|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2009 : 07:04:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Test
|
Since your home page icon links to a commercial online clothing store, I must draw the conclusion that you're just spamming the forum for profit.
As long as it remains as it is, I will consider you a spamming clown not to be taken seriously.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 08:35:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
No, creationists do point to the bible but not as a sole reason,(important). |
That's why I used the conjunction "and/or" in my list of reasons.
(I did forget the "really bad math" reason in that list, so thanks for bringing it up again.)| There is no difference from this and an evolutionist subscribing to "DARWINISM" or "DAWKINISM". Really,same difference really. |
I don't know any Darwinists or Dawkinsists. There have been millions of biologists doing original research into evolution over the last 150 years, and they all generally show their work (unlike certain creationists who say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution). By claiming that people are Darwinists or Dawkinsists, without providing a single example of either, it appears that you're simply projecting your own sheep-like nature (being a Jesusist) onto others. This, of course, has no probative value into the truth of evolutionary theory. Where is the "exact science" that disproves evolution?
You also wrote:With the preview function we have here, there's no good reason for test posts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 10:38:10 [Permalink]
|
I have been following this thread with interest. When I come to Matt36's post of the single word "Test", I draw a blank!
What does Matt want or what is he referring to when he posts the single word "Test"?
Anyone? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 11:37:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
I just stumbled upon this page and as a skeptics site i find it weird that nobody is sceptical of evolution. |
Says who? I demand evidence from evolutionary biologists just like I demand evolution from creationists. The difference is that the biologists can supply evidence, while the creationists point to the Bible, mistakes in logic and/or really bad "science" for support of their conclusions. |
No, creationists do point to the bible but not as a sole reason,(important). There is no difference from this and an evolutionist subscribing to "DARWINISM" or "DAWKINISM". Really,same difference really.
|
Sensing that he is way out gunned here, Matt shoots back with an observation (false as it is) and doesn't make any attempt to support his assertions. Shocking... Wait. I predicted he would do that.
Matt, we are a patient crowd. But you opened this can of worms. Hit and run creationists are a dime a dozen. (Interestingly, the only place this kind of debate can take place is on a site like ours. Go to a Christian site and try to defend evolution, and you will get banned. That has been my experience. Even being polite will not work. They don't want to here it. So Matt may not be used to actually having to support his assertions. Perhaps he thought his mention of thermodynamics would shut us down, as though we haven't heard that debunked canard hundreds of times.)
Just so you know, Matt. Darwin published around 150 years ago. A lot of science has been done since then. (By the way, Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution. His contribution was to suggest a plausible mechanism that drives it. His contribution to science was enormous, but really, so was Einsteins, and I don't ever remember being called an Einsteinist.) And Dawkins, aside from from his being an outspoken atheist, and a good teacher, is just one evolutionary biologist among many. Your suggestion that we pray at the alter of Darwin and Dawkins is just silly. But I understand why you suggest that. You need to think that we follow them religiously which takes some of the heat off of what you do. What we do follow is the evidence, wherever it goes. As Dave has suggested, you are just projecting.
Anyhow, enough. Let's see if you will man up and defend your assertions...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 11:49:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have been following this thread with interest. When I come to Matt36's post of the single word "Test", I draw a blank!
What does Matt want or what is he referring to when he posts the single word "Test"?
Anyone?
|
I think he was just trying out how to do quotes and such in his posts. Otherwise, beats me. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2009 : 12:49:20 [Permalink]
|
Bah! To perdition with all that assertions smeg! I want something with a little raw meat outside the bone and sweet marrow within.
Here's another transitional and while it doesn't look likely that Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of it, it was certainly a partner in the fish to amphibian lineage. I speak, of course, of ol' Spiny-Roof; Acanthostegia.
