Fighting Fire With Fire

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I guess I didn’t get the memo on the disconnect in the time line.

I guess if you break the debate up into enough little debates - you are sure to win one of them.

Well, I’ve answered the question – so now that I have satisfied your request my expectation is that practice what you preach and thoughfully respond to my answer with a careful analysis of your own – not with insults or a colorful metaphor.[/quote]

Clue me in here - what request did I make that you satisfied? What request have I made of you period in this thread?

You are the one that started the insults in this thread - if not straight ourt of your mouth, then by proxy via your citaion. Pookie is full of them - yet I don’t see you chastizing him. Vroom is a waliking metaphor - get on his ass.

You might as well tell the sun to stop shining - or at least evolve into a less sustainable energy source. Oh - wait…that’s a whole different mini-argument, huh?

Once again…my bad.

122

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’ll say again, I see no reason why science and religion cannot coexist, unless it is religion that decides to be exclusionary.[/quote]

When hspder’s source says that teaching religion to kids is a form of child abuse - I think that it is the responsibility of both sides to make the effort to co-exist. You seem to think that only religion can be closed-minded and ignorant. I beg to differ, and the evidence is rife throughout this thread.

I agree that evolution can coexist with religion - or even creationism for that matter.

It’s the hatred, and the need to be right eminating from both sides that polarizes the debate into a name calling contest.

Everyone worries about these issues. It’s a fundamental part of being human.

To tell me what parts of religion to pay attention to and which to ignore is not really your place, nor anyone else’s.

I rarely engage in these debates because nothing is ever actually accomplished. The elitists will continue the condescending scowl they have for those that profess a faith in God. The religious people will try to change the elitist’s minds, and wind up getting frustrated, making their positions more emotional than rational. And I get to keep thinking that I am superior to all of them because - well - God loves Texans, and I don’t have to prove anything to anyone to know that.

The truth is out there, but you will be hard pressed to find it in a discussion in the political forums.

123

[quote]hspder wrote:
In case you missed the metaphor, it basically means that this article uses the exact same anger and hatred that conservative “christians” have been showing in this board. And with the above you basically prove my point without even noticing: you accuse me of name calling, anger and self-righteousness and proceed to respond again with… name calling, anger and self-righteousness. Brilliant![/quote]

Funny, I don’t really see it. I see far more coming from your side of the fence. Before you make a statment like that maybe you should go back and count.

Me Solomon Grundy

124

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You seem to think that only religion can be closed-minded and ignorant. I beg to differ, and the evidence is rife throughout this thread.

I agree that evolution can coexist with religion - or even creationism for that matter.

It’s the hatred, and the need to be right eminating from both sides that polarizes the debate into a name calling contest.
[/quote]

How am I going to gripe at you if you insist on saying semi-sensible things? Other than characterizing me as completely one sided I don’t have much to complain about.

No, but fundamentalism does appear to have issues on a worldwide basis with respect to the condition of humanity.

Unfortunately, for those that aren’t fundamentalists, part of fundamentalism is getting into other peoples lives and helping them to “see” their views.

125

[quote]vroom wrote:
No, but fundamentalism does appear to have issues on a worldwide basis with respect to the condition of humanity.

Unfortunately, for those that aren’t fundamentalists, part of fundamentalism is getting into other peoples lives and helping them to “see” their views.[/quote]

See - this is one of the problems as I see it: Fundamentalism is a very subjective term. Almost a catch-all label. Kinda like “liberal” has become in the last 13 years.

It’s fun to throw the name at people to piss them off, but aside from the short term enjoyment - nothing is accomplished when each side is too busy throwing out the epithet dejour.

And yes - I include myself in this, but barely.

126

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Clue me in here - what request did I make that you satisfied? What request have I made of you period in this thread?[/quote]

I’m sorry to see you seem to be developing some form of dementia – you can’t remember your own words.

Here they are:

[quote]btm62 wrote:
So there was a spontaneous combustion of sorts at the beginning? What was it that combusted or exploded or banged and where did it come from?

pookie wrote:
We’re discussing evolution, not cosmology; try to keep up.

rainjack wrote:
Is that not a critical part of your theory (oops - “facts”, sorry), though? I mean - if it’s all about evolving then carrying it back to the beginning is not out of line.[/quote]

So I answered your question AND your request to “carry it back to the beginning”.

Satisfied?

127

[quote]btm62 wrote:
I’m more interested in the absolute origin. You know the ONE thing that all things can ultimately trace back to. And then…tell me where that one thing came from.[/quote]

No one has yet the definitive answer to that question. It might take a while or we might never know for sure.

There are many theories; most of which have too many problems to be the entire picture. The Big Bang model is still the most accepted one, although the notion that it was the beginning of all space and time has been questioned in recent years.

