1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWell sure, but what I usually do is probably better suited for devising imaginative theoretical patches. I'm still new at this (just started today) so the first thing I'll need to do is to suspend disbelief and subdue a natural penchant for sarcasm... but after I've gained some experience I might eventually prove to be useful as a defender and promoter of evolution.
I thought this sort of verbal jacking-off IS what you usually do. 😵
You believe in evolution, right? Does this belief come natural for you, or did you have to overcome a gag reflex?
Originally posted by lemon limeThe easiest part of supporting evolution is that you actually don't even
Well sure, but what I usually do is probably better suited for devising imaginative theoretical patches. I'm still new at this (just started today) so the first thing I'll need to do is to suspend disbelief and subdue a natural penchant for sarcasm... but after I've gained some experience I might eventually prove to be useful as a defender and promoter of ...[text shortened]... olution, right? Does this belief come natural for you, or did you have to overcome a gag reflex?
have to talk about evolution, just call the other person names or make
fun of them, it is standard a behavior among those that support the
theory.
Originally posted by KellyJayI know, but they can't seem to answer with anything else. That's why if I switch to their side of the argument it wouldn't take long before I could become the next Richard Dawkins!
The easiest part of supporting evolution is that you actually don't even
have to talk about evolution, just call the other person names or make
fun of them, it is standard a behavior among those that support the
theory.
The money is better (and easier to access) on their side. All I need to do is to come up with some sexy looking meaningless crap that passes their smell test, and I'll be well on my way to financial success. The sky's the limit, the world is my oyster. Why, I could even become the next Michael Moore of politics, or the next Al Sharpton of race relations, or...
Opps, I'm getting ahead of myself. Okay, one scam at a time... one at a time... I need to focus.
The next Al Gore of climate change? No, no... what was I thinking? You need loads of cash just to get a scam like that started. I'm not into making payoffs, I just wanna get paid.
Originally posted by lemon limeAs long as you keep God out of it, you may have a good chance of succeeding, but not with me. 😏
I've decided to switch sides and see how many holes in evolution I can plug by coming up with imaginative theories of my own. I may even coin new terminology and see what sticks... something like, for instance, truthification.
Truthification can be defined as a method (or theory) whereby a lie turns into a truth, or as a process of taking evidence poin ...[text shortened]... and go back to what I usually do... which will probably be tomorrow... or sooner, I don't know.
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah, I know... and I'm already starting to feel like a sell out and loathsome establishment tool. Once in a while I'll feel a sudden lust for glory and greed for easy cash, but it never lasts for very long.
As long as you keep God out of it, you may have a good chance of succeeding, but not with me. 😏
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIn the interests of fairness, tell us about your theory Kelly. Present your evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs, vegetarian ones at that. What evidence do you have to substantiate your belief? Non scriptural of course.
The easiest part of supporting evolution is that you actually don't even
have to talk about evolution, just call the other person names or make
fun of them, it is standard a behavior among those that support the
theory.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobLook through all of these posts, do you see me talking about either of those?
In the interests of fairness, tell us about your theory Kelly. Present your evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs, vegetarian ones at that. What evidence do you have to substantiate your belief? Non scriptural of course.
If you want to have a discussion on those topics, I suggest you start another
thread.
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't have "the facts" about your opinion. You seem to be claiming that mutations can only be harmful, or at least not often enough beneficial for natural selection to work. Could you maybe support that argument in any way?
You are the one that I guess has the facts you tell me!
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't seem be claiming nothing of the sort, one of my biggest issues with
I don't have "the facts" about your opinion. You seem to be claiming that mutations can only be harmful, or at least not often enough beneficial for natural selection to work. Could you maybe support that argument in any way?
the theory is the cherry picking of what gets to stay in life, it is just
accepted that which are supposed to be the good mutations keep building
on themselves so that life gets to keep them! With the good mutations the
belief is that they build everything over time from your front yard grass to
rabbits, whales, people, trees, jellyfish, ants and so on.
Random means just that, random, they come and go, nothing is safe
nothing just gets to stay! The alterations within living systems would just
be long string of ever changing mutations till one or some occurred to kill
off the life forms!
If that didn't happen then any nasty change in environment could do it.
But through the wonderful world of make believe, only the good mutations
stay within life and build upon themselves. How could a system like that
fail, nothing is allowed to stay within life that didn't make it better in this
dreamy theory of yours? If is a fairy tale worthy of the Grimm brothers.
You if you accept evolution must be a true believer, because nothing is
that full proof, you cannot see it on that scale, you must just accept it!
Originally posted by KellyJayAh okay, so the problem is you don't know what natural selection is. Here's some reading:
I don't seem be claiming nothing of the sort, one of my biggest issues with
the theory is the cherry picking of what gets to stay in life, it is just
accepted that which are supposed to be the good mutations keep building
on themselves so that life gets to keep them! With the good mutations the
belief is that they build everything over time from your fr ...[text shortened]... , because nothing is
that full proof, you cannot see it on that scale, you must just accept it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Originally posted by KellyJayAt some point the process will give way to a successor.
You don't seem to care about the ramifications that nothing is safe if the full
process is ever changing and nothing stops good or bad from occurring then
at some point the process will shut down. The more complex the living
system is the more that can go wrong, and nothing is safe. Unlike a stinking
game you play where you can start over life if breaks ...[text shortened]... se to a new condition.
You being a smart a$$ doesn't change that no matter what your smoking.
Originally posted by RJHindsCreationism is not a scientific theory. Intelligent design has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience - including the invention of new language to disguise its true provenance. I see no reason creationism should not be taught in Religious Education classes, but there is good reason not to teach it as science.
If the theory of evolution and billions of years is taught in school then YEC-ism should be given equal time.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI bet you could kill 99.9% of ID debates if the ID proponents could somehow be made to honestly answer the following question:
Creationism is not a scientific theory. Intelligent design has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience - including the invention of new language to disguise its true provenance. I see no reason creationism should not be taught in Religious Education classes, but there is good reason not to teach it as science.
Is the Bible ever wrong?
Or, perhaps even better:
Of the hundreds of truth claims made in the Bible, how many of them are false?