Noezz! Teh argumentz r hurting ma hed! Im out kthxbaibai. And then the PM's/posts stop.
form_srcid: Assassinator
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.96
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: Assassinator
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Assassinator%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2007/11/03 19:27:13, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] O for the love of God >.< I joined this forum because i thought i finally found a good forum dedicated about evolution and it's side-subjects with adult acting people who actually know something about the subject. And what do i find: topics like this. I'm 17 years old myself, but i have to say something to the lot of you: grow up! All the ranting, all the swearing, it's not getting you ánywhere!! Is it so hard to discuss like adults without name calling and with respect to eachother even if one is clearly stating some wrong things? Jeez.... (well, so far for my first post :)) |
| Date: 2007/11/03 19:42:13, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I didn't cry at Shawshank, but it's truely one of the best drama's I've seen in my short life so far and I definatly don't like drama's :P And because my life is short, I don't have a lot of fav movies yet, but some nonetheless. Gattaca: Such a beautifull sci-fi movie, it almost made me cry. Just to see in what world someone could do to achieve his dreams, beating the system...downright beautifull, hard to explain with more words. Contact: How people would react to the discover of intelligent extra-terrestial life, the phylosphical (I misspelled that didn't I?) and religious questions it would arise. Awsome. The Matrix Trilogy: Simply lóve the fighting :D Kill Bill 1 and 2: Simply awsome :D Delightfuly over-the-tup, pure cult, awsome martial-arts. The Big Lebowski: Seen it a couple of time's, it's soooo funny! Awsome cult-status. Hmmm, all i can think off right now. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 04:34:43, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Sorry to break in guys, i'm just new here, but i've got a few questions for Daniel. First of all, what do you want Daniel? I don't get it, are you interested in reality of are you interested in confirming you're own thoughts? Because if it is the latter, that's not what science is about. I also read you were more interested in the scientists who were shunned by the scientific world, the one's who were laughed at etc etc. But also, that's not where it is about, it's pure about evidence. Hell, it doesn't matter if correct statements are brought by a light-blue, Satan worshipping fairy with daisy's sprouting out of it's head: evidence is evidence, no matter who brought it up. Persons do not matter, and so does your own thoughts about this subject. If you want to learn, let those things go. I don't have the idea you want to learn, but only want to confirm you're own thoughts, that there must be some form of design, designer or end-goal. I think you have emotionally attached yourself to your own idea about reality, i wonder why. This may be a lot for me to ask, because i'm new, but maybe you could give a little summary about what you think Daniel. Maybe this would help the discussion in general, it's getting a little out of hand because people start ignoring important parts of posts from eachother. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 08:12:19, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] Aha, well, i guess i have to look further for a better suited forum. Mocking other people's thoughts get you nowhere in science. If this is the darwinian community, i wouldn't want to be part of it. Too many presumptions about other people, too much childish name calling. Bah. Well, go on then, i guess reason can't stop it anyway. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 11:41:48, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] O yes I have, and I see loads of missconceptions from him. Is that a reason for mocking him? No. Sharply written comments are good because they keep you on your toes, but that has nothing to do with swearing, calling names and simply laughing at someone. I do understand a bit why you guys are doing it, VMartin is simply dodging questions and ignoring large parts of posts he quotes from, most of the times the parts wich are actually relevant to the subject, same with Daniel. Because they're so wrong, they're easy targets to pick on, but you're not building a good reputation. I have only one real question: why can't it just stay friendly? By swearing, you're only giving people like VMartin a reason to get offtopic. If you just react on there thoughts, on there arguments and nothing left you give them no room to go offtopic and thus cornering them. And please don't start with "But he started!!" things, you guys arn't toddlers ^^ But if this forum is indeed just a place to mock other people's (aka kinder garten) wrong thoughts instead of trying to explain evo and all it's surrounding subjects (wich is the main problem of evo, it has a HUGE PR problem) to other people, then i guess it ain't the right place for me. If so, does anyone knows a forum wich is doing that? I'm just trying to learn here, because it's my goal to get into evolutionary research with my bio-informatics study. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 11:59:14, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] You're saying i'm trolling? Odd, I'm just asking if discussion just can't be friendly, why it has to be done with swearing and mocking. If you want to react, fine, but a reaction on the contents would be nice. What do you want: a flamewar, or a fruitfull discussion? |
| Date: 2007/11/04 12:29:53, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] The fact that someone gets rude, isn't a reason to get rude yourself ofcourse. Then you're just lowering yourself to there standards. If someone gets rude: ignore mode activated, filter out the relevant pieces of there posts and react on those. It's true thought that even if one doesn't respond to the other's ranting, the flamer usually stops posting and leaves. A shame really, it's pretty hard to find a good discussion with someone who supports the ET and someone who does not support the ET or certain parts of the ET. I've met someone though who could react ontopic without ranting, but lots of times when I saw a discussion sparking between him and a pro-evo, he was usually welcomed with lots of prejudges. And well, just because it's true that lots of discussions with anti-evo people grind to a halt, isn't a reason not to try ^^ Although I could understand it's wearing people out, explaining those misunderstandings about evolution over and over and over again. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 12:31:39, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] O and for the record: I'm NOT here to flame. Just to learn, observe and discuss. I was hoping this was at the right address for that here. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 12:32:38, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] I mean troll, not flame :P Where is the "Edit" option on this forum? |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:05:01, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
I agree that lots of people also have preconcieved ideas about a god. But there is also something else, it looks like you're emotionally attached to your preconcieved ideas. Note that the word "God" doesn't mean anything by itself, it's rather a coat rack (i hope i translate that correctly) on wich people put there own image of the word "God". The word "God" is thus worthless to science. Science can only work with certain images of the word "God". It's so easy to modify that image. Not even that long ago, and even today, people still beleive that God created and designed everything around us, but not in the way you would beleive it. The role of God has changed, it's like the God of the Gaps.
Explain yourself. Because i don't see why. I'm only seeing a certain interpretation of the available evidence so the evidence fits in your beleifs. But is that interpretation in agreement with reality? Ofcourse, you can ask the same with other interpretations.
You shouldn't take the world "explosion" too literally. It still took several millions of years, and that's VERY long and LOTS of generations fit into that.
No, it does not. It's complex in your eyes, nothing more. Hell, we may meet aliens who laugh at our simple planet with our simple lifeforms. It's simply not an argument to say it's complex compared what we can do. The fact that we don't get it, is no argument for design, it's only an argument for our limited knowledge.
My goal? To learn more about reality. My preconcieved ideas? No idea, i don't give a ratsass if our planet was made by a God, erupted out of natural laws or made by aliens from starsystems thousands of lightyears away for an experiment. I just care about what's true. Ofcourse i consider the possibility of a designing God, but as i sad before there is no evidence or objective sign for such a being. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:12:53, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I don't know if they're not falsified, so i'm asking other people now if they do know if they're falsified and if they can post links to papers and other stuff about it. (and please, no ad hominems on that :) ) |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:24:18, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Well it's not about having a better idea, evolution isn't right just because it's the only real scientic theory about it (don't get me wrong, i'm an evolutionist) so you shouldn't ask martin about that. I've read comments from him, he has indeed lots of faulty idea's about the ET in general. Also i don't see a lot of ontopic reactions from him, and he dodges questions frequently.