String Theory (which is far from complete) seems to indicate that our universe would simply be one of a myriad existing universes. If true, then that would explain why so many physical constants appear to be finely tuned for life as we know it to be possible. If you have a near infinity of universes, each with it’s own set of constants, one of them is bound to eventually have a life-producing set of constants.

Whatever the origin of the universe, there’s no reason to believe that it’s “primal cause” is not natural. Universes might simply appear (or, to be more precise, are created when “branes” collide…) live and then die/evaporate/crunch/rip all the time, all over the place.

In the same way as the Earth has been shown to occupy no special position in the universe (certainly not the center) the universe itself might not be anything special in the whole of Nature.

Of course, our current knowledge of those things is very limited. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that we’re inside the universe and can’t look “outside” of it. Still, the various theories have physical implications that might allow some tests to be done someday and permit, if nothing else, to discard some theories.

128

[quote]rainjack wrote:
When hspder’s source says that teaching religion to kids is a form of child abuse - I think that it is the responsibility of both sides to make the effort to co-exist. [/quote]

Sure. Don’t teach atheism either, no problem.

However, indoctrinating children to any form of belief that is not based on proven fact (and that means both theism and atheism) is child abuse – because children should have the opportunity to make their own mind and rationalize things independently. Anything else is forced conditioning, and forced conditioning is abuse.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You seem to think that only religion can be closed-minded and ignorant.[/quote]

Of course I do not think that – neither does vroom. Close-mindness and ignorance are equal opportunity employers. I have the same lack of respect for atheists who support Evolution without understanding it as I do for theists who reject it based on the same lack of understanding.

129

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I guess I didn’t get the memo on the disconnect in the time line.[/quote]

Cute. Different phenomenas are studied by different branches of science. How hard is that?

When someone comes to you for help with their income tax, do you also do their home budget, their estate planning, set them up with a college fund, invest their savings in various funds and get them a second mortgage and a couple of car loans?

No? Why not? It’s all the same dumb accounting shit, no?

[quote]I guess if you break the debate up into enough little debates - you are sure to win one of them.

My bad. [/quote]

And if you move the goalposts around enough, you’re bound to find the ball eventually.

It’s not like we aren’t used to those tired tactics. Whenever you’re presented with evidence you can’t refute, you change the subject or attack the poster. There’s really no topic that actually interests you, except to “score” some point in a debate, whatever the debate.

130

[quote]pookie wrote:
And if you move the goalposts around enough, you’re bound to find the ball eventually.[/quote]

The goal posts don’t move - Carbon-14 keeps fucking up the tape measure and throwing the evolutionists into a tizzy with all the flase readings.

[quote]It’s not like we aren’t used to those tired tactics. Whenever you’re presented with evidence you can’t refute, you change the subject or attack the poster. There’s really no topic that actually interests you, except to “score” some point in a debate, whatever the debate.
[/quote]

I guess if you’d show me where I grow tired of evidence and change the argument, you could include me in this group. However - say what you will about me - that is a mischaracterization of the highest order.

131

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The goal posts don’t move - Carbon-14 keeps fucking up the tape measure and throwing the evolutionists into a tizzy with all the flase readings.[/quote]

? Examples, please.

132

[quote]hspder wrote:
So I answered your question AND your request to “carry it back to the beginning”.

Satisfied?[/quote]

Ooops I forgot to write slowly and put up a big sign for hspder that my posts MAY actually contain sarcasm.

But - no I am not satisfied with your essay. I am sure that just shocks the hell out of you.

133

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Tolerance is only something that the left wants to RECEIVE. It’s nothing that they ever actually practice themselves…

:slight_smile:

[/quote]

So true its scary!!

HH

134

[quote]rainjack wrote:
But - no I am not satisfied with your essay. I am sure that just shocks the hell out of you.[/quote]

So, that’s it? “I’m not satisfied” is your answer? Where is the analysis? The counterpoint?

Or you just disagree… “because”?

Do you really expect anyone to give any credence to any of your opinions if you refuse to provide the rationale behind them? Do you expect us to just accept them on the basis of being YOUR opinions? Or do you simply not care if we accept them or not? And, if the latter, why do you bother posting here, if it is not your intent to argue but rather to shout out your opinions for people to either implicitly and mindlessly agree or ignore? Do you just like to read what you write? Why then do you not just write everything in Notepad and stare back at your own greatness? Or do you attach any value to agreement coming from people who also did not bother to actually think about how they came to the same opinion?

And finally: if you really do not use reason to reach your opinions, are you (still) a human being?

And no, these are not rhetorical questions, nor insults. I REALLY want you to think about them in a non-offensive manner and I’d then like to know your answer to them.

