1 edit
Originally posted by telerion"Oh yeah, creationism can only be supported by appealing to the whim of an unobserved magical superbeing."
Uhm . . . ever been to Venezuela? I've spent some time there. Que molleja! It's unbelievable. There are few American women that come close, except perhaps the Venezuelan-American women.
Edit: and my wife . . . love ya honey.
Oh yeah, creationism can only be supported by appealing to the whim of an unobserved magical superbeing. Therefore it cannot ...[text shortened]... ry of evolution. At least not that we can discern at this point with our empirical knowledge.
You do not think that abiogenesis doesn't appeal to the godless mind
set? Having life set in motion from once non-living material hasn't
been seen or recorded, much like the Big Bang, matters of faith there
are matters of faith with appeal to those that want to claim them.
I would argue that God does reveal Himself in the lives of those that
belong to him, as well as the order of the universe in its vast
complexity and diversity too. You look for what supports what you
want to believe in and deny that which doesn't fit your stance, it is
a human trait.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAbiogenesis could be consistent with a god, just not your god. Why could a god not create the non-living material from which life arose? That's the beautiful of magical creatures. You can make up any sort of one.
"Oh yeah, creationism can only be supported by appealing to the whim of an unobserved magical superbeing."
You do not think that abiogenesis doesn't appeal to the godless mind
set? Having life set in motion from once non-living material hasn't
been seen or recorded, much like the Big Bang, matters of faith there
are matters of faith with appeal to those ...[text shortened]... ant to believe in and deny that which doesn't fit your stance, it is
a human trait.
Kelly
I do not start with the unquestionable assumption that there is no god, and then start my scientific investigation. If there is a god that can be detected scientifically, then I want to know about it.
In contrast, you and other creationists however begin with a faith-based assumption that your particular magical creature does exist. Only then can empirical investigation proceed. One should never question whether your god exists because he just does. Any observation is taken as a confirmation the faith-based assumption because it must be.
Awaiting your prostestations to the contrary . . .
Don't expect any more replies though. I've grown tired of this sort of debate long ago.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAmerica attacks other countries, thus preventing people from living securely within them. Who knows who they will attack next. At least the muslims only atttack ountries that have attacked them first. The difference between the U.S. and muslim countries is that the U.S. wants to take over the world, whereas the muslims just want the rest of the world to leave them in peace to practice their religion. I think you have been watching too much fox news. They have indoctrinated you. Watch out, they say fear aggression is the most dangerous kind.
This "damn culture of fear" is the very one allowing you to live nestled securely within whatever country you find yourself knitting. Get rid of the DCoF and see how far you get on that Bolero vest with the Muslims in charge. Dumb as a bag of hammers though Bush may be, I'll take the power-mongers pulling his strings over the so-called fidels anyday.
Originally posted by telerionDr. S, when you were on a peer review panel, did you allow split infinitives to go unpunished?
Uhm . . . ever been to Venezuela? I've spent some time there. Que molleja! It's unbelievable. There are few American women that come close, except perhaps the Venezuelan-American women.
Edit: and my wife . . . love ya honey.
Oh yeah, creationism can only be supported by appealing to the whim of an unobserved magical superbeing. Therefore it cannot ...[text shortened]... ry of evolution. At least not that we can discern at this point with our empirical knowledge.
Originally posted by whiteroseThe "Muslims" as a religious group are doing no such thing. There are political groups acting under the guise of defense of supposed religious sensibilities, however. And, no, I am not a big fan of Fox news sources.
America attacks other countries, thus preventing people from living securely within them. Who knows who they will attack next. At least the muslims only atttack ountries that have attacked them first. The difference between the U.S. and muslim countries is that the U.S. wants to take over the world, whereas the muslims just want the rest of the world to le ...[text shortened]... ws. They have indoctrinated you. Watch out, they say fear aggression is the most dangerous kind.
Rome, as you recall, was a republic; the peace which followed in the wake of its conquests is historically known as the Golden Age. In a room full of strangers and one gun, who are you most inclined to end up with the weapon?
Originally posted by telerionAnd I spake and prophesied unto the masses:
Uhm . . . ever been to Venezuela? I've spent some time there. Que molleja! It's unbelievable. There are few American women that come close, except perhaps the Venezuelan-American women.
Edit: and my wife . . . love ya honey.
Telerion will not get laid for nigh unto forty days and forty nights for his impertinence and lustful
thoughts.
Here endeth the lesson.
3 edits
Originally posted by royalchickenYes. To really get my ire requires something a bit more egregious.
Dr. S, when you were on a peer review panel, did you allow split infinitives to go unpunished?
Always strictly to follow conventions of English grammar often can make you sound like a fruit. A rule forbidding split infinitives is strictly conventional. By contrast, a rule that 'because' should only be used when its meaning applies is not.
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom reading the LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOONG....THREAD. looks like KJ likes the Pop-up variety of new Species. from nowhere..like a new Manga magazine.
Let me ask you a question: when a new species appears (something that has been observed) what would satisfy you that it had evolved from some other species? Or do you believe that they simply pop into existence out of nothing?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgreed, because to boldly shed light on causal relationships where none were expresses before is the original point of research.
Yes. To really get my ire requires something a bit more egregious.
Always strictly to follow conventions of English grammar often can make you sound like a fruit. A rule forbidding split infinitives is strictly conventional. By contrast, a rule that 'because' should only be used when its meaning applies is not.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFound a unit if that's enough
I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but I know it is relevant to your question:
Time = 1.1 ( R3 / GM)1/2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(unit)
Is there an equation to prove that DNA is genetic material? Is it a fallacy to believe it true.
Isn't evidence like the hawthorn fly (which appears to be splitting into to subspecies due to the two interbreeding at low frequency) or the Larus (gull) genus (which can often hybridise, but there are two species in Britain that cannot interbreed.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes, I'm surprised my drunken post with the incorrect usage of a word managed to get through the tough peer review process that we have on these forums - what WERE th moderators thinking! Of course, it's understandable that I got it wrong, after all I am (apparently) an alcoholic, simply because I occassionally get drunk.
Yes. To really get my ire requires something a bit more egregious.
Always strictly to follow conventions of English grammar often can make you sound like a fruit. A rule forbidding split infinitives is strictly conventional. By contrast, a rule that 'because' should only be used when its meaning applies is not.