Science isn't a circuss, don't abuse science for entertainment purposes. If you want to have fun: go join a flash mob somewhere :P |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:31:59, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I'm sorry Martin i don't really see what you're trying to prove here. I don't think you're trying to disprove natural selection, because it's easely viewed in daily life, but i think you're trying to disprove that natural selection is leading to new species. Am i right? |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:34:03, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Ofcourse not, but this forum is about evolution, and evolution is science (just ignoring Hovindt here) :) |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:35:13, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Thanks, do you have links to articles about that? Would be nice ;) (just here to learn :D) |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:43:52, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
And because you are emotionally attached to your views, you won't accept evidence. Before you would, you would first try to fit in that evidence in your own picture of reality. Also, you're giving your own images about reality too much credit: Face it: they're unimportant, the universe doesn't give a rats ass about your views and also about mine and any other human. But again, it's complex in YOUR eyes. Take for example sea urchins. We humans share 70% of our DNA with sea urchins. Now you can say 2 things: either sea urchins are VERY complex, proving your point, or you can say that we are VERY simple because we're still that similair with sea urchins. Now who is right? The choice is completly made on personal taste, and has nothing to do with science. It's simply not an argument. You're using all kinds of emotional words, like "elegance" and "sophistication" but those words mean nothing. They're all bound to your emotions, and your emotions are worthless here just like mine. I don't think you want to learn about reality, because you've already made up your mind on nothing more then personal preferences. What's left to discuss then? |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:53:24, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Another thing, i do understand your point-of-view a bit. Because it's ages old. Hundreds of years ago people saw lightening, it made no sense to them, they were overwhelmed and simply didn't know what it was. The most reasonable thought: something greater then us is causing it. It's exactly the same as we're having with the developement from life on earth: we don't fully understand, and some people totally don't understand (again: evolution has a VERY big PR problem) because they don't understand the science behind it. I've got the same, when i watch at the stars at night (when the ratchet Dutch weather allows me) i find it so incredibly beautifull, but i know my personal feelings have nothing to do what's out there. I know what i'm watching it, nothing more then huge balls of gas billions of lightyears away. But that knowledge is making it more spectaculair for me, i'm realising that i'm watching light erupted thousands if not millions of years ago, a downright timemachine! I'm so amazed by what i'm watching, but again it has nothing to do with science. My personal feelings about the universe don't say anything about the universe itself. It's exactly the same as what you're having with life on earth. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 13:58:20, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| What the HELL is hereoisreal trying to say?? Bible quotes, wierd math things wich completly lack any form of sense and odd statements. I don't get it. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 14:23:21, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Those kind of people are the reason i want to become an anthropologist or socialist (i hope i translated that correctly) :P But i don't think he's posting here for our amusement right (aka, he's dead serious)? |
| Date: 2007/11/04 14:58:16, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| O dear...well, too bad for him. Our whole westren vacination program is based on natural selection. If natural selection didn't exist...how the hell would vacination work anyway?? I mean, bacterial strands who are not resistant to the medicne die and those who are do not die, so in the end only the one's who are resistant will live: voila, natural selection. And then we have to make new medicine etc etc etc. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 15:22:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I'll be waiting for a reaction from him ;) I've had some experience with people claiming such things, but i'm still hoping he will be different. You may call it naïve, but i'm just trying to keep an open mind ^^ O well, the future will tell us. |
| Date: 2007/11/04 17:19:45, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Then i'm also curious why you're (directing at Daniel here, ofcourse) so sure of those theory's because apperantly you don't know a lot about them. Is it really just because Shindewolf was mocked at by the scientific community? You do know that that has absolutly nothing to do with the vality of his theory, right? |
| Date: 2007/11/05 11:55:29, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Again VMartin, the whole medicinal industry is based on natural selection. I don't get it, natural selection doesn't exist?? It's the most easly spotted and easly observed in nature! You're saying natural fitness does not exist, huh?? You're basicly saying genetics is bullshit, odd. Another example of selection, out Biology Seventh Edition. Scientists had 2 pools with guppies. One pool had killifish as predators who prey on small guppies. Another pool had pike-cichlids as predators, who preyed on large guppies. The guppies in the killifish pool were larger at sexual maturity and the guppies in the piki-cichlid pool were smaller at a sexual mature age. Then they transplanted guppies from the pike-cichlid pool in another pool with just killifish. After 11 years, the average size and age at maturity of guppies in the transplanted population increased compared to those of guppies in control populations. The experiments were conducted by Reznick and Endler. That's natural selection, a transplant like that can happen in nature too. I'll try to look it up on the web. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 11:59:00, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Ofcourse i'm talking about the offspring, forgot to say that. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 12:44:40, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
News flash: we ARE the ape-world. We're just a primate as chimps are. Human = primate, chimpansee = primate, gorrilla = primate etc etc etc. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 12:51:43, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Thanks Jim, still working on my english :) Anyway, there is NO way i could ever react to the things he says, they simply do not make any sense. Funny to see btw, how so many people can't make difference between reality and they're own thoughts and ideas. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 14:05:19, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
To use a famous internet lingo: ORLY??? Now what do you have to prove that, just ancient texts wich you interpret in a certain way? |
| Date: 2007/11/05 14:08:00, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
It's not really my goal to become one, i'm studying bio-informatics at the minute :) But have a good day too. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 14:23:39, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Haha now THAT would be really funny. Then he's also saying genetic diseases do not exist. How the hell would he support that statement, this is getting funnier by the minute. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 14:51:53, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I think they mean that 99.8% of the men and 41.1% of the women were literate. I can't imagine that even in 2006 almost every man would be illiterate and more then 40% of the women would be. Sounds odd anyway, women more litterate in Arad country's then men? And not even a bit, no WAY more litterate. Hell you would think women would run those country's then, but we know that even in 2006 the truth is the other, harsh, way around. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 15:21:15, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| No no no the ape only had the ape version of HIV, it mutated into a virus wich could also infect humans. O dang! Forgot, ofcourse that's impossible, mutating virusses, how rediculous! |
| Date: 2007/11/05 16:42:58, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
You're reading in the Bible what you want to read, "search and you shall find". In all, it's an age old collection of scriptions and no sort of manual on how to read it is preserved. We only have the scholary methode to get some clues about what the writers could've ment with there texts. Have you ANY idea how many interpretations there are of scriptures like the Bible?? Your just 1 of them, 1 of many who all claim to be right. This has nothing to do with patterns. For example, i have to bike across a bridge everyday to get to the trainstation for school. Now when the sun is bright, i see lots and lots of triangles because of particles in the tarmac are flashing in the sunlight. Would this mean the bridge is actually just another Masonary sign of there goal of world-domination (1 of there signs is a piramide: triangle). Ofcourse not. You say you're not proving anything? Ofcourse not, it's all clear to you, you've got your answers, you've made up your mind. Are you trying to enlighten us then? With what? |
| Date: 2007/11/06 02:58:25, Link 145.74.83.198 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ya know Martin, it would be nice if you would actually do something more then just rant. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 03:01:18, Link 145.74.83.198 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Nothing more then rants from him indeed. And still, no answer from him :) |
| Date: 2007/11/06 06:52:25, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Haha, nah it won't come to that ;) I'll rather watch with a big grin on my face seeing how people totally make fun of themselfs without even realising. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 11:41:55, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| HIV/AIDS/HIV-AIDS link denial isn't crea-only though. I've followed some discussions from people who were VERY anti-religion, but they definatly sad either AIDS is not caused by HIV, HIV has never been found or HIV simply doesn't exist. Hell, i've even seen someone deny that virusses cause disease! I'm still curious about the non-crea arguments, the crea arguments are too obvious and stupid anyway. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 12:09:21, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Yup, to bad the discussions I followed are in Dutch, or else I would link there arguments. I don't know enough about virology to make sense of it. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 13:05:36, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Yes :) |
| Date: 2007/11/06 14:45:21, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Haha it's not as good as you would expect :P Most of my english is self-taught, and still full of errors. In my last 2 years of high-school, they repeated 1st year grammar >.< Anyway, I've tried to find some links about that guy who says virusses don't cause disease, but i can't find it anymore. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 15:06:27, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Depends Martin, apperantly you forget that not every part of the planet is the same. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 15:21:26, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| There is no battle Christopher, because "God" is a totally unworkable hypothesis for science to work with. "God" does not mean anything by itself, it only has meaning because of what people link to the word "God". It's an untestable hypothesis, completly worthless. And because of that, "God" never lost from science, simply because there was never ever a battle to start from. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 15:21:56, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Dang, some mistakes in that post, but can't correct it. Sorry for those. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 17:39:31, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
It's ok if someone comments darwinism and neodarwinisn, but only if the person in question would have good knowledge about those theory's. You Martin, do not have such knowledge. At least, in your recent topics and reactions you have shown 0 knowledge about any evolution-linked topic. That would be fine ofcourse, but you're making al kinds of statements wich i'm still wondering about how you support them with your VERY limited knowledge about the subjects, other then just acting like a sheep and following those anti-evo guys without question.
