I find it mildly amusing no one still has yet to provide evidence of an organism in the middle of a transition phase from one species to another. In the billions of years of evolution (claimed) there should have been hundreds of billion or even trillions of examples of these organisms. Surely a few million or even a couple of thousand would have been preserved. Instead, what we are given are a list of organisms in the order evolutionists claimed they evolved. Oddly enough, all these organisms are found in an already completed state of transformation.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
How so? Besides not functioning as gills, how are they so vastly different? What do they suggest? Why are they there?[/quote]
Haeckel’s drawings of “gill slits” in a human embryo was a fraud that continues to be perpetrated.
“[H]uman embryos do not really have gills or gill slits: like all vertebrate embryos at one stage in their development, they possess a series of ‘pharyngeal pouches,’ or tiny ridges in the neck region. In fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, but in other vertebrates they develop into unrelated structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland. The embryos of reptiles, birds and mammals never possess gills.” Jonathan Wells, “Haeckel’s Embryos & Evolution: Setting the Record Straight,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 61(5):345-349 (May, 1999)
[/quote]
^^That guy(Jonathan Wells) is a member of the Unification Church(batshit Korean cult). But I asked some specific questions. I didn’t ask for a quote from a Moonie. No one is saying pharyngeal arches go on to become functioning gills. I was asking what they are. Why are they there? What do they suggest?[/quote]
They are tissue folds that in humans turn into parts of the face and glands.
No. They’re not “tissue folds”. They’re primordial features that in fish develop into gills. I see you’ve ignored my question about why they’re there and what they suggest.
[quote] pushharder wrote:
I’m definitely sheepish in the sense that I have decided to follow my Creator as a sheep does indeed follow his shepherd. I unequivocally submit to Him, yes. And feel nary a bit of shame for it. It is an honor. If and when your more violent proteges eventually come for me and haul me to the stake someday you can bet your sweet li’l evolved ass I will spit in their eye as they light their torches. Bring it on, squirt; I’ll show you who’s free.
[/quote]
smh is correct about the incongruence between absolute metaphysical objectivism and submission to God coexisting with radical sovereign individualism. I think it’s very interesting actually. I’m not sure you’re aware of its origins. It grew out of Scots Ulster Presbyterian and Calvinist theology on the frontier in the colonies. It’s totally alien to European thought. It’s a purely American phenomena.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
smh is correct about the incongruence between absolute metaphysical objectivism and submission to God coexisting with radical sovereign individualism. I think it’s very interesting actually. I’m not sure you’re aware of its origins. It grew out of Scots Ulster Presbyterian and Calvinist theology on the frontier in the colonies. It’s totally alien to European thought. It’s a purely American phenomena.[/quote]
Have you entertained the idea that this may very well be a, if not The, catalyst to American exceptionalism?[/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] pushharder wrote:
I’m definitely sheepish in the sense that I have decided to follow my Creator as a sheep does indeed follow his shepherd. I unequivocally submit to Him, yes. And feel nary a bit of shame for it. It is an honor. If and when your more violent proteges eventually come for me and haul me to the stake someday you can bet your sweet li’l evolved ass I will spit in their eye as they light their torches. Bring it on, squirt; I’ll show you who’s free.
[/quote]
smh is correct about the incongruence between absolute metaphysical objectivism and submission to God coexisting with radical sovereign individualism. I think it’s very interesting actually. I’m not sure you’re aware of its origins. It grew out of Scots Ulster Presbyterian and Calvinist theology on the frontier in the colonies. It’s totally alien to European thought. It’s a purely American phenomena.[/quote]
Don’t let perceived incongruence get you down.
[/quote]
Perhaps incongruent is not the best word. A better description would be a kind of duality where seemingly opposite forces are in fact complimentary.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
smh is correct about the incongruence between absolute metaphysical objectivism and submission to God coexisting with radical sovereign individualism. I think it’s very interesting actually. I’m not sure you’re aware of its origins. It grew out of Scots Ulster Presbyterian and Calvinist theology on the frontier in the colonies. It’s totally alien to European thought. It’s a purely American phenomena.[/quote]
Have you entertained the idea that this may very well be a, if not The, catalyst to American exceptionalism?[/quote]
If one is to take that position, material and geographical factors must be given equal, if not greater consideration in the examination of American preeminence.