Acanthostega gunneri
The skull roof of Acanthostega gunneri was first recovered from Famennian deposits (360 million years ago) in eastern Greenland in 1933, and was described and named in 1952 by Erik Jarvik. Additional fossils were recovered during a 1970 geological expedition, but they languished in obscurity until rediscovered by Jennifer Clack. In a 1987 expedition led by Clack and Per Ahlberg recovered some exceptionally well preserved material from several individuals.
The abundance and quality of Acanthostega remains has made it the best known of the early tetrapods. From their investigations of these remains Clack and Michael Coates have reported a series of remarkable findings that have necessitated changes in our thinking on early tetrapod evolution.
Prior to these findings, most scientists assumed that the evolution of legs and feet was initiated and driven by the colonization of land. Here, however, was an early tetrapod that was ill-suited for life on land. It had well-defined digits (fingers and toes), but no wrists or ankles. It had relatively long limb bones, but they couldn't support much weight. Its hip also couldn't support much weight since it was weakly attached to the spine.
A firm attachment to the spine wouldn't help much anyway, since its spine was structurally based on the (ancestral) notochord rather than on a series of interlocking, yet flexible, vertebrae. The spine was well-suited for handling the mechanical stresses of swimming but was nearly useless for supporting weight. Moreover, its short and thin ribs were incapable of protecting vital organs. Acanthostega also had a deep tail which sported a large bony fin. In short, it had a tail suited for swimming, a fish's spine and paddle-like limbs.
|
It is most probable that this animal never left the water. It is also probable that it lived under fairly stagnant, oxygen-poor conditions that required an auxiliary breathing apparatus as seen in many fishes today, electric eels and catfishes being among them. They use the swim bladder as a rudimentary lung. It was a predator of pond shores and swamps, making it's living snapping up 'most anything that came near enough, in or out of the water.
Damn, but you gotta love the Devonian! There was some amazing evolutionary action in those days, when the tetrapods first invaded the land. The arthropods, of course, were already well established there, having come ashore in the Cambrian, but that's another story in the stone to dig out another time.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 03:51:42 [Permalink]
|
Hi Gals and Guys.
This is my response, or the bigginning of some of it. Since writing this ive seen all your posts. For me to answer as much as I can ill need to only reply to the main questions/statements im concerned with. Please understand I cannot answer everything.
Dave W comment,
Originally posted by matt36
I just stumbled upon this page and as a skeptics site i find it weird that nobody is sceptical of evolution.
Says who? I demand evidence from evolutionary biologists just like I demand evolution from creationists. The difference is that the biologists can supply evidence, while the creationists point to the Bible, mistakes in logic and/or really bad "science" for support of their conclusions.
Dave, no evidence other than suggestive is apparent for creation. Creationists do not state creation as a scientific proven fact. However, evolutionists do say that evolution is an undeniable proven fact. This is the issue because evolution is not a proven fact. You say you require evidence of evolution from evolutionists, then where is it? Speak up, because no-one else ever has. Evolutionists “continually” say evolution is an undeniable proven fact without “EVER ONCE” supplying these proven facts.
Dave W comment,
Evolution is not a fact...
Yes, it is.
Is it? Then ill suppose you will be able to supply at least one “PROVEN” fact then wont you. Words are so cheap in an evolutionist’s world so I challenge you, put your money where you mouth is or stop making ignorant comments you got from others. Anyone else who thinks they have proven facts supporting evolution can apply within but be warned, if admin allow ill tear your “proven facts” TO PIECES JUST AS I HAVE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. No proof exists for evolution. None!!!!
Dave W comment,
There is no science around that is proven fact and is testable, repeatable that conflicts with a creation theory.
"A" creation theory? Which one are you speaking of? Islamic creation?
Islamic, Judaist, and Christian Creation is all basically the same. They all come from the original Torah account of creation. So, whats your point????????
Dave W comment,
Which is a theory because it cannot be proven, just like evolution.
See, right there you're showing your blindness, too. Things are not theories because they cannot be proven. They are theories because they are explanations of phenomena we can see, with mountains of supporting evidence.
“Mountains of supporting evidence” is a repeated claim I hear every day regarding evolution. Name just one.
