Started By
Message
re: New Timeline for Earliest Known Animal Is 'Holy Grail' of Paleontology
Posted on 9/25/18 at 9:24 am to hogNsinceReagan
Posted on 9/25/18 at 9:24 am to hogNsinceReagan
quote:
Tremors 1 wasn't a B movie.
There were so many sequels, it’s hard to remember the original movie.
0
Posted on 9/25/18 at 9:30 am to BloodSweat&Beers
Hmm, Dick in Sonia, I think I saw the movie. Did Linda Lovelace play Sonia?
Posted on 9/25/18 at 9:36 am to Carolina_Girl
Oh that was good.
Posted on 9/25/18 at 11:39 am to GaDawg9977
quote:
Why aren’t we evolving into forms that are immune to things that kill us?
We have/are. There are plenty of things that killed our ancestors we’re largely immune to.
quote:
Where is the transition specie between this guy and a dog, cat, horse.
quote:
Evolution is obsurd logically.
It’s absurd to you because you are too stupid to grasp it. You demand that I have every single generation into account in order to prove it. You’re an idiot.
Posted on 9/25/18 at 8:31 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Smarter people are breeding with other smarter people
Wrong. Smarter people have decided kids are too much of a burden.
Dumb people, on the other hand, are breeding like bunnies.
Posted on 9/25/18 at 9:55 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Wrong. Smarter people have decided kids are too much of a burden
Well, some smarter people have but enough are still breeding that a distinct subset of smarter people is forming in the general population.
quote:
Dumb people, on the other hand, are breeding like bunnies.
Indeed they are. Here’s a commercial I saw on a Lexington station today:
Peter Popoff’s miracle spring water.
Posted on 9/26/18 at 6:42 am to Arksulli
quote:
an example. You have an incredible small penis and are quite stupid but you have the vague chance of passing on your small penis genes because a fertile female might think you are the best she can land.
Posted on 9/26/18 at 7:49 am to Arksulli
quote:
As an example. You have an incredible small penis and are quite stupid but you have the vague chance of passing on your small penis genes because a fertile female might think you are the best she can land.
Someone has lots of knowledge of small penises.
Posted on 9/26/18 at 10:37 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
Someone has lots of knowledge of small penises.
Well I do read your posts on here from time to time. Bound to pick up some information on the subject.
Posted on 9/26/18 at 11:32 am to Kentucker
I don't need cholesterol to make a hor mone I just need some Texas cabbage.
Posted on 9/26/18 at 12:57 pm to Kentucker
This is just weird
Posted on 9/26/18 at 2:35 pm to OMLandshark
Yea, I get it Same old playbook. Cast insults and name calling to opposing viewpoints. Nothing new to see here.
All that aside, when facts and personal observations aren't available, science is built on theories. SCIENCE says nothing, SCIENTIST say things. Scientist are PEOPLE who have worldviews, opinions, motivations, etc that come into play regardless of data. What do you think would happen to a tenured professor at a public university who one day determined his research pointed toward intelligent design? Most of them wouldn't risk their careers, research grants, etc to upset the apple cart so the dye is cast and it's in their best interest to view data in that manner and fit the narrative. Opposing views are not allowed.
As for this Dickinsonia guy. The poster stated it didn't have an anus. Did it wake up one day and realize if it couldn't take a shite it was going to die (or be a better Dickinsonia) and willed itself to grow one? Or mom and dad Dickinsonia decide their offspring needed one and just willed one into existence? Even though mom and dad didn't have an anus, they had the gene to pass onto baby Dick. You either have an anus or you don't. It's not something that magically develops and all of the plumbing falls into place. This is just one feature of thousands in millions of species that must have spontaneously come about and function precisely. Mathematically, i'm not sure there is an exponent large enough to express the chances of all of this happening by chance. Explain?
All that aside, when facts and personal observations aren't available, science is built on theories. SCIENCE says nothing, SCIENTIST say things. Scientist are PEOPLE who have worldviews, opinions, motivations, etc that come into play regardless of data. What do you think would happen to a tenured professor at a public university who one day determined his research pointed toward intelligent design? Most of them wouldn't risk their careers, research grants, etc to upset the apple cart so the dye is cast and it's in their best interest to view data in that manner and fit the narrative. Opposing views are not allowed.
As for this Dickinsonia guy. The poster stated it didn't have an anus. Did it wake up one day and realize if it couldn't take a shite it was going to die (or be a better Dickinsonia) and willed itself to grow one? Or mom and dad Dickinsonia decide their offspring needed one and just willed one into existence? Even though mom and dad didn't have an anus, they had the gene to pass onto baby Dick. You either have an anus or you don't. It's not something that magically develops and all of the plumbing falls into place. This is just one feature of thousands in millions of species that must have spontaneously come about and function precisely. Mathematically, i'm not sure there is an exponent large enough to express the chances of all of this happening by chance. Explain?
Posted on 9/26/18 at 3:41 pm to GaDawg9977
quote:
What do you think would happen to a tenured professor at a public university who one day determined his research pointed toward intelligent design?
They would need some damn good evidence, because I really don't see how you come up with anything that definitively points toward intelligent design.
