.  After all, there's roughly 1028 Stars in the universe.  That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?

Quote
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.
Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates.  Like Triolbites.  Plants are also pretty common.

Quote
It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?
Woah now.  Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life.  He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle. 

You've got a lot of wrong information.  No wonder you're so confused.

Quote
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
Barely represented?!
How do you figure that? 

Quote
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
1. 3 Billion years is a long time.  The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis and is not the same as Evolution.  It's less understood, actually.

5518
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: March 22, 2016, 04:19:56 PM »

5519
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: March 22, 2016, 01:48:16 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)

ISIS will be pleased.  So am I, actually.  We need less interferance.  Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.

Interventionism is what made ISIS in the first place. More interventionism is just going to get you more flavors of ISIS.

I can't wait for Trump to actually stop arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria. Maybe for once we can actually stabilize the region instead of obliterating anything that resembles a government.
Agreed.  Wonder how Israel feels...

5520
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: March 22, 2016, 08:55:04 AM »
Make American great again.

Nato is an anachronism.

Let's deal with the 19 trillion debt.

No more bad trade deals.

Rebuild our infrastructure.

Improve relations with Russia.


Why would Trump venture to make such statements, knowing full well that they could never be fulfilled?
The first is too vague to matter
The second is an opinion
The rest can be dealt with.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 274 275 [276] 277 278 ... 353  Next >