O please Martin, are you trying to get ethics into this? Ethics have NOTHING to do with the workings of nature, absolutly 0. The world works in a way, if you like it or not: it simply does. You're not living in some kind of fluffy Bambi world wich you think is nature, right? You're bassicly saying that evolution would totally reduct nature into nothing more then a cold machinery. You couldn't be more wrong. The fact that we would know how certain aspects of nature would work, doesn't say anything about my emotions I linked to those very aspects of nature. I know what I'm looking at when I see the sunset, but the fact that I do says absolutly nothing about the beauty of that very sunset. Same with the stars at night. I know what I'm looking at, but I'm actually even more amazed because of certain facts I know about what I'm looking at. You're mixing things up, BIGTIME. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 17:48:03, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I still don't really fully understand you Martin. You're bassicly saying natural selection is pure bullcrap, but on what scientific base are you saying that? What's your scientific comment against all those countless numbers of experiments (I gave you one 1 or 2 pages ago, wich you completly ignored). You're bassicly whiping away the whole of genetics, now that's some serious stuff. So I'm asking again: on wich ground are you totally whiping away a major quantity of modern science, right into the dustbin. Our constant struggle to develop new antibiotics is actually proof for natural selection, to put in easy language: we pwn bacteria with antibiotics, then lots of bacteria die but not every single one of them because of certain biochemical properties because of certain genetic differences. They reproduce, and pwn our drugs. Then we develop new antibiotics to pwn those bacteria, but not every bacteria dies because of etc etc etc. And so the patern continue's. Now what's your scientific comment against all that? Are you saying we're making all those new antibiotics for nothing? What's actually happening then? |
| Date: 2007/11/06 17:51:42, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Lose?? By the looks of it, they're getting more support by the people though. We gave them space to do so because we're a bit in an ivory tower, evolution has a huge PR problem. I don't see it as funny, but rather a bit dangerous. |
| Date: 2007/11/07 03:11:12, Link 145.74.83.197 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Thank you Martin for again ignoring any substantial ontopic reaction and only reacting on a tiiiiny fragment of just 1 post that's nothing more then an ad hominem! |
| Date: 2007/11/07 08:29:04, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
That's what you say, but it's simply not true. You should watch the movie 23 with Jim Carrey (he's playing a serious role in that movie) and see the rediculousness of your "patterns" in the Bible. I won't even begin about how many serious Biblical scholars would say your ideas are bullcrap. It has nothing to do with science, you're making your own answers. You're quoting one site, why would I trust them? |
| Date: 2007/11/07 09:10:03, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Ya know FtK, you may rant about Louis, but you didn't react on the content of his post. Because i still wonder, is it true what he says, or is he simply lying? Can he look up comments from you, or won't he find any? |
| Date: 2007/11/07 09:20:55, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Comments are fine FtK but stop making fun of yourself by actually backing up those comments with arguments and facts. |
| Date: 2007/11/07 09:22:04, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Ofcourse i mean that you should stop making fun of yourself by NOT backing up those comments with arguments and facts. Silly me, it has been a hard and tirering day for me ;) |
| Date: 2007/11/07 09:28:19, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Sorry, that's a lie. You've also got radial symmetry next to bilateral symmetry. It would be nice if you would actually know something about biology. Besides, the fact that those symmetry's exist doesn't say anything, that's been observed for ages. You're not saying anything with it, nor is your Bible quote. |
| Date: 2007/11/07 09:37:38, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
The resistance against antibiotics is as natural as it can be, we're not doing anything there. That would be pure bullcrap too, because that would mean we're destroying our own medical systems. Also the guppy experiment is not artificial selection, it's purely natural. I don't think you actually know what artificial selection is.
Wrong Martin, you're only talking about 1 kind of natural selection. Next to stabilizing selection, you've also got disruptive and directional selection. It would be nice if you would actually know something about the subject.
They're very weak you say, tell us why, explain it yourself. And like Arden Chatfield asks time and time again, how are you explaining the variaty between living creatures then? Take for example the Dubuatia plants on the Hawaiian islands collectivly known as the "silversword alliance". How do you explain those huge external differences without natural selection? |
| Date: 2007/11/07 10:46:30, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Haha, good one's. Mellow humor, gotta love it.
It has to do with gravity, if you really want to know. That |
| Date: 2007/11/07 11:32:08, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Yeap, and don't forget the fun with globes of water in zero G, it stays fun :P |
| Date: 2007/11/07 11:43:18, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Nooo he didn't JohnW!!!
And we all know that doesn't exist! Damn you JohnW, you Stalanistic Satan-worshipper!!! |
| Date: 2007/11/07 12:53:31, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I'de like to speak to God, and since he's God afterall it would be nice if he could place a post in this topic. Ya know just to varify things. Is communication that much to ask? |
| Date: 2007/11/07 13:31:52, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I'll revert to
again, thank you. |
| Date: 2007/11/07 14:08:06, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Why don't you show us that you DO know something about it then? Instead of avoiding the contents of my post, you can easely counter then if you would know so much about the subject. |
| Date: 2007/11/07 14:30:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Mimicry is a bad name for it imo. Because they're not really mimicking, they're just certain heritable colorpaterns wich were better suited then other paterns. |
| Date: 2007/11/08 08:13:17, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I'll quote myself for the 2nd time Martin:
|
| Date: 2007/11/09 16:45:45, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Well I'de like more reactions on Martin's examples too, instead of constantly repeating "Do you have something better?" (I sound like a traitor for some people now :P) |
| Date: 2007/11/09 18:09:01, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I still wonder about one thing: what does the bird stomach research Marty quoted mean? What is the correct conclusion from it, based on what? (I'm here to learn remember) |
| Date: 2007/11/10 12:08:36, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Got a little question :)
Can anyone post links to those reviews? (I already got the TolkOrigins link) |
| Date: 2007/11/10 16:39:39, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Wich "saltational" events? You mean like the Cambrian Explosion? That still took several millions of years, and that's one HELL of a long time. |
| Date: 2007/11/14 09:44:14, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Can I view that show online? I don't think it's being broadcasted here in Holland and I'm dying to see it.
I HATE labs :P The dangerous stuff and all the safety crap make me icky ^^ |
| Date: 2007/11/14 11:39:31, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Thanks Louis :P Btw, pretty randomn sentences you know :D Mijn (Mein is German) geschlachtsorganen doet pijn." = My genitals hurt. And "Stoned als een garnaal" = Stoned like a schrimp. I live in the middle of Holland, in the south-western tip of a province called Gelderland. And yea I hate labs, at least what I have to do in labs with my Bio-Informatics study. What do you have to do in labs then? Can't wait for it to come online, it sure sounds hilarious :P |
| Date: 2007/11/16 07:31:03, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Are you forgetting that not all birds are the same, and not all insects are equally spread throughout the world? The world is DIFFERENT remember, and so are bird-species and insect-species. |
| Date: 2007/11/16 08:33:30, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Someone sad the show would be online on friday, is it there already and if so what's the site? |
| Date: 2007/11/18 06:59:42, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
@BWE: Don't bother, he thinks he owns a blog here or something. Things like
simply do not make sense, it's bullcrap. I discuss with biblical scholars every day, they laugh at stuff like this. There is no way you could engage in a meaningfull dialog with heroisreal, he doesn't even realise he doesn't make any sense. |
| Date: 2007/11/18 07:27:23, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
See what I mean BWE? But ok, so this is your personal place to make yourself ridiculous, goodluck with it. |
| Date: 2007/11/23 16:46:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Have you got any idea how long those "explosions" took? Furthermore, convergent evolution isn't a piece of evidence for directed evolution. It's simply an unsupported interpretation of it. I'll simply quote the Wiki about convergent evolution: [quote]In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches[1]. It is the opposite of divergent evolution, where related species evolve different traits.[/ |
| Date: 2007/11/23 16:59:40, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Indeed, what's better: some protection, or no protection? Yes there is a bird family devoted to those nasty lil' stingers, but how big is the % of that family compared to all bird family's? Those bees still have that protective coloring, but that bird family simply doesn't fall for it. The rest still does, still shrinking the chance of getting eaten and increasing the chances of a population to reproduce better. Only a fraction of all animals alive today doesn't have natural enemies (except from it's own kind and us). |
| Date: 2007/11/23 17:04:54, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ya don't wanna know what kind of fetishes are around the world ;) I bet at least some people on this planet would get a hard one from those pictures, wich grosses me out. |
| Date: 2007/11/24 11:53:07, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| It ain't no happy accident! Natural selection and bio-chemistry aren't random. Besides, simple doesn't mean correct. |
| Date: 2007/11/25 15:13:40, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Don't even bother responding, I really think he has some mental problems. I can't imagine that someone with a healthy mind can produce this kind off.....flapdoodle... There is no way you can engage in a real conversation with this guy. |
| Date: 2007/11/25 15:22:45, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Everyone can see that Martin, we're not saying they don't. There is no perfect mimicry, but what's better: imperfect mimicry wich offers some protection against a certain number of predators or no mimicry wich offers no protection against at all. Besides, mimicry is just another form of camouflage. |
| Date: 2007/11/25 15:28:44, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] I think you don't get it skeptic, they were engaged in something called a "humorous conversation", they were not serious. You just missed 2 times of sarcasme. |
| Date: 2007/11/26 13:22:38, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
At biology class we calculated that about 1.7% of the whole human genome is for coding. Is that correct? |
| Date: 2007/11/26 13:54:59, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
No hero light comes from lightsources like the sun or a lightbulb. Fotons react with the receptors in your eyes, that's how you see. The wavelenght determins the color. (see what I mean Steve?) And yes hero, things like
are indeed bullcrap. |
| Date: 2007/11/26 15:05:39, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
If you would actually KNOW what's being sad here, you would know you're talking out of your ass. The question is still open though: If natural selection does not explain mimicry, what does then? What's another viable, testable hypotheses? |
| Date: 2007/11/26 15:42:04, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Do you REALLY think they were serious? |
| Date: 2007/11/26 15:44:36, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| A fresh start would be a good idea indeed, I'm waiting like a little boy who is waiting for Christmas :) |
| Date: 2007/11/29 17:16:56, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
And that Daniel, is your whole problem. It's something we called "biased" but not a bit, no you're severly biased because of your faith. This though, life, lightning, is all in the realm of reality. Your faith, you're own personal opinions do not matter there. Lightning doesn't give a damn about what you think, hell the whole universe doesn't give a damn about what you, me, Steve, Arden or anyone thinks! Science is nothing more then a tool to uncover that reality, to know about that reality. It has nothing to do with your emotions, with you as a person. Individuals do not matter in science, they do not matter in the process of uncovering reality. In your first post in this topic you already admitted, wich was very good, that you're not a scientist and not schooled in this matter. But you are still thinking you can form a decent image about this subject, even though the little things you do know are self-taught and not even neccesarly true because you don't know if you have seen the whole picture. You can only learn when you let go of that emotional bonding to your personal ideas and thoughts. Myself, I still hope that reïncarnation exists, but that personal thought is not blurring my vision on reality. |
| Date: 2007/11/29 17:18:36, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
@JAM: I've asked a little question about that matter myself a while ago, it seems it isn't answerd yet :) Anyway, a while ago we've calculated in life-science class that only about 1.7% of the whole human genome is for coding. I wonder if that is true. |
| Date: 2007/11/30 04:49:26, Link 145.74.83.204 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Yea, I do, so what? Do you know how dreaming works? If not, don't say those things about them.