Dave W comment,
Evolution however flies in the face of significant amounts of known exact sciences including laws of the universe such as the first and second law of thermo dynamics.
Show your math. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are mathematical laws related to the transfer of heat, so you'll have to show the math that demonstrates that evolution violates either one. You'll be the first to do so, if you can. Every other creationist has just spouted non-mathematical nonsense about "order" and "chaos," and thus demonstrated nothing but their own ignorance of what the laws of thermodynamics actually mean.
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics The first law is stated as such, “The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.”
Thus nothing but energy can be created including “LIFE” not an energy nor organized strata as evolution dictates.
Again according to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversibility
For the concept in evolutionary theory, see Dollo's law. For other uses, see reversibility.
In science, a process that is not reversible is called irreversible. This concept arises most frequently in thermodynamics, as applied to processes. Irreversibility is also used in economics to refer to investment or expenditures that involve large sunk costs.[1]
In thermodynamics, a change in the thermodynamic state of a system is irreversible if the system cannot be restored to its former state by infinitesimal changes in some property of the system without expenditure of energy. An irreversible process increases the entropy of the system, which is a measure of the microscopic disorder of the system. A reversible process does not.
All complex natural processes are irreversible. The phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system, which is any system of sufficient complexity, of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable. A certain amount of "transformation energy" will be used as the molecules of the "working body" do work on each other when they change from one state to another. During this transformation, there will be a certain amount of heat energy loss or dissipation due to intermolecular friction and collisions; energy that will not be recoverable if the process is reversed.
Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible,[2] the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. Note entropy. Here is the scientific explaination of entropy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Within thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of random ways in which a system may be arranged[3][4][5][6]; often taken to be a measure of "disorder"[7][9]. Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system[10][9], reducing the system's ability to do work[10][11] as energy is lost to irretrievable heat[12]. Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function[6][13] that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry. Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes are spontaneous and others are not[14]; entropy is accordingly an index of a system's tendency towards spontaneous change[15], with systems tending to progress in the direction of increasing entropy.[14] In fact, for isolated systems, entropy is constrained by the condition that it never decreases[13]. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual motion" machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time.
An everyday example of entropy can be seen in a deck of cards. A deck ordered by suit and number will tend to progress towards a randomly arranged deck upon shuffling, because the latter system has more possible states than the former. Furthermore, this process is thermodynamically irreversible; restoring the deck to its ordered state requires the application of work. The recovery of the ordered deck via the random process of shuffling is highly unlikely because the random deck has a much higher entropy.
So, as you can see, order CANNOT come from disorder showing evolution as impossible according the the LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. Evolution absolutely requires order from disorder hence a non valid theory. The first law is tied in with the second law, tied in with entropy, none of which can be separated in the case of evolution. Heat has not much to do with it except for the example of energy displacement. Thermo means heat. The law does not. The heat part means that the molecular heat in the contact of alien molecules destroys order and creates disorder. So, evolution is in great violation of the first and second law of thermodynamics and is stated in Wikipedia and science everywhere. So Dave W, you were wrong weren’t you.
As for your comments of maths, ill take that literally, so hows this, Fact: ( according to mathematicians), “The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!” THAT’S THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION ZERO’S!!!!! There are many figures out there for “problemabilities” (hehe) of the same but lets just say that that they “all” have many more noughts than your great, great granny’s age. So who believes in the supernatural NOW??
Dave W comment,
There is not one fossil anywhere in the world proving a transitional step between a species.
Of course not. There are millions of them.
Dave, you have embarrassed yourself by making this statement in public. I DARE you to proclaim even one, let alone millions, or anybody else for that matter can reply. Please “think” way before you write.
Dave W comment,
DNA science we are told prove evolution. Not so, if anything, DNA suggests a designer and anyone looking into it would agree unless they subscribe "blindly" to evolution.
"Suggests a designer" is an utterly unscientific thing to say, and suggests that you don't understand what you're talking about. What is it about DNA that suggests that "a designer" is a better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet than evolutionary theory?
