Pushmeharder, I would like to reiterate how much i’m looking forward to a cohesive argument of creationism. Feel free to argue with reason or inspiration.
By the way, after our economic argument a few months back it seems the economy is doing quite well. I guess I’m right for now.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
About the two previous posts: SchrÃ??Ã?¶dinger’s cat is a thought about quantum mechanics. It deals with the paradox of two different circumstances, and it has NOTHING to do with death or life.
[/quote]
Of course. That doesn’t make the analogy any less cool.
…came across this story by Isaac Asimov: The Last Question. I think you’ll enjoy it: The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov
[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
…Species is a pretty vague, if useful, label at best. We are only able to identify distinct species because of extinctions and time.
We agree here, my satanist friend. That does not negate the “barrier”.
If you go back far enough we all have the same ancestor…
According to the hypothesis, yes.
Well then define that “barrier”.
Better yet, you tell me why there is no such thing. And cite examples, evidence and proof.
And the concepts used in it, like species.
I’ll not do your homework for you. You sit in belltower of the Salzburg Citadel with not much to do but bash America and check for genital warts yet you want me to do your after hours research? Sheesh.
You are intentionally vague because you know that your claims are unsustainable if you actually express them as clear as possible.
I don’t think you saw me being intentionally vague, not even simply vague. You just want me to disgorge information that will cause you to promptly and haughtily turn away your Habsburg-wannabe nose and strut back into a politics thread with some gem like, “The Vice-President rules America.”
[/quote]
Look, you say something cannot happen and does not happen and that shows that the theory is wrong.
You simply do not explain what that something is, or only in the vaguest terms so that noone can ever show you why you are wrong.
That is not me not doing my home work, and the examples I can just draw out of my hat should show you that I have done it, ring species are not common knowledge as far as I know.
That is you wanting to believe something despite evidence.
But that is fine really.
Why you feel the need to believe that “evolutionists” have the exact same problem like you is beyond me, but I am sure you will drop these childish ideas and the accompanying behavior when you no longer need them.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
orion wrote:
A cat however could, under the right circumstances become a wolf like pack animal that lives in the exact same ecological niche wolves do now.
There are many examples where species that have nothing to do with each other genetically look astoundingly similar because they live off of the same things.
It’s called convergent evolution.
We already have these wolf-cats today in the form of Hyenas.
LOL. You are a funny guy. C’mon man, we’re trying to be serious here. This belongs on GAL.
[/quote]
If you dismiss solid evidence for evolution in such a childish and petulent (not to mention completely unscientific) manner, then there’s really no hope for you. Lets hope you never get ill and have to rely on medicines and treatments made possible by evolution.
You are yet to provide a shred of evidence whatsoever for creationism, and you are also yet to falsify any element of evolution shown to you.
You doggedly insist that macro-evolution isn’t observable even though it is (whole genome copying). You doggedly insist that we are full of faith, yet if any scientist were ever to discover evidence that disproves evolution he would be hailed as one of the greatest minds to ever have lived. Indeed scientists like being proved wrong, because then they learn stuff. It’s how science works.
The burden of proof is on you; you have postulated an explanation which is no explanation at all. Repeatedly creationists have been beaten in the courts because their arguments are at best, pathetic and illogical and based on religion and faith, not science. You have repeated these debunked arguments as if you are unaware of this, and then provided precisely no further evidence.
It’s like you’re stuck in the 19th century around the time when Darwin first revealed his ideas. Evolution, and a lot of humanity has come a long way since then, but apparently you haven’t.
I think there is another point to be made that I don’t think anyone has brought up.
If you think some supernatural being designed us, you have to accept that he was a really poor architect.
What kind of idiot uses the same hole to breathe, eat and drink, and speak through? This is asking for trouble. An efficient designer would ensure that the possibility of choking was not there. Humans cannot drink and breathe at the same time, but other animals can. Poor design.
Our eyes; very often cited by creationists as a good example of god’s work. But for starts they are wired upside down, er why exactly? They are also not nearly as good as a Hawk’s eyes and even a horse has better acuity for most of its visual range. We have a blind spot; cephalopods don’t!
And you know what, tropical fish and birds have tetrachromatic vision; they have better colour vision than we do (they see colour in four dimensions). Actually though this is nothing, because a species of shrimp has the most complex colour vision in all nature, it can even see circularly polarized light! Nice.
Even worse with eyes we have retinal arteries that can cause blindness.
We cannot smell as well as dogs!
We cannot hear as well as bats.
Our hips and knees, although enabling us to walk upright are very poorly designed for the job. This is why hip and knee problems are so common; a competent designer would have made a much better system. Also because of our upright gait, the female pelvis is not really wide enough for a baby’s head. Which leads to death and injuries. Bummer.
You know what, we age really badly, why couldn’t our skeletons and skin and organs have been made from more durable stuff? We as mere humans can create much longer lasting objects.
Congenital defects; in the womb we almost retrace evolution and go through a stage where our little embryos have gills; these are sometimes left over at birth.
There are many other flaws but I think you get the point; if something did design us, then it was a fucking idiot and just about any educated human could do a better job.
However, all these flaws make sense in the explanatory light of evolution; evolution shows us our past through these flaws, and also helps us to combat them and improve the quality of human life.
I think God created the world just to F^&* with me.
I thought I’d post an article that exemplifies why the claim that scientists have just much faith as creationists is pure and utter bullshit. The salient paragraphs are these;
"If the researchers succeed, it will be well worth the effort. If gravity does affect antimatter differently, it will tell us something not just about antimatter but also about the fundamental theories that underpin modern physics. Einstein’s general relativity, the currently favoured theory of gravity, tells us that the force should work identically on any type of matter. Equally, the standard model predicts that matter and antimatter are identical to all intents and purposes. “If we find that either of these things differ,” says Landua, “then we have found something extremely important.”
Doser is hedging his bets. “I’ll wager a crate of champagne that we won’t see a difference,” he says. “But I’d gladly lose that crate.”"
Pay close attention to the final line. This is how the mind of a scientist works. They want and are happy to be proved wrong. This is anathema to creationism and so it is understandable that creationists project a faith-mentality on to scientists, but, as with just about everythinge else, they are demonstrably wrong.
The full article is here; http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16204-does-antimatter-fall-up.html
don’t bother, jab.
It’s not worth it-
On one hand Pushharder is not really a troll by any classical definition. But, I guess that a person who’s got the time to post x thousands times but isn’t really interested in an actual debate could be called a willfully ignorant timeleech.
And of course, he is also the biggest hypocrite here on the board.
How could a consistent character be a biblehugger and a proud swinger at the same time?
[quote]OldGuy67 wrote:
I think God created the world just to F^&* with me. [/quote]
I have to admit that you have plenty of evidence to support that.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
don’t bother, jab.
It’s not worth it-
On one hand Pushharder is not really a troll by any classical definition. But, I guess that a person who’s got the time to post x thousands times but isn’t really interested in an actual debate could be called a willfully ignorant timeleech.
And of course, he is also the biggest hypocrite here on the board.
How could a consistent character be a biblehugger and a proud swinger at the same time?
[/quote]
What does one have to do with the other? If him and his wife agree, who really cares.
Tom’s third rule of life, everyone’s full of shit. What matters is how full of shit you actually are. There are degrees.