Even your meaningless "math" fails. GD+ 00 = GD00 As Steve says, you're seeing things who aren't there. Just watch 23 with Jim Carrey. |
| Date: 2007/11/30 18:18:50, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
You can't compare biology with human technology in that way. There simply is no solide ground to support that comparison. We can see and explain why kidney's are inefficient, and well badluck that we don't have the technology to increase that. That doesn't change anything to the fact that kidney's are inefficient. And don't forget, there is simply no way to test if life is designed. It's a worthless hypothesis because it's based on a flawd comparison between nature and man-made technology. |
| Date: 2007/12/01 16:32:09, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Well there is a rift between orthodox religion and science. Religion once served as a method to explain the world around them. It's not that wierd that 2 millenia ago the most logical answer to lots of answers was a supreme being. People just couldn't imagine anything else. Only recently we're been exploring other options with reason and no longer with emotion. That way of thinking is pretty young, only about 2 century's. But the other way, the emotional or religious way is as old as mankind. No wonder there is conflict, the emotional way is totally baked into our society. People generally don't like change, don't like uncertanty's. Religious explanations offer security because they're so old and thus lots of people are emotionally bonded to those explanations. |
| Date: 2007/12/01 17:25:27, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| The opposite? How? Science is about learning, is about progress. It's just a tool to find out more about the world around us. |
| Date: 2007/12/02 09:24:43, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| To bad hero, your doing it in the wrong language. The Bible isn't in english, it's original language of the Old Testament was Hebrew and the New Testament was in Greek. Your patterns are flawd. |
| Date: 2007/12/02 11:15:31, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
English is my second language, no one is perfect. Anyway, the English written Bible isn't the original Bible, it's not the language from the so-called "divine inspired" writers.
And what about a Martian day then? Or a Plutonian day? |
| Date: 2007/12/02 17:52:34, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Europian day then? Mercurian day? Or a day at Gliese 581 c perhaps? |
| Date: 2007/12/03 12:33:25, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Because it's far from the only planet. Besides, even if you want to use an earthren day, do you want a day from 5 billion years ago? Or now? Or maybe just 500 million? Anyway, you keep posting those mathy thingies, but still they don't make sense. It's simply not math, again you're seeing things that aren't there just as in the movie 23. |
| Date: 2007/12/03 15:42:16, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
You've first made yourself a puzzle, and then went searching for the pieces. Seek and though shalt find.
No need to apologise, but I'll ask again: why aren't you just seeing what you want to see? |
| Date: 2007/12/04 14:18:20, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
It's not about your faith, it's about the world outside your head. Your faith is about the same world you and I live in. Your form of "God" does not exist just because you beleive in it. If so, it has nothing to do with the reality outside your mind. |
| Date: 2007/12/04 14:36:16, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Thanks for the correction Lou. Anyway, can you explain that to us hero, what I and Steve sad. |
| Date: 2007/12/04 14:38:46, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Huh? IDers/crea's are actually using the eugenics/moral "argument" against evolution sometimes but judging the start post of this topic they're actually linked sometimes with groups involved in eugenetics?? My my, talk about hypocrisy, that's almost an understatement. |
| Date: 2007/12/04 14:57:02, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I've discussed with a lot of crea's, this is what usually happens when I'm starting to get to-the-point: Noezz! Teh argumentz r hurting ma hed! Im out kthxbaibai. And then the PM's/posts stop. |
| Date: 2007/12/05 08:44:00, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Oooo, all the crea's will get pwned now! [b]Natural Selection, even in science![/quote]  Phear ma leet Paint skillzzz! PS: This is my own cat, the photo is made a week ago. The backyard was one big feathercarpet :D |
| Date: 2007/12/06 14:35:41, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Haha, there are more songs from MC Hawking. Gotta love Microsoft Sam ;) I wonder if anyone ever switched Microsoft Sam voice with Microsoft Sally while Mr Hawking was sleeping, that would be quite a suprise for him. |
| Date: 2007/12/06 14:43:49, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Maybe the eeevil conspiracy that science is against them! I'm in a discussion at the minute, with a guy who blaims the scientific system for making the standards for empirical data/proof too high. Damn you science, it's aaaaaall your fault!! |
| Date: 2007/12/06 16:07:29, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| You're ignoring the language question, I'm still eager to hear. |
| Date: 2007/12/07 03:50:19, Link 145.74.83.197 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
There is. When the Bible was written, wich didn't even happen simultaniously, America didn't even exist. The language we're speaking right now didn't even exist. The Bible wasn't written in your language, it was in Hebrew, Greek and Araimac. The Bible your finding "patterns" in is nothing more then a (rough) translation. |
| Date: 2007/12/07 03:52:44, Link 145.74.83.197 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
How incredibly cocky! You're speaking for God, who do you think you are?? He can speak for himself, you don't have to tell him what to do. |
| Date: 2007/12/07 09:10:49, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Well, ofcourse you've got different grades of faith. Trust is also an example of faith. But the key difference is the foundation of that trust. For example scientists trust other scientists that they can do there work, but the foundations of that trust are the proof that those scientists can be trusted. Phd's, peer-reviewd work and things like that. That's the main difference with the faith in religion. It's, in a way, blind. It has no solid foundation. |
| Date: 2007/12/07 09:42:22, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Gee, that's odd afdave. Every time I actually started a discussion with a creationist, it's the creationist who walked away and didn't respond to new posts and/or PM's. |
| Date: 2007/12/07 11:58:20, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
A gippy? Now how the f*** do black, skulls, 18th century style clothing (for the girls at least) combine with happiness, bright green, yellow, blue etc etc and flowers correspond to each other?? Besides, that Southpark kid isn't a goth, he's an emo. Anyway, I "spin" so much different stuff it's almost schizofrenic. I like this, I'm the only one I know in real life who actually listens this and this wich is pretty normal for my age but this ain't and also this ain't considerd normal for my age too. And well, that's only a start ;) In total it would be, well the main genres: taiko, hardstyle, classical, trance/dance, jazz, metal and hardrock, disco (yea that 70's stuff) and much much more. Now don't tell me this ain't original for 17 year old! Only possible because of the internetzzz ofcourse, huzzah for Limewire. |
| Date: 2007/12/07 14:22:20, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I still find it very odd that they keep screaming out those obvious cliché things. It keeps going on and on and on and on. Irritating. |
| Date: 2007/12/08 10:41:08, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Depends on what knowledge you want to have.
And who says he's actually saying that? And who says he's still saying that now? It's like something from a Dutch comedian (wroughly translated): So how do you know that God exists? Well the Bible says that. But how do you know that what the Bible says is right? Well the Bible says that. What's sad in the Bible, is sad by humans. Who says God has ever spoken? People who hear voices in there head nowadays are called schizofrenics, why would the old prophets be different? And also, who says that who claims to be God, is actually God? Why would I trust such a voice? O and about Buddha, he actually has nothing to do with God, yes nature gods are in most buddhist teachings (the original nature religions mixed with buddhism, as also happend with christianity or the islam at some places) but the original teachings only involved life after death.