It seems Obama has a confused understanding of American exceptionalism:
“What makes us exceptional is not flouting international norms and the rule of law; it’s our willingness to affirm them through our actions.”
If they’re “international norms” then how can affirming them be “exceptional?”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It seems Obama has a confused understanding of American exceptionalism:
“What makes us exceptional is not flouting international norms and the rule of law; it’s our willingness to affirm them through our actions.”
If they’re “international norms” then how can affirming them be “exceptional?”[/quote]
Why rock the boat, especially when you made it yourself? Norms refer to loose codes of conduct in international society. Refer to the work of Hedley Bull, who is far and away my favorite Aussie scholar. Hegemonic stability theory argues that many international laws and norms are of American design. Exceptional American power made such influence possible.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] angrychicken wrote:
And organized religion was oftentimes the VEHICLE by which those massacres occurred.
[/quote]
And we don’t blame the vehicle do we? That doesn’t make sense. That would be like blaming guns for violence.[/quote]
That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever read from you. Seriously. How can you compare religion, an IDEA created to change people’s behavior with an inanimate physical object like a gun or a car? That’s crazy. A gun or a car doesn’t change and doesn’t go out and tell people to KILL. Religion HAS, DOES and WILL…
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why rock the boat, especially when you made it yourself?
[/quote]
I wasn’t advocating ignoring international norms. My point was:
- Adhering to international norms has absolutely nothing to do with American exceptionalism.
And
- Adhering to a “norm” cannot logically be “exceptional” by virtue of the fact that it’s a “norm” and therefore adhering to it would be “normal” not “exceptional”.
[quote]
Norms refer to loose codes of conduct in international society. Refer to the work of Hedley Bull, who is far and away my favorite Aussie scholar. Hegemonic stability theory argues that many international laws and norms are of American design. Exceptional American power made such influence possible.[/quote]
I listened to an interview recently with Douglas E Schoen. He’s a former Democratic foreign policy advisor. He’s extremely critical of Obama’s foreign policy and he thinks a major conflict with Russia and China is imminent.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] angrychicken wrote:
And organized religion was oftentimes the VEHICLE by which those massacres occurred.
[/quote]
And we don’t blame the vehicle do we? That doesn’t make sense. That would be like blaming guns for violence.[/quote]
That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever read from you. Seriously. How can you compare religion, an IDEA created to change people’s behavior with an inanimate physical object like a gun or a car? That’s crazy. A gun or a car doesn’t change and doesn’t go out and tell people to KILL. Religion HAS, DOES and WILL…[/quote]
Theology doesn’t “tell” people to do anything. People tell people to go out and kill. I don’t blame political ideology for Bolshevism or Nazism. I blame political ideologues - ie, people. Blaming “religion” is absolving people of their actions. It is people who act; who have free will; who are responsible for what they do and tell others to do.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] angrychicken wrote:
If “the animal kingdom” had a history, it would be of conflict. We are not unique in that respect. But we don’t call the two bucks fighting over a doe ‘EVIL’, do we? How about two rams colliding? How about elephant seals maiming each other? ALL animals compete for resources… That’s not “evil”. So why is it “evil” when humans do it? Because we “know better”? LMAO That is obviously not the case.
[/quote]
Animals don’t behave like men. You don’t see spite, malice, revenge etc. from animals. It’s a nonsense comparison.[/quote]
Some animals can exhibit these kinds of emotion. Especially social mammals (dolphins, other hominines, elephants, etc…). It is NOT nonsense. Our language, emotions, abstract reasoning and penis size all developed from hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and sexual selection. Spite, malice and revenge ARE legitimate emotions that can lead to actions that can increase odds of increasing status, survival and replication.
We are not “evil”, we are survivors.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Some animals can exhibit these kinds of emotion. Especially social mammals (dolphins, other hominines, elephants, etc…).
[/quote]
I’ll grant you one thing. Elephants are highly advanced. They’re the only animal that can recognise their own reflection(dogs can’t). And they’re the only animal that actually has funerary rites.