135

This has always bothered me: How does life come from non-life? Is life simply a name we have for systems of chemicals that behave according to a definition? What causes the transition from non-life to life?

IMO, since life cannot come from non-life, there must be some thing that has always been alive. Could this be God? Yes.

HH

136

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This has always bothered me: How does life come from non-life?[/quote]

I explained that in one of my previous posts.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Is life simply a name we have for systems of chemicals that behave according to a definition?[/quote]

Roughly, yes (although I would not use the word “chemicals”). Life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What causes the transition from non-life to life?[/quote]

Again, I’ve explained that, but to put it in the simplest terms possible: a series of chemical reactions that occur naturally under certain environmental conditions, over the course of many, many years.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
IMO, since life cannot come from non-life[/quote]

Yes it can. It has been proven clearly, so if it is your opinion, it is an uninformed one.

137

[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But - no I am not satisfied with your essay. I am sure that just shocks the hell out of you.

So, that’s it? “I’m not satisfied” is your answer? Where is the analysis? The counterpoint?

Or you just disagree… “because”?

Do you really expect anyone to give any credence to any of your opinions if you refuse to provide the rationale behind them? Do you expect us to just accept them on the basis of being YOUR opinions? Or do you simply not care if we accept them or not? And, if the latter, why do you bother posting here, if it is not your intent to argue but rather to shout out your opinions for people to either implicitly and mindlessly agree or ignore? Do you just like to read what you write? Why then do you not just write everything in Notepad and stare back at your own greatness? Or do you attach any value to agreement coming from people who also did not bother to actually think about how they came to the same opinion?

And finally: if you really do not use reason to reach your opinions, are you (still) a human being?

And no, these are not rhetorical questions, nor insults. I REALLY want you to think about them in a non-offensive manner and I’d then like to know your answer to them.
[/quote]

The question you asked was, “Satisfied?” Say what you want but it was a rhetorical question.

I should have known that you are unable to divine my sarcasm, and placed a huge warning sign just for you somewhere in my post.

Now I owe you a commentary, replete with logical support, on my belief system? Sorry - there is a verse somewhere that says something about casting your pearls before swine.

I believe that if you read my interaction with vroom, you will see exactly what I think about engaging in debate over subjects like this. There is no winner. My faith/belief system is not fodder for debate. I know what I believe, and I know that you think it is tantamount to child abuse, either perpetrated on me, or by be on my kids.

I will not convince you. You will not convince me. Faith v. Science is apples and oranges in this environment - there are too many extremists on both sides that make a mockery of such debates, that it is not worth the time.

Therefore - my contribution to this exercise in futility (read monkey fucking a football)is to question the whole space-time continuum thing you guys have going on. And make smart-ass remarks where ever I can.

And I could not honestly give a shit what you think of my credance.

138

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Therefore - my contribution to this exercise in futility (read monkey fucking a football)is to question the whole space-time continuum thing you guys have going on.[/quote]

How can you question something you do not understand? Unless it falls into the category of:

[quote]rainjack wrote:
And make smart-ass remarks where ever I can.

And I could not honestly give a shit what you think of my credance. [/quote]

So my question is, again: why post in this thread at all? What is your motivation? Boredom? Feeding your ego?

139

[quote]hspder wrote:
So my question is, again: why post in this thread at all? What is your motivation? Boredom? Feeding your ego?
[/quote]

I hardly see how my ego is being fed by posting here. I am not winning anything, nor scoring any points toward that end.

Boredom has a nice ring to it. But irritating you is all the motivation I really need.

See - you don’t need a doctorate to get under a smart guy’s skin - and that’s kinda cool with me.

140

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I guess if you’d show me where I grow tired of evidence and change the argument, you could include me in this group. However - say what you will about me - that is a mischaracterization of the highest order.
[/quote]

Too bad this isn’t scrabble, you’d score big with that miscartezitoining thing.

Let see, we were discussing evolution, macro-evolution specifically, as apparently the word out on creationist websites is that micro-evolution is cool. After being asked for evidence, I posted a URL detailing current scientific support for macro-E.

Still with me? Too bad.

Now, apparently apart from requiring “a lot of time” to read and being “difficult for the layman” not many people have pertinent arguments to refute it’s content. I guess the creationists websites haven’t yet posted instructions on how to respond to that URL for their drones to parrot. I’m sure the situation will be corrected shortly, as soon as a creationist who can handle a high school level science text is found. Then again, it might take a while…

Soooooo, moving on, you and that other guy who’s pseudonym I don’t recall (smoking bald cartoon guy) changed the question from whether there’s any evidence for macro-evolution to a discussion about abiogenesis and cosmology.