Tsk tsk tsk, you're totally forgetting Asians wich are generally more cute  |
| Date: 2007/12/08 11:59:01, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
As the description says, I've engaged in another evo discussion recently. The guy isn't a real ID-ist, but rather someone who symphatises with them. It all started pretty cliché, that nature looks o so much like machines, that design is such a logical thing and that it is science etc etc. I explained to him why ID was not science, why his analogy with machines, nano-technology and stuff like that was flawd and couldn't be used as an argument. In other discussions I had with people like him, usually real ID-ists, they usually repeated themselfs, walked away or changed the subject to something completly different. But this guy did something I haven't seen before, he actually accepted my explanation and saw the logic in it. But ofcourse, since he sympathises with ID he sad that logic would also apply on ND/evo wich would let nothing standing of ND/evo, just like with ID. Bassicly I used the explanations from this link. Anyway, this is a rough translation of what he sad:
I used Dictionary.com, but tweaked a bit on the outcome (at least it's better then Babelfish). And if anyone here is able to speak Dutch too, then check the Dutch Science-Forum for the original text from the user named qrnlk (I'm also Assassinator there, it's a tradition ). I hope the translation makes things clear enough. I'm a bit stuck on factual arguments, and not yet deep enough in the whole spiel of evo (next semester I will get deeper in it, we'll be making a phylogenetic tree for example) so I'm asking some people here for some help on the arguments, since the topic on that forum is leaving the logical part and it's entering the factual part of the subject. Maybe some more questions will come, I can't predict how he will react. At least thanks in advance. |
| Date: 2007/12/08 15:55:33, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Slap me and call me a donkey, but I alwayse thought evidence and proof were 2 synonyms. Before I want to use that in that discussion, can you explain a bit more about the difference between those 2? (It's almost astonishing how much you can learn on the internet ) |
| Date: 2007/12/08 16:09:28, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Ofcourse, that I haven't thought of that. And now to correctly translate that too Dutch :P Anyway, so far for the starter. I predict he will say it isn't evidence either, for some random reason. I've looked around, but can't find proper links about it (e.a why it is evidence for common descent). |
| Date: 2007/12/09 07:11:14, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| A, I remember that link, bad thing is that he countered that with this link. To bad I was never able to find a critique on that. |
| Date: 2007/12/09 09:04:34, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
That's why I came here for help, to understand arguments he brings better ;) Just here to learn. I'm alright with the logical part, but still not that at home on the factual part. I'm to learn about those flaws. |
| Date: 2007/12/09 10:02:35, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I overlooked the obvious. Well thanks for that, I've got some reading now ;) That guy isn't alwayse an honest discusser, he almost refuted to accept arguments from TalkOrigins because he says they're produced by atheïstic madmen. Ridiculous ad hominem ofcourse. |
| Date: 2007/12/09 16:18:15, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I won't call it perfection, but it's pretty damn wierd that designer would constantly re-design his original, constantly adding new stuff or removing stuff and still certain things won't work as good as they can work. Can't he make up his mind? Ofcourse, we humans do that, but the difference is that we discover new materials, new methodes, new manufacturing methodes. Is that evident in nature too? |
| Date: 2007/12/10 07:01:47, Link 145.74.83.197 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| And don't forget it's re-designed a gazzilion times, seems the designer can't make up his mind. |
| Date: 2007/12/15 14:32:57, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
That's an emotional opinion not backed up by anything else then your opinion and emotions. It's not a scientific conclusion, you're not even really educated on these parts. See this one for this argument:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100_1.html |
| Date: 2007/12/18 03:46:29, Link 145.74.83.193 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
The fact that life looks designed in your eyes has nothing to do with science and it's also 0.00 evidence for design. You're overrating your own emotional opinion.
Wich is the main problem, you're so emotionally attached to your beleifs that you're only looking for things wich confirm your own beleifs. |
| Date: 2007/12/18 13:32:24, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
The bad things missionairy's did in South-America, Africa, and well all around the globe (and not only from 1 religion, or a religion at all, communism falls under that too imo)? |
| Date: 2007/12/18 13:54:47, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
Fascinating indeed, reminds me a bit of endosymbiosis but then mixed with insertions. I'll read it more thoroughly when I've got the time, busy with school atm and I've also got World of Warcraft to attend to. Ooo what a busy life  |
| Date: 2007/12/21 10:09:07, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Meeh that was obvious for a loooooooong time :P
Looking at the above, I wonder if you could sue them for quackery. |
| Date: 2007/12/21 18:24:58, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
I don't get it. Why do people keep thinking that what they beleive about the world (and I mean literal, non-personal matters like the origin of life or this universe) matters a damned thing. The universe does not care about what you beleive, evolution isn't suddenly bullcrap just because you don't beleive in it. You've got no influence on that, reality does not work that way. Also, I wonder about how educated you are about evolution and subjects surrounding that. I noticed in high school that teaching about evolution was poor, very poor. Not that they were against it, they just simplified it soooo much that loads of important nuances were swepped away wich can easly lead to lots of missconceptions about evolution. A shame really, science should work more closely with school imo, at least here in Holland.
I thought the same when I was 16, e.a a year ago. Lots of people, not only on this forum, waked me up from that thought. It's easy to say from yourself that you've got a good perception. And ofcourse, like the rest sad, this forum isn't about Iraq. It's about evolution, and more important about the people who oppose evolution, there idea's, methodes, "theory's" etc etc.
You don't wanna know how many people want to see stuff like he wrote in schools. |
| Date: 2007/12/22 13:11:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Very good innitiative, however I still wonder how good the rice gets delivered at the right people knowing that Africa is as corrupt as the White House. I also wonder how many kilo's/pounds 11 billion grains are. Anyway, I'll be doing the quiz too :) |
| Date: 2007/12/22 18:13:30, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
I only want this really: Even though I'm legal to drink and most of my mates, wich are my age, like to indulge themselfs sometimes in alcohol I never do that. Just gimme some good ol' Lipton Ice, lemon ofcourse  |
| Date: 2007/12/22 18:18:05, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Get yourself into bio-chemistry. You're really making yourself to important to yourself. And also, but this is a common thing wich happens, is that you're looking wáy to much from a human perspective. |
| Date: 2007/12/22 18:29:40, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| They just act, it happens, that it's. That happening is an action, and is also a reaction from an action that caused that happening. Again, you're think too much in human terms. Trying to fit the normal human perspective onto non-human things. |
| Date: 2007/12/22 18:54:23, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Biochemistry is not chance, so the word "exactly" does not mean anything. It happens, that's it, that's just what it does. Nothing more, just happening.
Yeap, that's earthern life: chemistry. Bad thing is, we don't know what the exact circumstances were when life first arouse on earth, so we can't. |
| Date: 2007/12/23 07:55:55, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
By certain chemical mechanisms. Another bad misconception about the origin of life, is that lots of people think that abiogenesis says that life spontaniously arised. That's a huge mistake, abiogenesis isn't letting out external sources. |
| Date: 2007/12/24 14:18:30, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Merry Xmas to all guys, may your scientific adventures in 2008 be fruitfull! And yea, Ftk does deserve another chance, doesn't she  |
| Date: 2007/12/24 18:10:15, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I thought that was the difference between agnostism and atheïsm. If your an agnostic, you're not saying anything about the existance of a deity because there isn't any evidence pointing towards both options. And if you're an atheïst, you beleive that deity's don't exist. I alwayse thought that was the difference. |
| Date: 2007/12/26 11:11:17, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Daniel, I'll repeat Erasmus:
|
| Date: 2007/12/26 16:36:38, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well here Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start. |
| Date: 2007/12/26 18:33:43, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I don't just want to know your explanation, I also want to know why you think that and wich knowledge (or lack of it) caused you to think that. Because I wonder how you can know such a thing. |
| Date: 2007/12/26 18:57:40, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
As Erasmus sad: read up on molecular biology and biochemistry. Besides, is that any different from "It just got designed.", now what does that explain?
Gee, maybe that is because we don't know what the simplest living systems were. Life is natural, why the hell should we go looking for an explanation outside nature just because you're tired of looking. |
| Date: 2007/12/27 05:40:07, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
You know how we call that Martin? We call that biased. As Hawk says, birds are far different from mammals. Where did you get schooled in biology again Martin? PS: Hawk, a PS2 is outdated, we all demand a PS3 now |
| Date: 2007/12/27 05:51:17, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| You're a product of your envoirment skeptic. It's not suprising that you find everything else a confirmation of your beleive. That beleive is imbedded in your mind, in your personality. It's nothing wierd that you fit new things into the image of the world you had already. This may be the same if you're raised with the beleive a god does not exist. Myself, I haven't been raised with a god at all. I don't even know if my parents beleive in a god or not. I have been in contact with religion though, my grandma is a christian and I went to a youth-church from evangelicals just because it was fun (I had a good time there, very interesting). I don't beleive in a god though, but neither do I beleive that a god does not exist. |
| Date: 2007/12/27 10:06:59, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.
How the hell can you say that when you haven't read it? Do you know how we call that? It's called biased.