Dave, evolution does not supply an answer for the origins of life as the primordial soup theory has been thrown out the window by all evolutionists who matter as a STUPID, INCORRECT AND IGNORANT THEORY.
So what does this leave? Peoples opinions. That’s it, and that’s it alone. Dawkins says space aliens could be responsible, others have no idea. Some say a creator is responsible. Draw your own conclusions but don’t pretend evolution has proven anything here, nor has any answers, otherwise, you just may be “unscientific”. Don’t forget that you ridiculed me for “Suggesting a designer”, but so did Dawkins, is he wrong too? If so, why do you believe anything he says? He is a scientist isn’t he? Scientists have an “enlightened understanding” don’t they? No?. Didn’t think so.
Dave W comment,
Scientists no longer believe that lightning strikes are responsible for producing amino acids as the first life building blocks as once thought. They now conclude this theory as an impossible one.
You need to catch up on the news. Miller's experiments were re-performed last year, and even more organic molecules were found (including 22 amino acids) than Miller found (largely due to better measuring devices). Far from no longer believing it, the evidence is stonger than ever before that electrical activity can create the building blocks of life.
No Dave, you are the one who needs to check out not the “NEWS” but science. Sure millers experiment is correct, I don’t deny it, electricity can produce amino acids. but evolutionists who are worth their salt know that the experiment is incorrect because the “ATMOSPHERE” used is not one that evolutionists now believe was present at primordial soup ( discredited) time. You see oxygen was not present in the atmosphere by miller and was thought not to be present at primordial time but scientists now know that oxygen ( an oxidant) “WAS” present in “ABUNDANCE” at the time as is “PROVEN” by oxidants caused by oxygen in rocks formed at the primordial time. Oxygen destroys amino acids and prevents its creation via electricity. This makes the experiment redundant and scientists no longer believe this theory, ( except for dopey ones). Do your homework please.
Even Dawkins admits there is no explaination ( evolutionary) for the beginning of life. (Except for his alien theory, and we will all ignor that im sure). Also the “sludge found by miller was found to contain only 2% amino acid, the rest of which has not been found in any rock strata proving the theory incorrect. The amino acids were also equally left and rights, an incompatible building block for life.
Dave W comment,
Therefore, evolution does not know how life started.
Wow, what a horrible way to word that thought.
Hmm. Yeah.
And Dave, i came back didnt i. I wouldnt have said i would if i didnt mean it.
I'll be back soon as. There are some important things raised i with to reply too.
Hope there is some food for thought for some of you. Regards, Matt.
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 03:58:37 [Permalink]
|
Ok, to do a quote, simply go to the tool bar at the top of the page, where you will find a set of bolded quotation marks. Click on that and in your text, you will get this: [quote][/quote] All you have to do then is write between the quotes. Or, you can seclect some text and hit the "quote" feature and get the same thing.
Looking forward to your input...
Edited by Dr. Mabuse to 'fix' the quote tags. 
|
Thank you Filthy.
[Edited by Dr. Mabuse to fix formatting.] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/30/2009 08:35:09 |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 04:12:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by matt36
Test
|
Since your home page icon links to a commercial online clothing store, I must draw the conclusion that you're just spamming the forum for profit.
As long as it remains as it is, I will consider you a spamming clown not to be taken seriously.
|
My store is not a clothing store. Im here to talk about origins and admin are free to remove my link if they wish as i have around 20 thousand inbounds from more "neighborhood" friendly sites. (thats a google term, no ill meant). |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 04:23:24 [Permalink]
|
| We do know that the most simplest life forms are not so simple after all and a cell cannot exist or replicate unless all "components of that cell are present right from the word go. |
Sure, as soon as you demand "life forms," things are complex. But the precursors to life were necessarily not life, and were simpler. Evolution doesn't require "life." But more specifically, which parts of the current abiogenesis hypotheses fail to meet your approval?
|
Yes, i understand that the precursers wasnt life but the biulding blocks of life. This is what i was refering to.