It’s nonsense to suggest that man is not unique among the creatures of the earth. Mankind is unique in so many ways I wouldn’t know where to begin. Language; capacity to understand our own fate and ponder our own existence; culture; technology etc.
I disagree. And our advanced cognitive abilities and emotions are in many respects a hindrance to our survival.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] angrychicken wrote:
And organized religion was oftentimes the VEHICLE by which those massacres occurred.
[/quote]
And we don’t blame the vehicle do we? That doesn’t make sense. That would be like blaming guns for violence.[/quote]
That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever read from you. Seriously. How can you compare religion, an IDEA created to change people’s behavior with an inanimate physical object like a gun or a car? That’s crazy. A gun or a car doesn’t change and doesn’t go out and tell people to KILL. Religion HAS, DOES and WILL…[/quote]
Theology doesn’t “tell” people to do anything. People tell people to go out and kill. I don’t blame political ideology for Bolshevism or Nazism. I blame political ideologues - ie, people. Blaming “religion” is absolving people of their actions. It is people who act; who have free will; who are responsible for what they do and tell others to do.[/quote]
C’mon, man! The bible an koran are FILLED with examples of “god” telling people to kill… And they’ve recorded it in their “holy book”. When “god” tells Moses to kill all male children every woman who has slept with a man, what do you call that? I don’t think that’s any wild stretch of the imagination to call that RELIGION compelling an individual to kill…
Also, look at the modern day terrorists! Why are they killing westerners? Is it because they are so secular? Not so much…
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
C’mon, man! The bible an koran are FILLED with examples of “god” telling people to kill… And they’ve recorded it in their “holy book”. When “god” tells Moses to kill all male children every woman who has slept with a man, what do you call that? I don’t think that’s any wild stretch of the imagination to call that RELIGION compelling an individual to kill…
[/quote]
So it’s religion that “compels” people to do what they do? Then I guess people aren’t responsible for their own actions then. Religion made them do it. It’s interesting that Jews and Christians don’t seem to be anywhere near as susceptible to this compulsion.
[quote]
Also, look at the modern day terrorists! Why are they killing westerners? Is it because they are so secular? Not so much…[/quote]
It’s because they are evil. Man is essentially evil. If you don’t believe this then I suggest you look more closely at the historical record.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Some animals can exhibit these kinds of emotion. Especially social mammals (dolphins, other hominines, elephants, etc…).
[/quote]
I’ll grant you one thing. Elephants are highly advanced. They’re the only animal that can recognise their own reflection(dogs can’t). And they’re the only animal that actually has funerary rites.
[/quote]We are learning more and more about how different species communicate. I would posit there is a large probability that elephants are only the tip of the iceberg…[quote]
It’s nonsense to suggest that man is not unique among the creatures of the earth. Mankind is unique in so many ways I wouldn’t know where to begin. Language; capacity to understand our own fate and ponder our own existence; culture; technology etc.
[/quote]We most certainly ARE unique - I’ve never said we weren’t. And we are way more developed (we think) than many other species. But wouldn’t you say that a cow is more developed than an earthworm (or 99% of the total number of species on the planet)? But we have no problem killing the shit out of them regardless of how RELATIVELY evolved they are. Just because WE DON’T KNOW what goes on in their heads doesn’t mean they don’t have thoughts or feelings. They worked out a symbiotic relationship with OUR species. If you think about it, they have it pretty good: they are fed, get medical care, get to grow up and breed (ensuring the survival of their species)… That arrangement WORKS from an evolutionary standpoint. It’s win:win for all parties involved. If they didn’t submit to being domesticated, they most likely would have gone the way of the buffalo and be in danger of extinction.[quote]
I disagree. And our advanced cognitive abilities and emotions are in many respects a hindrance to our survival.[/quote]
Then evolution will weed those traits out of us or our species will become eventually extinct. I’d say it’s happening right now. We are already becoming stupider as a species due to our diluting the gene pool by encouraging STUPID people to breed more than SMART people (our welfare system PAYS people without the wherewithal to support themselves to breed). But that opens up another can of worms…