Here some information about the evolution of retinal structures http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband/avc4eye.htm Not that I think you will read any of of, nor understand any of it. And the question is still open, where did you study biology? Or are you studying it at the minute? |
| Date: 2007/12/27 10:10:17, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Do I notice a bit of sarcasme in that? Or is it just my mind playing tricks on me? |
| Date: 2007/12/27 15:20:43, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training? |
| Date: 2007/12/28 05:33:18, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased. |
| Date: 2007/12/28 07:16:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that? |
| Date: 2007/12/28 07:47:13, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I think that's completly natural, and that lots of people do that without noticing. The amount of how much they do that differs a lot. |
| Date: 2007/12/28 08:28:52, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
It's good that you do, but
the whole point, even with a better example, is bullshit. |
| Date: 2007/12/28 08:37:27, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Really, it isn't. Darwinism is, like the whole of science, just describing something. Explaining the works of something, nothing more. If people are using it for more, for example moral things, they're wrong. Using it for something like that says nothing about Darwinism, it says something about the person. You and Sal may find these things worying, but it's far from because it's not what Darwinism is all about. It just shows that you and Sal don't understand science, nor Darwinism. And it's the same with people who use Darwinism for such purpouses. |
| Date: 2007/12/28 17:29:57, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I'll be looking forward to that Ftk. |
| Date: 2007/12/28 17:37:26, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| This, from the Scientific American about relgious feelings, may be interesting to read in connection with this topic for skeptic but actually everyone. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 04:48:49, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
It does Skeptic, because they're making the claim. Funny thing is, we're just talking about 1 single image of God, just skeptic's one. There are billions of idea's about what God is. "God", as a word, is meaningless unless a person gives meaning to that word. We don't know what meaning Skeptic gave to the word "God". But he has to take 1 thing in notion: he's just 1 single person, out of 6 billion. He's just 1 of the billions of idea's about what God is, that puts things in perspective. Because out of all those billions of people why would YOU Skeptic be right. Is it the Bible? Well, loads of people also use the Bible for that, but you don't want to know what they think (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church, scary people). Why aren't they right? |
| Date: 2007/12/29 04:56:34, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
No, I just want to see your foundations about why you have those odd views about Darwinism (I mean the moral part, social-darwinism etc). I want to know what's troubling you and I'de like to confirm (or the opposite ofcourse) if you indeed have a twisted view of Darwinism/evolution. We just say you're worrying yourself for nothing, that there is nothing to worry about. Bassicly, we're just trying to calm you :p What's your education in science Ftk, what's your education in biology, antropology and all other topics linked to evolution? Where did you get your current information about evolution and Darwinism? We're just trying to explain something, we're not telling the "truth" or something. That's what science is about: explaining things. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 14:42:09, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Correction: he's obsessed with certain things he calls science. Besides, the fact that he's obsessed doesn't say he's right. Hell, Behe gives good biochemistry classes (or so I've heard) but he still talks bullcrap about ID. I wonder, why do you defend Sal? Do you understand our arguments why he's talking out of his ass? What's your reaction to those arguments? |
| Date: 2007/12/29 15:48:45, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
The evidence is only about a certain image of God. It's not againts all images of God, only against one or a couple. It's a mistake to say all images of God won't exist, it ain't however to say that certain images of God won't exist. Just to make things easier, in what image of God do you beleive Skeptic? @khan:
At this point, even a billion, a whole species of gods. The possibility is just as great for all options, since we have 0 evidence for either of them. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 16:09:27, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| To bad my questions considerings Sal's arguments are lost. I still wonder a lot about you Ftk. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 16:18:51, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
These:
Really, I wonder about it. You sad before you're worried about the moral implications from Darwinism and evolution. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 17:52:22, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I'de like to see a link to that post, if you don't mind. Because I don't see what Darwinism has to do with morality. It's science, science only describes things. Ofcourse, lots here just made fun of that analogy. We all know he wants to adress something else. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 18:04:01, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
If your God is the first cause, it also exists for me. The universe you live in, is the same as where I live in. It does not matter what you beleive, it doesn't matter anything. God as First Cause is either true, or it is false. Your beleives aren't changing anything to that. You may also rationally accept that God is the first cause, but that does not mean you're right. It's an option, yes, but so far nothing is pointing that way. It's not rational to accept God as the first cause if zit is pointing to that. You don't want to know how many creation stories there are around the world, all with zit zero evidence. Why are you right then, and why are they wrong? Can also explain why existance itself is a rational argument for the existance of God. Who is this God person anyway? What IS God? You may say there is one, but who says that's actually true? |
| Date: 2007/12/29 18:11:10, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
Thanks. This is what it is all about for me:
Darwinism has nothing to do with morality. Science is, as I sad before, describing things how they are. Not like morality, who says how things should be. See that crucial difference? |
| Date: 2007/12/30 05:38:28, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Atheism has nothing to do with Darwinism in the first place. Really. An atheist has certain moral beleives too, just ask them about it and there arguments for them. And don't forget that "THE atheist" does not exist, that's generalisation. Same as THE Christian doesn't exist, take for example the Westboro Baptist Church. They're Christian, oooo yes, but do they have the same moral system as you Ftk even though you're a Christian too? I don't hope so And yes, like carlsonjok sad, at the time you asked where I was, I was asleep (but I'm 17, not 16 ) |
| Date: 2007/12/30 05:48:51, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I can see the logic in that, I understand why you think that. From a human point of view, it's very logical that there has to be a first cause (why would you call it God though, because what does "God" mean in that context?) because we're not used to something else. But what says there has to be a first cause? And also, like UnMark says, we don't even know if the universe is finite. Problem is, we can only comprehend things in a certain frame (like that we're used to cause and effect), fat chance the whole universe is not in that frame. There are also soooooo many other creation story's and gods. Why would you rationally beleive in only 1 of those, since they're all equal on the evidence ground, namely zero evidence. |
| Date: 2007/12/30 08:36:22, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
But what do you mean with God then? Simply the start of the universe? Nothing more? What's rational about beleiving that, and what's rational about beleiving 1 option without any supporting evidence? Is beleiving itself rational? |
| Date: 2007/12/30 12:09:33, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
I really don't see the logic in that. We exist, yes (even that isn't 100% sure, who says we're not in a buffed up version of The Sims?), but what does that have to do with your image of the word God? Why do you think that existance is a piece of evidence for the existance of a God as First Cause? You make it sound if we can't exist without God as First Cause, how can you argument for that and thus be reasonable?
And why is that? What about AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the other gods in the world? Why don't you beleive in them? Bottemline is, you've grown up with your religion, it's embedded in you and part of your personality. |
| Date: 2007/12/30 15:37:10, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I've heard it lots of times, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." |
| Date: 2007/12/30 17:00:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I'm studying Bio-Informatics at the minute, and we're using the international edition from Campbell's Biology Seventh Edition (we in Holland can't use the US/Canada version for some reason, or was it the other way around?). I think the US and Canada edition is this one. I don't know if it's the best one out there, but I can say that I'm enjoying the international edition a lot and I don't think the 2 versions are much different I also suggest you try it out yourself first, it's not cheap however (122 bucks thank you very much) but if it's about education I think it's worth it Goodluck with your search! |
| Date: 2007/12/31 08:17:32, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
O you funny funny guy |
| Date: 2007/12/31 08:27:39, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
I'm sorry Ftk, but you missunderstead my post. Darwinism is describing morality, it is not dictating morality. That's what I ment with "Darwinism has nothing to do with morality" because it's only describing something, nothing more. Do you see and understand that difference? (PS: My nickname-nickame is usually Assi, but yea I see what the problem is )
I've been following his reactions to you, and your reactions to him. I have to admit, that you're really not answering him. Then he repeats himself, he starts making remarks wich is definatly not helping to get an answer from you. It's a vicious circle, someone has to step out of it (either OM stops with the remarks, or you Ftk just answer his questions without paying attention to the remarks, you're a grown up right?) |
| Date: 2007/12/31 08:48:53, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Well I can't imagine that he's offering that seriously, because the title says enough:
And yea, i'm 6-4. It's cold up here. |
| Date: 2008/01/01 13:24:23, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I don't want to rush things Ftk, but I haven't read an reaction on my previous post concering morality. Anyway, it may be helpfull to address what you understand from evolution, so not what you think about it but what you understand from it. O and happy New Year all, you to Ftk |
| Date: 2008/01/02 06:16:25, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
At least stay consistant Ftk, and read Theobald's response to both his critique's: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html I'll repeat myself Ftk, I don't want to rush things but so far you've ignored my respons to you concerning morality in Darwinism. Also, where did you learn about evolution Ftk? How well do you understand it (and thus what is the base for your vision concerning evolution)? |
| Date: 2008/01/02 12:16:39, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| You REALLY do miss the point now don't you? |
| Date: 2008/01/02 13:37:35, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
And what about there own children then? How is that moral? Aside from the other morality and general questions (I'm waiting with patience ;)), I wonder why you support Sal. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 13:43:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
We've explained why he doesn't have a good/decent point, he has nothing (except a physics degree). Really, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, we only care about the lousy point he's making. And it is lousy. I've explained why before.
