It’s really sad how a few people here don’t seem to understand theory in the scientific sense as opposed to how it might be used by someone on the street.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth be handin’ out some bitch-slappin’.[/quote]
The taunting and bullying, from multiple individuals, is too much. Argue all you want that your recognition of evolution (especially macro) makes you better aligned with the consensus of scientific thought. Great, and? One things for damn sure, it hasn’t made better human beings out of some of you. Like a pack of heckling hyenas.[/quote]
“It hasn’t made better human beings out of you.” Well said. I haven’t been reading this thread carefully so I don’t know how well it applies in this case, but I’ve seen it happen.
I’ve sometimes fallen into the category of “condescending and mean non-believer” myself. I try pretty hard not to nowadays.[/quote]
We all falter, including me. Definitely me. But this thread is starting to get outright ugly, with a particular individual being targeted for ridicule.
I understand frustration. I’m certainly not always as charitable and neighborly as I should be. But this–I don’t know, public tarring and feathering–is grotesque.
Edit: You’ve always seemed fair enough to me, by the way. /shrug[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Go sulk in the corner Trib, no one here cares. You choose yourself to be an ignorant asshole.[/quote]
Ignorant is factually not true, because he knows and understands but rejects it.
Asshole is just, like, your opinion maaan…[/quote]
Yes. Trib knows it, understands it, but he also know’s it true and only doesn’t want to accept it because “OH NO! I CAN’T ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE IT GET’S IN THE WAY OF MY BIBLE!”
So if the only reason he rejects it is because it get’s in the way of his other view, then yes he is an asshole for doing that.
And that is my opinion maaaan. F*** it dude, let’s go bowling. (Love the Lebowski)
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:It’s really sad how a few people here don’t seem to understand theory in the scientific sense as opposed to how it might be used by someone on the street.[/quote]It’s really biblical how so few people anywhere understand that God’s signature of logic with which He runs this universe is precisely the same for the exalted scientist as it is for Herbie homeless regardless of what “sense” anybody wants to use it in.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
And then…- YouTube
[/quote]
I already pointed out that e-coli evolving into e-coli can’t be used as proof that all life forms share a common ancestor. It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those observations to try and provide some proof for the grand theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting that none of the evolution apologists here have bothered to respond either?
[/quote]
Because you have no valid arguments…[/quote]
^ Bingo. Schmichael needs to learn how to learn.
This is the PM to Groo that I cannot send. Not the way I wanted to do it, but here it is.
[quote]groo wrote: I am not certain he understands what you are driving at. >>>[/quote]I am certain he does not understand, which I hasten to add says literally nothing about his intelligence or lack thereof. [quote]groo wrote: You are asking for something like this correct? Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy >>>[/quote] What I am asking for, neither he nor you nor any other man can give me though we all use it every second of every day. [quote]groo wrote:
Especially bits like this?
In seeking a definition of number, the first thing to be clear about is what we may call the grammar of our inquiry. Many philosophers, when attempting to define number, are really setting to work to define plurality, which is quite a different thing. Number is what is characteristic of numbers, as man is what is characteristic of men. A plurality is not an instance of number, but of some particular number. A trio of men, for example, is an instance of the number 3, and the number 3 is an instance of number; but the trio is not an instance of number. This point may seem elementary and scarcely worth mentioning; yet it has proved too subtle for the philosophers, with few exceptions.[/quote] Plurality is an expression and symptom of number, but not number itself. I agree. What I’m saying is subtler (more foundational) still than this man’s assertion that “trio is not an instance of number” which I also agree with, but which also still does not get to what I’m asking for.
On page 2 this guy says, before he goes on to give a bunch of different illustrations of the point he’s trying to make.:[quote]These remarks are relevant, when we are seeking the definition of number, in three different ways. In the first place, numbers themselves form an infinite collection, and cannot therefore be defined by enumeration. In the second place, the collections having a given number of terms themselves presumably form an infinite collection: it is to be presumed, for example, that there are an infinite collection of trios in the world, for if this were not the case the total number of things in the world would be finite, which, though possible, seems unlikely. In the third place, we wish to define â??numberâ?? in such a way that infinite numbers may be possible; thus we must be able to speak of the number of terms in an infinite collection, and such a collection must be defined by intension, i.e. by a property common to all its members and peculiar to them.[/quote]
This is where he is stabbing around for my point, but winds up with a bunch of gobbledygook. Things in the world are infinite? Really? I’d like to know how he defines “world”. If Kamui reads this he is going to quite rightly see the problem of the one and the many reasserting itself right here. (another story).
Just as when you and I met a year ago now Groo, I am after logical certainty. I use simple mathematics as a vehicle because nobody will ever deny that 2+2=4 in our pragmatic day to day life where it matters. We all live and breathe in certainty every second. You said so yourself. On this page: Documented Cases of Evolution - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation When you said:“Yes I think we can know some things for certain. Or at the very least I act as if I believe this. Pragmatically everyone does.” A statement for which I awarded you my highly coveted (yeah right =D ) “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=11
The bottom line here is this. DrMAtt has been telling me about every related thing except why 2+2 is CERTAINLY 4. Everything he has said to me thus far can be summed up in the purely tautological statement of “that’s just the way it is”. We’re right back where we started. I, you, DrMatt, we are pickled in pragmatic logical certainty without which not one single syllable of intelligible thought word or deed, mathematical or otherwise is possible, yet almost none of us has ever questioned why at that level.
Soon after Dr. Pepper placed this image on their Facebook page, creationists and fundamentalist Christians started blasting the brand. Evolutionists then piled on. And so on. 3,500 comments and climbing.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Go sulk in the corner Trib, no one here cares. You choose yourself to be an ignorant asshole.[/quote]
Ignorant is factually not true, because he knows and understands but rejects it.
