|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 0:04:13 GMT
The thing about mathematics is that if a person has the math right, that person is right, regardless of qualifications. Also if a person has it wrong, that person is wrong, regardless of qualifications. What I have told you is mathematically sound, so it doesn't matter how stupid you think I am or how smart you think you are. Truth has its own power. It is a pity then that you have the maths wrong. I dont give a flying fuck about your qualifications. If you blather about a subject using big words it doesnt mean you are right. It just means you dont know how to apply them and your result makes no sense. The pity is how much you seem to enjoy trashing this discussion board. The creationism versus evolution debate involves two groups of people who failed to understand the reality. The so called "creationists" take the Bible too literally even seeing the Bible does not require itself be taken literally. The so called "evolutionists" expect the mechanics of evolution to operate on lifeless matter when Darwin himself never argued it would. You might remember the defeated theory of "spontaneous generation." In remarkably similar news this discussion board is dominated by Republicans whose unfounded faith in "tradition" blinds them to the truth, and Democrats whose misguided faith in science blinds them to the actual science. Pity, pity.
|
|
|
Post by pathfinder on Apr 26, 2024 0:38:36 GMT
OK. Where is the lizard that became a snake?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 26, 2024 0:49:36 GMT
It is a pity then that you have the maths wrong. I dont give a flying fuck about your qualifications. If you blather about a subject using big words it doesnt mean you are right. It just means you dont know how to apply them and your result makes no sense. The pity is how much you seem to enjoy trashing this discussion board. The creationism versus evolution debate involves two groups of people who failed to understand the reality. The so called "creationists" take the Bible too literally even seeing the Bible does not require itself be taken literally. The so called "evolutionists" expect the mechanics of evolution to operate on lifeless matter when Darwin himself never argued it would. You might remember the defeated theory of "spontaneous generation." In remarkably similar news this discussion board is dominated by Republicans whose unfounded faith in "tradition" blinds them to the truth, and Democrats whose misguided faith in science blinds them to the actual science. Pity, pity. OK then who are these alleged "experts" that actually understand ID? Give actual names. Or are you somehow the only person on Earth that actually understands ID? Try to give an actual answer and not childish insults.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Apr 26, 2024 0:53:54 GMT
OK. Where is the lizard that became a snake? He's with the talking salamander.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 26, 2024 7:04:22 GMT
It is a pity then that you have the maths wrong. I dont give a flying fuck about your qualifications. If you blather about a subject using big words it doesnt mean you are right. It just means you dont know how to apply them and your result makes no sense. The pity is how much you seem to enjoy trashing this discussion board. The creationism versus evolution debate involves two groups of people who failed to understand the reality. The so called "creationists" take the Bible too literally even seeing the Bible does not require itself be taken literally. The so called "evolutionists" expect the mechanics of evolution to operate on lifeless matter when Darwin himself never argued it would. You might remember the defeated theory of "spontaneous generation." In remarkably similar news this discussion board is dominated by Republicans whose unfounded faith in "tradition" blinds them to the truth, and Democrats whose misguided faith in science blinds them to the actual science. Pity, pity. You keep coming up with beautiful idiocies that you seem to expect others to agree with. Evolutionists expect evolution to act on rocks? Hmmmm. I will check David Attenboroughs docos and David Suzukis speeches to see if they say that Of course with your amazing pronouncements in this thread you would be the perfect person to winkle out where Democrats go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 7:38:29 GMT
The pity is how much you seem to enjoy trashing this discussion board. The creationism versus evolution debate involves two groups of people who failed to understand the reality. The so called "creationists" take the Bible too literally even seeing the Bible does not require itself be taken literally. The so called "evolutionists" expect the mechanics of evolution to operate on lifeless matter when Darwin himself never argued it would. You might remember the defeated theory of "spontaneous generation." In remarkably similar news this discussion board is dominated by Republicans whose unfounded faith in "tradition" blinds them to the truth, and Democrats whose misguided faith in science blinds them to the actual science. Pity, pity. OK then who are these alleged "experts" that actually understand ID? Give actual names. Or are you somehow the only person on Earth that actually understands ID? Try to give an actual answer and not childish insults. Where you went to school and where I went to school are totally different. You depend on "experts" to tell you what to think. My school does their own thinking. Somewhere along the line your "experts" lost touch. You are fighters, not thinkers, and now you have no "experts" to tell you what you should fight to defend. There you go. If I show you experts you'll agree with me? I do not need your opinion. I do not need your approval. You do not get a vote. There is no voting in science. You will have no idea until someone you recognize as an expert tells you what to think. It's too bad you have no idea who are the experts.