Wich is the main problem. Lots of parents raise there children with there own religion, as if the kids were also christians/jews/hindu's/hippies/communists/whatever. They think it's the best, they have good intentions, but there denying there kids the right to become individuals. They don't have a free choice now. I think I do, because I really don't have a clue what my parents beleive or think about shitloads of things. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 14:10:27, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
O I was involved, my grandma is christian and I went to an evangelical youthclub all by myself (it was fun). My parents had nothing to do with it, I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 14:18:42, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start. Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 14:29:46, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Not just words, nothing. No hints, nothing. I really don't know what they think is imporant, I don't know what they hold dear. It's odd I know. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 14:45:39, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Then ask me, why the hell should you condemn someone who has sex with a horse (who doesn't even notice such a small human penis, compared to what a horse has) if the horse isn't troubled and if the human isn't troubled. Yes it's biological odd, I even think the brains of people who do that are damaged (afterall, it has no function or use whatsoever, it can be dangerous!) and I actually think the same about homosexuality (thus a little misswiring) but why the hell should I condemn it if 2 men are happy toghether even though it's biological odd. Besides, are you saying someone can't be brought up by a homo-couple? |
| Date: 2008/01/02 17:15:18, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Too bad I haven't seen a reaction from Ftk yet on my posts concering morality and Darwinism, wich is also concering the zoophilia part. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 18:17:10, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Ftk, fact is, you're lacking a LOT of knowledge the evolutional theory and Darwinism. Really, a lot, even some mucho importanté basics (like the morality thing). How can we properly discuss this with you then? |
| Date: 2008/01/03 06:40:49, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
My GOD Ftk!!! I explained multiple times why that is bullshit, but you simply ignore it. How dense can you be?? Darwinism is science, and science describes phenomenon like morality, it does NOT dictate morality. I'll repeat myself again, how the hell can we discuss this with you if you miss vital parts of knowledge about evolution, Darwinism and science itself?? |
| Date: 2008/01/03 07:14:14, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ooo now I really feel insulted |
| Date: 2008/01/03 10:14:16, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
You do know that missionaries f*cked up every single thing they touched? Missionaries are one of the most revolting groups of people in the world. Do you know perhaps about the ethical politics from Holland in there Indonesian colonies back in the mid-20th century? That's a nice example. But why would the biblical guidelines be better? At least the OT promotes incest (afterall, how the hell do you make a world population from 6 billion from 2 in just 6000 years?), killing other people is promoted, lots of immoral things are promoted. Are there good things in the bible? Yes, ofcourse. Love thy enemy, love thy neighbore. Nothing bad about that. The thing is, why do I need the bible for that? I can make up those things with simple logic. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 10:42:51, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| But, Ftk, do you now understand why Sal's point about morality is complete and utter bullshit? Since we've explained a couple of times now. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 10:53:05, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
You're missing the point, we do not care about the words he chose, nor about his humor. We only care about his ridiculous point, and do you understand why that point is bullshit? I think we've explained why enough times. Edit: You were slightly faster. I'll refer, again because you haven't reacted on it yet, to this. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 14:17:19, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Do you know why constant jokes are made? Do you know why people like Sal are ridiculed? |
| Date: 2008/01/03 14:25:43, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| You know what she says with that? She says that she understands why people do it. She can understand there feelings, have emphasis for them. She can place herself, at least for a bit, in those people's shoes. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 14:32:15, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Have you got ANY IDEA why Sal is getting ridiculed?? We've explained dozens of time's to you WHY he's talking complete bullcrap. And apperantly it won't come through to you, or you're simply ignoring it for some reason. We don't care about Sal himself, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, just about his point. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 14:36:54, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
O really? And what do you have to proove that? What's the base of that assumption? Why are you biased like that? AGAIN: We don't care about Sal himself, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, just about his point. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 15:41:22, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
It doesn't matter if you defend him, we care about his point. And THAT'S what it's all about: his point is utter bullcrap, nonsense. Too bad you're not reacting on our explanations why his point is nonsense. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 15:48:55, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense? |
| Date: 2008/01/03 17:42:09, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Really....how many times have I repeated this? We DO NOT CARE about his humor, his words, his style of writing, ANYTHING but the point he is making about morality and Darwinism. So odd, I've sad the above so many times, why doesn't come through?
Do you have any idea why Sal is put on display like that? And who says we are holding you accountable? We're holding you accountable for agreeing with the point he is making without listening to ANY response from any of us why the point he is making is complete and utter nonsense, worth putting on display. And if you want to know why it's worth to be put on display, just ask, it's fairly simple. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 18:03:57, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Don't forget it's not only with christianity, it's the same with loads of things. It seems that, explained simplified, parents think that if they are christian/jewish/islamic/hippy/capitalist/communist/whatever there childeren are that too by default. How wrong can they be? I'm so glad I really have nó idea what my parents beleive or think. I really have no idea what they hold imporant, what morality they live by etc etc. Just totally nothing. Yes it may sound distant, or cold, but at least I have the space to think about stuff without having they're thoughts in the back of my head. I'm starting to find out now however, but I'm 17 now so I don't copycat them in that way anymore Edit, because Christopher did: Reminds me when I was that age (e.a 10 years ago, not that long now I think of it) Ever since one of my relatives showed me a little fossil of something, just a shell or something, I kept looking and looking when we visited rocky places or beaches. I never really found anything though, I'm jealous at your daughter. I even caught myself last year when we visited Italy when we went up a ski-slope in the summer. Even then I was looking at the ground, scanning the rocky path and picking up odd looking rocks. Self-reflecting, it's funny |
| Date: 2008/01/03 18:14:40, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Christians don't have a moral base too, are you the same as those wierdos from the Westboro Baptist Church?? I think not. Are you a Jehova Witniss? Are all Christians the same? You're not just putting atheists into boxes, you're just stuffing them into 1 big ballroom. I'm an atheist, how do you know I base my moral beleives on evolution? If you have payed attention, or did any proper research, you would know that evolution has nothing to do with morality in the way we're talking about it. Evolution is science, science does not dictate morality, it only discribes things. Your generalisation is awfull. And what's the foundation of this generalisation anyway? What made you think those things? |
| Date: 2008/01/04 09:12:24, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
IMO, csadams, that's a bad thing too. Parents shouldn't lead there children like that, not in anything. Adults can't be trusted, they want too dearly that they're children do things the adults think are best for them. They should let there children go free, develop logic themselfs and experience things by trial and error. Yes let them get hurt, let them break an arm or leg, let them make bad choices and mistakes because they're all learning moments. @Ftk: As csadams says, scientific explanations often ignore common sense. Common sense is only handy for your own mental comfort. Just think of quantum-mechanics, an electron can be on 2 places at once. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 09:45:55, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
It's not wrong as in that it is indeed true that it looks like it does. It's not corresponding with the factual evidence though. Same with design. Yes I agree that sometimes life looks design, I won't disagree with that, but it's something interly different if it is actually designed, e.a corresponding with the facts. I fully agree with
I think that question is absolutly vital when you're raising kids, since it highly promotes the children to think about there own ideas themselfs rather then being told things wich not only happens with religious parents or religious schools, but also with normal science-education. Even my own parents want to do that with me, but I'm not taking that. That may be 1 of the reasons why I'm constantly fighting with my dad. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 12:24:13, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]
Tell me Ftk, why are biblical morality's better then non-biblical one's? Really. Take for example those good ol' Westboro Baptist Church folks, devowed Christians who live the bible by the word of it. Meanwhile, they walk around at Iraq deaths burials with signs who say things like "God hates fags", "USA fag nation" and "God is USA's terrorist" and stuff like that. They say they're very friendly folks, who want to warn those poor poor gay's that God is revolting on them, and that they want to safeguard them from God's wrath because afteral they're morally good people. Yay for the bible then.
You don't have to be afraid of that, go ahead, tell me why people who want to be happy by dressing as the opposite sex are immoraly baaaaaad people. Do you know about those people who really feel like they're born in the body of the wrong sex? Is it one of God's little jokes to himself? @Erasmus:
Sure she has, but it's something different then a list who actually makes sense. But ok, let us show that list Ftk. What's wrong with feeling attracted to girls in they're prime-age. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 14:37:39, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Just ask Ftk, just ask. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 14:42:21, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| No reason, just ask. You want a cookie to soothe you? |
| Date: 2008/01/05 13:54:13, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Daniel, let me ask you a simple question (and thanks for that Kristine): What do you see in life what makes you say it's designed?
You DO know that's completly awfull? It was there first mistake, instead of giving Adam and Eve another chance and talk about what they did (God was so forgiving right?) He gave them the deathpenalty (made them mortal) and forced them into incest (how the hell do you make a population of 2 billion from 2 in 6000 years?) and forced the whole of humanity to suffer horrible from ONE dammed mistake. Sounds good doesn't it? Really sounds like someone I would want to worship...
