Oh duh, the right arm thing was my mistake. I have an issue with left/right. Seriously, I do. And it’s not a language issue, I do confuse left and right in portuguese too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In the land of the free and the home of the brave our truck steering wheels are on the left side of the vehicle so we truckers end up with a tan just on the left arm. And don’t ever, ever, ever think of me as grumpy. A happier guy you’ll never meet, belo e charmosos mulher…
FWIW, my face is in several of my profile photos, meu bonito p�?�ªssego.
[/quote]
Lol. Masculines and feminines, remember? You just called me handsome and charming in the masculine form. 
And no, while your profile pics are quite revealing (I have good manners), your face seems to be always painted over.
And I should probably say, do expect my husband to participate in our coffee. You two can talk about the Genesis and I’ll sit back and watch in awe! Or I’ll insist on the dinossaur question that neither of you seem to answer!
Varqanir, you are right, you would call a married lady a senhora (which is why I said very proper portuguese), but it sounds “too formal”, so to speak. Some ladies even take offense in it, as if you’re calling them old. Not my case though, I’m not one to take offense with chivalry.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
And please don’t say thing like “baby” and “I’ll take it easier”. It sounds patronizing and offensive. I’m far from a feminist, but I don’t need anything easier on me either.[/quote]
Ok baby, I’ll take it easier.
Internets - srs bzns.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. Creationism never was and never will be science.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Hmm… while I’d love to meet you, since your weird beliefs intrigue me, I’m not in Topeka, or even near that. I’m in KC suburbs. But sure we could arrange said picture, I’d most likely prefer to hold “The Selfish Gene” though. The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia good book this one.[/quote]
<3 Dawkins, inventor of the word meme.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
From a real chemistry test final.
I suppose that the test-taker may have chosen an answer, based on derived laws of quantum mechanics, Pauli’s exclusion principle, etc.
After all, organic chemists could predictably synthesize complex molecules in the 19th Century, well before there was an atomic theory of matter.
But no. The test-taker thought that “God made it that way” seems as “provable” a proposition as any. No one has seen an atom, right? Electron microscopy may be wrong, right? All the observations, accumulated over 200 years, that conform to atomic theory may be God’s will instead, after all. And this chemistry student may have such a high standard of proof, that no answer but Divine Intervention will pass.
Nevertheless, I would not trust him or her to oxidize a policyclic ring, or to design an a new drug.
[/quote]
Sounds like something I’d write if I didn’t know the answer.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So how would you say “young, sexy, married woman” in Portuguese?
[/quote]
I think you would just say “BetaBerry.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
There is no way I can do battle with something (I mean that affectionately) that looks like you.[/quote]
I would. If she wasn’t spouting off stuff I agree with, I’d argue with her.
Maybe I should just argue for creationism, just to get this thread back on topic.
…
This just in, God did it.
More at 11.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
So how would you say “young, sexy, married woman” in Portuguese?
I think you would just say “BetaBerry.” [/quote]
That’s sweet.
Ok back to topic then.
Ok Makavali, since now you’re playing devil’s advocate… or something. Answer this: why did God create germs and diseases? Some say He created them to “punish” us. But the Genesis clearly said that there was no sin before Adam bit the apple, and that all living beings co-existed in perfect harmony. What gives? Did He already know that we’d fail? Did He never have faith in His own creation? So He put diseases and germs and parasites there just in case, you know. In which case, what were said germs and parasites doing before the Fall, when there were no sin or disease and everything lived in peace? Just hanging out?
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Ok Makavali, since now you’re playing devil’s advocate… or something. Answer this: why did God create germs and diseases? Some say He created them to “punish” us. But the Genesis clearly said that there was no sin before Adam bit the apple, and that all living beings co-existed in perfect harmony. What gives? Did He already know that we’d fail? Did He never have faith in His own creation? So He put diseases and germs and parasites there just in case, you know. In which case, what were said germs and parasites doing before the Fall, when there were no sin or disease and everything lived in peace? Just hanging out?
[/quote]
Because he in his infinite wisdom knows what is best for us. We can never understand his ways, we must blindly obey.
I puked a little in my mouth as I wrote that.
I just can’t do it. I’m sorry.
You disappoint me, admitting defeat so soon.
See, thread had died. It’s inevitable.
Unless I stop posting and you guys carry it on. Face it, you need push here to defend creationism. It’s no fun arguing if you don’t have a good counter argument.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
You disappoint me, admitting defeat so soon.
See, thread had died. It’s inevitable.
Unless I stop posting and you guys carry it on. Face it, you need push here to defend creationism. It’s no fun arguing if you don’t have a good counter argument.[/quote]
Creationism can have a good counter argument?
(ducks)
Touché.
Push’s charming ways towards me yesterday have impaired my judgment. I apologize.
Ok seriously, what I meant is that if you have an opinion, there are good ways and bad ways of defending it. And the sad thing is that if you simple state “I’m right, you’re wrong”, you’re immediatedly losing the battle. If you think you’re right, you have to be able to express what makes you think so. Some people are good at it, some people aren’t. That’s why for anything you can have a good or bad counter argument. I’ve actually seen evolutionists saying things that make me cringe and look for a place to hide.
Tell me something that is a no-brainer (no picking evolution). I’ll try to defend the opposite point of view.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Tell me something that is a no-brainer (no picking evolution). I’ll try to defend the opposite point of view.[/quote]
Women will inevitably roll a healer on World of Warcraft.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Tell me something that is a no-brainer (no picking evolution). I’ll try to defend the opposite point of view.[/quote]
All right.
Although man evolved as a meat-eating predator (as should be obvious by a cursory examination of the length and shape of the human cuspids), the current situation of the world makes the eating of meat an unconscionable act.
First, grazing of livestock causes deforestation, erosion, and the pollution of land and watersheds, making even “free-range, organic” meat an environmental liability. Second, industrial production of meat constitutes unspeakable cruelty to animals, forcing them to live their lives confined in crammed quarters, wallowing in their own filth, respite coming only when they are stunned by a pneumatic bolt to the skull, then skinned and butchered alive. Third, the cocktail of growth hormones, antibiotics, steroids and recycled animals fed to commercial livestock has serious negative implications on human health. Not to speak of the negative effects of cooked saturated fat, which red meat has in great quantities, particularly when grilled.
Almost all of the arguments against commercial production of meat also apply to the hunting of wild animals, with the exception of the environmental one. Still, the devastation of the environment by hunters in all-terrain vehicles is not inconsiderable, and of course the cruelty of killing a majestic forest creature cannot be sanctioned by a civilized person. If the consumption of meat were banned, the environment would improve, as would the health of the population at large. Furthermore, the banning of hunting would make unnecessary the private ownership of firearms, which constitute a public health and safety hazard of their own.
There. Argue against that, mulher hermosa.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
C’mon, slap leather and draw!
The only possible response to this, in keeping both with the Tombstone reference and your (almost certainly fruitless) infatuation, is “I’m here, Huckleberry.”
Fruitless, my ass, Ike Clanton. [/quote]
The Huckleberry line was Doc Holliday’s, not Ike Clanton’s.
That’s funny, because I’m sitting in a coffee shop right now drinking Brazilian coffee and an acai protein smoothie. Veritably aswim with Brazilian berries.* All that I lack is a baga brasileira mais doce de todas. If you have the chance to meet her and her husband, then bully for you.
*Actually, I don’t think one would call either “berries” in Portuguese: coffee “beans” are graos (grains) from the frutos (“fruits”) of the coffee tree, and the acai “berry” is a drupa (“drupe,” just like a cherry) from the acai palm. Perhaps Beta can clarify.