Edited by Dr. Mabuse to fix formatting. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/30/2009 08:38:36 |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 04:27:46 [Permalink]
|
| (Dawkins says it may have been designed by evolved aliens from another planet) |
Yes, he did. When asked by Ben Stein for the creationist propaganda film, Expelled. Can you explain why Dawkins said what he said? If not, then you're just blindly following the movie, aren't you? |
Dawkins said it, he meant what he said, and theres no backpedaling.It was clear that he had thought alot about it before actually admitting to it. I dont say he beleives it. I say he thinks its a possibility or he would not have said it. Apple are apples im sorry and this applies to Dawkins.
Edited by Dr. Mabuse to fix formatting. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/30/2009 08:40:45 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 04:29:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Ok, to do a quote, simply go to the tool bar at the top of the page, where you will find a set of bolded quotation marks. Click on that and in your text, you will get this: [quote][/quote] All you have to do then is write between the quotes. Or, you can seclect some text and hit the "quote" feature and get the same thing.
Looking forward to your input...
Edited by Dr. Mabuse to 'fix' the quote tags.
|
Thank you Filthy.
|
[i]De nada, but matt, you really must format your posts better. The one above is all but illegible -- indeed, my old eyes couldn't get through it. So, I'll merely comment on scientific theory.
A scientific theory is one that has so much supporting evidence that it becomes fact. Even so, it is left open-ended, as someone might find the equivalent of a Devonian Bunny and toss the whole thing into the waste bin. "Proof" means nothing in science except for mathematics and whiskey, and in those cases, more is better.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 04:51:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Matt
However, evolutionists do say that evolution is an undeniable proven fact. This is the issue because evolution is not a proven fact. You say you require evidence of evolution from evolutionists, then where is it? Speak up, because no-one else ever has. Evolutionists "continually" say evolution is an undeniable proven fact without EVER ONCE supplying these proven facts. |
Bullshit. Here, do some reading. And some more.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 11/30/2009 04:52:47 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 05:10:47 [Permalink]
|
Evolution works in bits and pieces, changing one feature and/or another as it goes. Forget that micro/macro nonsense; it's all the same, damned thing: evolution. "Micro/macro" is a load of crap invented by Creationists to give them a talking point. For some perverse reason, it is now in use by scientists as well. Perhaps they don't want to confuse the opposition any more than they already have.
Anyhow, here is an example of how evolution works:
From Jaw to Ear: Transition Fossil Reveals Ear Evolution in Action
Now hear this: early mammal fossil shows how sensitive ear bones evolved
By David Biello
The mammal ear is a very precise system for hearing—enabling everything from human appreciation of music to the echolocation of bats. Three tiny bones known as ossicles—the hammer (malleus), anvil (incus) and stirrup (stapes)—work together to propagate sound from the outside world to the tympanic membrane, otherwise known as the eardrum. From there, the sound is transmitted to the brain and informs the listener about pitch, intensity and even location.
But it has been a mystery how this delicate system evolved from the cruder listening organs of our reptilian ancestors. Paleontologists have scoured fossil records in search of signs of how the jawbones of reptiles migrated and became the middle ear of mammals. Now Zhe-Xi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh and his colleagues have found one: Yanoconodon allini, an intermediate between modern mammals and their distant ancestors. "It helps to show a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears," Luo says.
|
There is no "poof-into-existence" in evolution; that is left to religious stories that not only have no evidential support, but actually defy the Laws of Physics as well as Logic.
As for abiogenesis, it remains to be seen. I personally, think the hypothesis is correct, but we lack as yet the exact process. Like evolution, research can be grindingly slow.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 07:44:37 [Permalink]
|
Is this one of the Oral Roberts homework trolls? Sorry Matt but your BS is far less creative than the usual creo.
I have one question to add to the list of questions you will ignore,
Please name one scientific fact(hint: its a trick question) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