Asshole is just, like, your opinion maaan…[/quote]
Yes. Trib knows it, understands it, but he also know’s it true and only doesn’t want to accept it because “OH NO! I CAN’T ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE IT GET’S IN THE WAY OF MY BIBLE!”
So if the only reason he rejects it is because it get’s in the way of his other view, then yes he is an asshole for doing that.
And that is my opinion maaaan. F*** it dude, let’s go bowling. (Love the Lebowski)[/quote]
Yeah well, then his Bible is more important to him.
He has posted that his life sucked without it and now it works.
A lot of men ignore a lot of things for a lot less.
Don’t agree with any kind of name calling.
Rustle jimmies, fine. Name calling, nope.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Go sulk in the corner Trib, no one here cares. You choose yourself to be an ignorant asshole.[/quote]
Ignorant is factually not true, because he knows and understands but rejects it.
Asshole is just, like, your opinion maaan…[/quote]
Yes. Trib knows it, understands it, but he also know’s it true and only doesn’t want to accept it because “OH NO! I CAN’T ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE IT GET’S IN THE WAY OF MY BIBLE!”
So if the only reason he rejects it is because it get’s in the way of his other view, then yes he is an asshole for doing that.
And that is my opinion maaaan. F*** it dude, let’s go bowling. (Love the Lebowski)[/quote]
Yeah well, then his Bible is more important to him.
He has posted that his life sucked without it and now it works.
A lot of men ignore a lot of things for a lot less.
[/quote]
Well put. There are infinitely worse things for a man to do or be.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:It’s really sad how a few people here don’t seem to understand theory in the scientific sense as opposed to how it might be used by someone on the street.[/quote]It’s really biblical how so few people anywhere understand that God’s signature of logic with which He runs this universe is precisely the same for the exalted scientist as it is for Herbie homeless regardless of what “sense” anybody wants to use it in.
[/quote]
I love how you switched “sad” with “biblical” in your parroting of me.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
And then…- YouTube
[/quote]
I already pointed out that e-coli evolving into e-coli can’t be used as proof that all life forms share a common ancestor. It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those observations to try and provide some proof for the grand theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting that none of the evolution apologists here have bothered to respond either?
[/quote]
Because you have no valid arguments…[/quote]
^ Bingo. Schmichael needs to learn how to learn.[/quote]
Of course! You are right Joe, I need to better understand you guys.
So please, enlighten me Joe (or Matt or anyine else). How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
And then…- YouTube
[/quote]
I already pointed out that e-coli evolving into e-coli can’t be used as proof that all life forms share a common ancestor. It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those observations to try and provide some proof for the grand theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting that none of the evolution apologists here have bothered to respond either?
[/quote]
Because you have no valid arguments…[/quote]
^ Bingo. Schmichael needs to learn how to learn.[/quote]
Of course! You are right Joe, I need to better understand you guys.
So please, enlighten me Joe (or Matt or anyine else). How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?[/quote]
No, no, no, no, and no. How bout you stop using COnservapedia for your information, do some readings on science, perhaps try to read a biology book. IF you need assistance, most community colleges have bio classes that you could enter in to get a fundamental understanding of genearl biological concepts.
You are no different from an atheist who just found his first Christopher HItchens video. You are not educated enough on this topic for anyone to waste their time talking with you.
[quote]colt44 wrote:<<< No, no, no, no, and no. How bout you stop using COnservapedia for your information, do some readings on science, perhaps try to read a biology book. IF you need assistance, most community colleges have bio classes that you could enter in to get a fundamental understanding of genearl biological concepts.
You are no different from an atheist who just found his first Christopher HItchens video. You are not educated enough on this topic for anyone to waste their time talking with you. [/quote]What are your credentials? I don’t know. I’m asking.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
^ Bingo. Schmichael needs to learn how to learn.[/quote]
Of course! You are right Joe, I need to better understand you guys.
So please, enlighten me Joe (or Matt or anyine else). How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?[/quote]
No, no, no, no, and no. How bout you stop using COnservapedia for your information, do some readings on science, perhaps try to read a biology book. IF you need assistance, most community colleges have bio classes that you could enter in to get a fundamental understanding of genearl biological concepts.
You are no different from an atheist who just found his first Christopher HItchens video. You are not educated enough on this topic for anyone to waste their time talking with you. [/quote]
So you know basically nothing about me but feel confident enough to proclaim that I’m lacking “a fundamental understanding of genearl biological concepts.”
Riiiight. Yet another dodge by a brainwashed evolution disciple.
I’ll give you a tip, like any good politician, I follow the old adage of “Never ask a question if you don’t already know the answer”. So I’ll ask again, How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
And then…- YouTube
[/quote]
I already pointed out that e-coli evolving into e-coli can’t be used as proof that all life forms share a common ancestor. It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those observations to try and provide some proof for the grand theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting that none of the evolution apologists here have bothered to respond either?
[/quote]
Because you have no valid arguments…[/quote]
^ Bingo. Schmichael needs to learn how to learn.[/quote]
Of course! You are right Joe, I need to better understand you guys.
[/quote]
Yes, you do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
And then…- YouTube
[/quote]
I already pointed out that e-coli evolving into e-coli can’t be used as proof that all life forms share a common ancestor. It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those observations to try and provide some proof for the grand theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting that none of the evolution apologists here have bothered to respond either?
[/quote]
Because you have no valid arguments…[/quote]
^ Bingo. Schmichael needs to learn how to learn.[/quote]
Of course! You are right Joe, I need to better understand you guys.
[/quote]
Yes, you do.[/quote]
My understanding of the matter is he understands “you guys” quite well.[/quote]
Maybe.
He understands next to zilch when it comes to evolution though.