Push you seem bored all of a sudden.
This thread was an interesting read.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
asusvenus wrote:
Push you seem bored all of a sudden.
A little bit. It’s inevitable. It didn’t happen suddenly though.
This thread was an interesting read.
Hopefully it stimulated your mind to think, I mean really think, regardless of where you are on this issue.[/quote]
Well, I’m raised a a Jehovas Witness(Flame on), but I stopped believing in God about 2 years ago(No I didn’t have a sudden revelation, it was a smooth transition of course)And wow, I even expressed this to my mom, and she didn’t ban me from her life, who would’a though?
Yeah, it did stimulate me, though, it did seem to turn to much to the topic of sementics rather than the content of what was said, which got old pretty quick.(Which is funny, cause I actually hate when people misuse the term “theory” and such haha, since I’m a physics geek, and plan on studying that)
I don’t remember if this has been asked, but how firm are you people planted on whatever “belief” you have? What would it take to change your opinion? (I’m asking everyone, creationist, atheists, whatever)
Damnit, it’s obvious that I don’t know how to structure sentences and resort to the use of parenthes:(
Because posting twice is just so cool.
And tripple posting is just godlike.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
I don’t remember if this has been asked, but how firm are you people planted on whatever “belief” you have? What would it take to change your opinion? (I’m asking everyone, creationist, atheists, whatever)
[/quote]
Extremely firm in my belief but I am open to listening to what others have to say… if you are just closed to everyone and you don’t allow your belief to be scrutinized then it is shallow.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
And tripple posting is just godlike.[/quote]
But posting while quoting yourself would be even better.
[quote]orion wrote:
asusvenus wrote:
And tripple posting is just godlike.
But posting while quoting yourself would be even better.
[/quote]
Quoting your quote would be even more awesome!
[quote]orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I find it funny that the armchair scientists think they will scientifically debunk evolution from their armchairs. I will give US$1 million to the first person to bring me a fossil rabbit in pre-Cambrian rock strata that can also be carbon dated to show it is the same age as said rock.
wont happen because carbon dating only works for a few ten thousand years.
After that the isotopes are completely gone.[/quote]
My mistake. Give me any scientifically valid method, and I want 3 tests done independently, in the same vein as the shroud of Turin.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
asusvenus wrote:
I don’t remember if this has been asked, but how firm are you people planted on whatever “belief” you have? What would it take to change your opinion? (I’m asking everyone, creationist, atheists, whatever)
[/quote]
I don’t have any beliefs
How many evolutionists here have a problem with egalitarianism having a chilling effect on discussions concerning possible differences between groups of human beings? Young earth creationism vs natural selection has gone stale.
[quote]orion wrote:
BBriere wrote:
Then you have good Mr. Dawkins. He would have you believe that if you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution you are a right-wing nut job hiding behind a make believe God.
Irrelevant to the theory [/quote] Really? It’s irrelevant to a scientific theory to discuss other possible solutions? Isn’t science based on cold, hard facts? [/quote] Good thing he’s open minded enough to point out that Darwinian evolution is still just a theory in the scientific community not a law. Epic epistemology fail [/quote] So I could call the Law of Gravity the Theory of Gravity because it’s just wording? No, there is a huge difference in a law and theory. [/quote] It’s also funny how people like Dawkins don’t want to point out the fact that Darwin claimed the caucasian race to be the dominant race based on his natural selection, Also irrelevant or that there are other gaping holes in their theory.
No such gaping holes exist as of today. Therefore it is a theory and not a hypothesis.
[/quote] Well, you gotta take the good with the bad if you’re gonna fight it till the death, therefore you gotta take the racism. So you say Darwinian evolution is truth then you say the caucasian race is superior based on his theory of evolution. Plus, you still have to explain the Cambrian explosion, lack of hominid fossils such as Australopethicus, and why scientists can’t agree on other aspects. Sorry, still a theory.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
orion wrote:
BBriere wrote:
Then you have good Mr. Dawkins. He would have you believe that if you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution you are a right-wing nut job hiding behind a make believe God.
Irrelevant to the theory Really? It’s irrelevant to a scientific theory to discuss other possible solutions? Isn’t science based on cold, hard facts? Good thing he’s open minded enough to point out that Darwinian evolution is still just a theory in the scientific community not a law. Epic epistemology fail So I could call the Law of Gravity the Theory of Gravity because it’s just wording? No, there is a huge difference in a law and theory. It’s also funny how people like Dawkins don’t want to point out the fact that Darwin claimed the caucasian race to be the dominant race based on his natural selection, Also irrelevant or that there are other gaping holes in their theory.
No such gaping holes exist as of today. Therefore it is a theory and not a hypothesis.
Well, you gotta take the good with the bad if you’re gonna fight it till the death, therefore you gotta take the racism. So you say Darwinian evolution is truth then you say the caucasian race is superior based on his theory of evolution. Plus, you still have to explain the Cambrian explosion, lack of hominid fossils such as Australopethicus, and why scientists can’t agree on other aspects. Sorry, still a theory.
[/quote]
Pick a up a book and stop gleaming shit from pro-creationist websites.
Fuck me, if you’re dumb enough to try and bring up transitional fossils and pretend fossils are the only thing evolution has going for it, then you are truly retarded. If you don’t know why we can’t find a perfect line of fossils lining up perfectly from generation to generation, I’m pretty sure there is no hope of you ever understanding the subject.
Evolution in Darwin’s time was largely theoretical and had gaping holes in it (although the holes back then have nothing on the ones in man made religions). At it’s current stage, calling it “just a theory” only shows how fucking retarded you are.
Yes, it has been a long day.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, it was an easy slow day. My 26th wedding anniversary. Now that you know that you can’t come back and e-slap me, can you?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure there nothing stopping me from doing that and congratulating you.
Congratulations, you son of a bitch.
(New computer, so this is the only pic that I could find for you)
[quote]Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Yes, it was an easy slow day. My 26th wedding anniversary. Now that you know that you can’t come back and e-slap me, can you?
I’m pretty sure there nothing stopping me from doing that and congratulating you.
Congratulations, you son of a bitch.
(New computer, so this is the only pic that I could find for you)[/quote]
…do what now?
And regarding “what would it take to change your beliefs” (however its worded) I would say a well reasoned argument that stands the test of time (for religious and philosophical arguments) and as for evolution and what not, its science. Its theories that men working (ideally) within science and reason are attempting to prove/disprove. Its not a big deal to change your mind in that regard.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I believe in drinking bourbon and eating an omelet at the same time. Like I’m doing now. [/quote]
Impressive.
[quote] jasmincar wrote:
I don’t have any beliefs
[/quote]
Hurah for skepticism.
Pushharder gets owned all over these threads…
…