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 26, 2024 7:39:26 GMT
Fucker Carlson is a cunt and troll. Like trump, he is a piece of human shit with legs.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 8:11:44 GMT
The pity is how much you seem to enjoy trashing this discussion board. The creationism versus evolution debate involves two groups of people who failed to understand the reality. The so called "creationists" take the Bible too literally even seeing the Bible does not require itself be taken literally. The so called "evolutionists" expect the mechanics of evolution to operate on lifeless matter when Darwin himself never argued it would. You might remember the defeated theory of "spontaneous generation." In remarkably similar news this discussion board is dominated by Republicans whose unfounded faith in "tradition" blinds them to the truth, and Democrats whose misguided faith in science blinds them to the actual science. Pity, pity. You keep coming up with beautiful idiocies that you seem to expect others to agree with. Evolutionists expect evolution to act on rocks? Hmmmm. I will check David Attenboroughs docos and David Suzukis speeches to see if they say that Of course with your amazing pronouncements in this thread you would be the perfect person to winkle out where Democrats go wrong. At first your antics were amusing, but it has become disturbing how incompetent you are. Some "experts" on evolution are very careful to note that evolution on rocks is rather unlikely. They speak instead of "abiogenesis." The vast majority of the public appears to miss that point. Are you trying to make a case for intelligent design or claim the case is already made? I say go for it. I have been convinced from the start myself. It amazes me what excuses people make to deny the truth. I do address those excuses, and you might find this helps. The problem is not the scientists. They can see in labs what is possible and not possible. The problem is the enormous numbers of the public who can't see anything. It has to be explained to them in ways they cannot challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 8:50:23 GMT
But it makes perfect sense. Intelligent Design is creationism. It was their attempt to shove creationism into schools under the pretenses that it was an actual science even though they basically admitted that if ID was science, so was astrology. The "Creationism versus Evolution debate" takes place between two groups of equally misinformed people. On the creationism side are the people who expect the Bible to be taken literally, even though the Bible itself does not require it be taken literally. On the evolution side are people who believe evolution can explain the origin of life, even though Darwin never claimed it would, and it obviously cannot happen. "Creationism" is the attempt by mentally retarded people on both sides, but especially atheists since they are more prone to take the Bible literally than any religious people are. You keep conflating evolution with the origin of life which is something creationists or people who don't understand the evolution say. I never saw anyone on "evolution side" suggest that it can explain the origin of life. Nonsense. Most atheists know that creationists are small minority of Christians who take the Bible literally. Also, doesn't change the fact that the Intelligent Design is not scientific but it's in fact creationism by another name.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 8:53:39 GMT
Neither does laying it off on an unprovable Intelligent Designer. You must have your existential justification wrapped up in ID. That’s fine for your own spirituality, but don’t expect it to be accepted as a legitimate science. It is a religious faith. Intelligent Design is as proved as gravity is. You are not able to understand that. Just as everything falls, the universe winds down when no living things wind it up. Fortuitously it really doesn't require your understanding, so you can go f___ yourself If Intelligent Design is as "proved" as gravity is, then where are the predictions that Intelligent Design can make? How can we test intelligent design? How can we falsify it?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 26, 2024 8:58:28 GMT
OK. Where is the lizard that became a snake?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 9:06:04 GMT
Technically he is not wrong. The Evolutionary theory is, after all, a theory. It just happened that at the moment we have no better way of explaining the living world. Science is not religion. You are not supposed to believe in it. You are supposed to constantly question theories, try to improve them and strive for the truth - not a truth you find convenient. Evolutionary theory explains the fact of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould explained it better than anyone:
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 9:20:38 GMT
The "Creationism versus Evolution debate" takes place between two groups of equally misinformed people. On the creationism side are the people who expect the Bible to be taken literally, even though the Bible itself does not require it be taken literally. On the evolution side are people who believe evolution can explain the origin of life, even though Darwin never claimed it would, and it obviously cannot happen. "Creationism" is the attempt by mentally retarded people on both sides, but especially atheists since they are more prone to take the Bible literally than any religious people are. You keep conflating evolution with the origin of life which is something creationists or people who don't understand the evolution say. I never saw anyone on "evolution side" suggest that it can explain the origin of life. Nonsense. Most atheists know that creationists are small minority of Christians who take the Bible literally. Also, doesn't change the fact that the Intelligent Design is not scientific but it's in fact creationism by another name.
I do not conflate evolution with the origin of life. Your people do that when when you try to dismiss one with the other.
And you just tried again to dismiss intelligent design by conflating it with creationism.
You do not understand how important it is to show your own argument for the origin of life. You think that while you cannot explain it today, just give it a million years. No, it is not even moving in that direction. If it were moving in that direction you might have a point, we might give it more time. It obviously is not going anywhere. In order for the reversals of entropy necessary for life, an intelligent agency is required.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 9:25:56 GMT
You keep conflating evolution with the origin of life which is something creationists or people who don't understand the evolution say. I never saw anyone on "evolution side" suggest that it can explain the origin of life. Nonsense. Most atheists know that creationists are small minority of Christians who take the Bible literally. Also, doesn't change the fact that the Intelligent Design is not scientific but it's in fact creationism by another name.
I do not conflate evolution with the origin of life. Your people do that when when you try to dismiss one with the other.
And you just tried again to dismiss intelligent design by conflating it with creationism.
You do not understand how important it is to show your own argument for the origin of life. You think that while you cannot explain it today, just give it a million years. No, it is not even moving in that direction. If it were moving in that direction you might have a point, we might give it more time. It obviously is not going anywhere. In order for the reversals of entropy necessary for life, an intelligent agency is required.
Then who are the people on the evolution side that claim that evolution can explain the origin of life? Certainly no evolutionary scientists make that claim. Because they're the same thing. Intelligent Design is creationism but wrapped in scientific babble to make it look scientific. But makes no predictions, it's not falsifiable nor testable because it's not science.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 9:30:41 GMT
Intelligent Design is as proved as gravity is. You are not able to understand that. Just as everything falls, the universe winds down when no living things wind it up. Fortuitously it really doesn't require your understanding, so you can go f___ yourself If Intelligent Design is as "proved" as gravity is, then where are the predictions that Intelligent Design can make? How can we test intelligent design? How can we falsify it? By the same logic that we can predict rocks won't sprout wings and fly, we can predict that no reversals of entropy will ever be sufficient to assemble a living thing unless directed by a living thing. How would you falsify gravity, by the way?
|
|