Posted on 9/27/18 at 1:04 pm to GaDawg9977
The scientific method includes a feedback loop. For every scientist who might make a groundbreaking discovery, there are hundreds if not thousands of peers who can't wait to critique his methodology. The great thing about science is its conclusions about truth are malleable-- if new data throws a prevailing theory on its head, it's met with skepticism, but also excitement. It's an ongoing process towards knowledge that involves several revisions. This question of what if a researcher concluded the evidence points to intelligent design is completely nonsensical. There's no way to emperically test for a god, and that's what scientists do-- make observations and measurements and draw conclusions from that data. This notion that faith in the scientific method is somehow analagous to religious faith is ludicrous. An epistemological argument for the comparison can be made, but you're not doing that, you're just regurgitating a stupid talking point.
Posted on 9/27/18 at 4:52 pm to jbond
quote:
This question of what if a researcher concluded the evidence points to intelligent design is completely nonsensical. There's no way to emperically test for a god, and that's what scientists do-- make observations and measurements and draw conclusions from that data.
Not entirely true. The data is still interpreted from the view of what they already believe. For example, a rock that shows to be millions of years old vs being created with the appreance of age. Evolutionist will interpret from what they already believe as would creationist. Evolution contradicts natural laws like 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, if not more. Matter can’t be created or destroyed, where did the first matter or energy come from? According to science, it couldn’t have always existed. Entropy, natural process breakdown and decay. Evolution relies on the opposite effect happening. Talk about nonsensical.
Posted on 10/2/18 at 8:39 am to GaDawg9977
quote:
Yea, I get it Same old playbook. Cast insults and name calling to opposing viewpoints. Nothing new to see here.
Because it’s only one of two things:
A) You’re not listening to what we are saying.
B) You’re too stupid to comprehend what we are saying.
There’s no in between. Anyone who understands evolution wouldn’t ask anything as stupid as why are there still monkeys or where are the transition species. We’re not going to name an animal 30% wolf, 20% bear, and 50% lion. You’re an idiot.
Posted on 10/2/18 at 8:46 am to GaDawg9977
quote:
For example, a rock that shows to be millions of years old vs being created with the appreance of age.
Which is retarded. You’re basically saying there are no objective facts, therefore we can’t agree about literally anything. I might as well say the sky is blue, and your retort is its only appears that way and is actually created green by god.
quote:
Evolution contradicts natural laws like 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, if not more. Matter can’t be created or destroyed, where did the first matter or energy come from? According to science, it couldn’t have always existed. Entropy, natural process breakdown and decay. Evolution relies on the opposite effect happening. Talk about nonsensical.
I guarantee you off the top of your head you could not tell me what the first and second laws of thermodynamics actually are. And what does the origin of matter have anything to do with evolution? Nice talking point from your snake oil salesman of a Baptist preacher who flunked out of the 8th grade. You’re an idiot.
This post was edited on 10/2/18 at 8:47 am
Posted on 10/2/18 at 12:28 pm to OMLandshark
Once again resorting to name calling and insults. You’re proving my point. They sky being blue is something we can observe. The origin of life is not something you or I witnessed so we make a choice to believe one way or the other based on “facts” interpreted by someone’s world view. The talking points of creation aren’t the problem, it’s the fact it flies in the face of human arrogance that we are the supreme beings and “science” isn’t the answer to everything. This offends people and if you don’t believe arrogance is an issue review this thread. As previously stated scientists have many different motivations to make their claims. If science was truly objective it would offer the probability of both viewpoints because there is evidence.
Posted on 10/2/18 at 12:51 pm to GaDawg9977
quote:
Once again resorting to name calling and insults.
They’re deserved. Either you’re not listening to what we are saying, in which case go screw yourself, or are too stupid to comprehend what we’re saying, in which case you’re an idiot. I think the later accusation is being more kind, and a safe assumption since you thought absurd started with an O.
quote:
They sky being blue is something we can observe.
Your rock example is something we can observe as well.
quote:
The origin of life is not something you or I witnessed so we make a choice to believe one way or the other based on “facts” interpreted by someone’s world view.
So in order for me to be right, I have to go back in time and record trillions of hours worth of footage to be correct? OK, go back and do that with the Bible. Go back 6,000 years and see if you find a Garden of Eden or a worldwide flood. Anyone with a brain knows you won’t find them.
quote:
The talking points of creation aren’t the problem, it’s the fact it flies in the face of human arrogance that we are the supreme beings and “science” isn’t the answer to everything. This offends people and if you don’t believe arrogance is an issue review this thread. As previously stated scientists have many different motivations to make their claims. If science was truly objective it would offer the probability of both viewpoints because there is evidence.
The arrogant ones aren’t the ones asking questions and using the scientific method. It’s pious idiots who are arrogant that their book is infallible and provides all the answers you will ever need, and anything that remotely contradicts it is blasphemy. Please show me how anything actually occurred in the Torah, since there is no evidence the Egyptians enslaved the Jews and wandered around the desert for 40 years, not to mention a worldwide flood.
This post was edited on 10/2/18 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 10/2/18 at 3:41 pm to OMLandshark
Look. First, your putting words in my mouth. I hear you loud and clear, what you don’t like is I don’t buy it. Neither you and I have done the exhausted research to definitely prove what we believe. Your believing by faith what your science classes taught and I choose another route
Do some research on the fine tuning of the universe. Even your hero Steven Hawking reluctantly admitted it appeared there are indications of intelligent design.
FYI, there is historical and archeological evidence of your examples. Look it up instead of just taking someone’s word for it.
Do some research on the fine tuning of the universe. Even your hero Steven Hawking reluctantly admitted it appeared there are indications of intelligent design.
FYI, there is historical and archeological evidence of your examples. Look it up instead of just taking someone’s word for it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News