O really? And who says the writers wanted those texts to be interpreted so literally as you do it? Why are YOU right and for example Hindus not? You have any idea how many creation stories are out there completly different from yours? What's so special and good about yours that makes it right? |
| Date: 2008/01/05 14:32:29, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
What makes you think it is wrong? Why is it unquestionably unacceptable? |
| Date: 2008/01/05 14:55:30, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Another question Ftk, next to my previous one: Why would your morals be better then mine? |
| Date: 2008/01/05 16:44:56, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Why? What's a sacrifice worth when the sacrificed person is actually immortal, not even a man.
Tell that to some group of Christians who choose a man at a festival every year who gets nailed (literally) on a wooden cross.
The loving your neighbor part sounds good, but why should I love "God", what does that word mean anyway? I already think why we should consider our bodies a temple, because that's where our God-given souls rest in. But why would I base my morality on myths like that, why would I pay attention to them? Fact is, lots of these forms of morality, are based on both age old mythology and current envoirmental circumstances. I can get into that, why at least the latter were logical. It's logical that those things change, but why should I take notice on the first? Why would I base morality on ancient mythology, wich is also based on curaint circumstances (from the time of writing). Why would I base morality on those things? The bible is, pure factional, just a collection of old scriptures from different times from different writers in different enviorments. The bible can't even be viewed as a true book. I won't say you can't learn valuable things from some parts of the bible (like the love your neighbor part) but what does that have to with God, and why is the bible superiour to that? I don't need the bible to tell me it's best to love your neighbor, and love your enemy, I can reason that, with logic. Why would I need myths for that, and why do I need an age-old collection of scriptures were lots of people emotionally bonded themselfs with. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 17:03:40, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
|
Jasper, I've tried to explain the latter at least 6 times. It didn't came through. Ftk hasn't responded to it yet. @Ftk:
And how do you think you came into thinking that? Ofcourse it makes sense to you, this religion is part of your own personality and thus it fits perfectly into YOUR sense. Another little fact, what YOU think is the God of biblical scripture, is not what tens upon thousands of other Christians think is the God of biblical scripture. Now, why are they wrong, and you right? Remember 1 thing Ftk, you're just 1 measely unimporant person in this matter, there are billions of people who all think different things on this matter. Why are they wrong, and you right? This has nothing to do with faith, because in the end the universe does not care what you beleive. For example, if you beleive that the core of the earth is made out of strawberry jelly, the core of the earth does not POOF change into strawberry jelly just because you would beleive that. It's the same with a literall God, if it exists for you it must also exist for me, God does not start existing just because you would beleive in it. Do you understand that?
O really? Now, explain that in details please. I'm very curious why that would be. Because the fact that we would not understand them says nothing about a supposed godly origin of the texts. Fact is though, that we don't have a manual for the different texts in the bible. Those secrets went in the grave with there writers.
And why would that be a fact then? Why would I trust those scholars? Who says they're not extremly biased?
Same as above. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 17:41:18, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
O really? Habe you heard about the Mormons? Jehova Witnesses? And my all time favorite: the Westboro Baptist Church, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church A simple quotation says enough:
So, who says they're not right when they say they're the true Christians? Who says they're not right when they say we're all going to suffer, except for a couple dozen people, for ever in a place called Hell? Don't forget, reality is the same for you and me as for them. PS: I've edited my previous post for a large amount, I don't know if you noticed, it would be nice ofcourse if we could discuss about those other things aside from the post I quoted from you above. things. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 17:57:49, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Just with certain people, or do you ignore everyone now? Now that would be unnecessary, won't it? Ignoring bad comments, sure, but it's kind of overreacting to ignore absolutly everything then, don't you think? |
| Date: 2008/01/05 18:21:56, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| People like that freak me out, I haven't even bothered posting under his video, I'll just send him a PM. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 18:26:10, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Something inside me doesn't stop me from PMing :P I didn't even gave my opinion about the video, o well, I guess that he indeed does not respond anyway. But seriously, these guys really scare me. A lot, really. |
| Date: 2008/01/06 14:54:27, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
E.a, because it's so complex from your point of view, it must be designed. I can understand that life looks designed, but you have to make a difference between your own point of view and opinion, and reality. The fact that it looks designed in your eyes, says 0.00 about reality. You do understand that, right? |
| Date: 2008/01/07 13:22:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I still don't get why those guys still use those failing analogy's. How think can heads be. |
| Date: 2008/01/08 03:10:42, Link 145.74.83.183 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Jesus has nothing to do with the origins of life, earth and the universe. If he existed he was a man with a message, a message of love wich has nothing to do with science.
No, I do not. The fact that your opinion is not equal to reality, has nothing to do with science. Explain yourself. |
| Date: 2008/01/08 10:03:53, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Nah she already sad a couple of days ago she would be back next week. |
| Date: 2008/01/08 17:30:38, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
*cough cough* Pfew, some dust on this one. But I've got a few questions again. The discussion has reached some kind of stalemate. He says he knows that evolution happens, that he understands why. For him, the question is where the boundaries of evolution are, he gives this book as reference, but I'm not able to read it. He says that countless of experiments say that the theory of Universal Common Descent contains boundaries wich evolution can't cross. Now because I'm not able to read the book, I have no idea what he's talking about (wich experiments for example). I also wonder what that book from Behe says then about boundaries. I wish I was able to read all those books, I've seen so much book links here and on other forums wich I'm dying to read |
| Date: 2008/01/09 08:48:31, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Thanks Coyote and Henry J :) But I still have some questions, next to rebutals of Behe's book, does anyone know what Behe says in his book? Does anyone also knows wich experiments the guy I'm discussing with is reffering to? I've asked, but he ignored it. Does anyone also new were the article in the 3th link in Coyote's link went? It seems like really interesting rebutal, but it's kinda gone. |
| Date: 2008/01/09 11:35:41, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Because of what? Why would they?
What I ment that, even if Jesus existed, it says nothing about the origin of life etc etc.
I've asked if you understood that your view that life looks designed says nothing about if it's actually designed. Then you say that science will never find a plausible explanation, huh? Besides, what do you know about this subject Daniel? Have you got any education on these subjects whatsoever? |
| Date: 2008/01/10 07:06:25, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Yea, so? And why would those contribute to the actual truthness of those stories? The fact that they say life was formed by some sort of design, doesn't mean it's per definition true.
No, it's nor a test for ID nor the method of coroners. If we would not be able to get a plausible explanation for life, that's not proof for ID, that's not the way science works. Same with a coroner, if there is no explanation for the death of someone that isn't proof for someone being killed by someone else if there isn't direct evidence for that. And like swbarnes2 sad, you don't have any real background for this subject, just self-taught stuff. And by the looks of it, that means you picked up information from sources confirming the world-view you already had. That's not learning. You admit that you've got gaping (and how!!) holes in your knowledge yet you have your opinion set. That's not learning. |
| Date: 2008/01/10 07:49:31, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
Thanks for those links I've asked indeed about the experiments, at first he ignored them but now he sad he would look something up. Note though, that this guy isn't anything close to a biologist. He's an informatic, and he has it's own business. It seems that he copied his views about evolution almost directly from both Behe and Demski, and he's looking at life like he's looking at huma technology. I have also rebutted his silly analogy's, I wonder if it came through though. Ironically enough, he has this in his signature:
People like him make me go: (God I love that picture ) |
| Date: 2008/01/10 08:21:55, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Answer the question, then we will answer yours. Don't turn things around. |
| Date: 2008/01/10 11:23:52, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Daniel, how good is your science education (in general)? |
| Date: 2008/01/10 11:37:47, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Now, don't flame me, I posted this on your link Kristine:
*Quikly duckes and takes cover* Please don't hurt me |
| Date: 2008/01/12 12:19:18, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
A Dutch ID proponent (although he's not your avarage Behe, he's trying though at least not knowing that he sounds like a stuck and véry old record) has put this in his signature recently, I think because of our ID-disscussion:
So much arrogance from an IT-person, who had no training on biology, ecology and aaaaall evolution connected subjects. |
| Date: 2008/01/12 14:50:51, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Then what's your problem with the chronological order? We know that life arose step by step, in a certain order (the very first steps of life are unknown, then we've got the theorised RNA-world, DNA-organisms, recognisable microbial life, multi-cellular sea life, multi-cellular land life etc etc). Then what's your problem? |
| Date: 2008/01/13 07:06:05, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Daniel, what's the difference between that natural law and selection (selection is a natural law). As far as I can see, you're talking about protein folding, we know why that happens. It's biochemistry. I think you don't think what natural selection is, yes the folding of proteins happen by natural law, but that's not what selection is about. Selection works on a bigger scale and we can view the effect of selection in nature and document it. |
| Date: 2008/01/13 08:36:23, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Odd though that a just-beyond-highschool kid like me can note those things, but you Daniel can't. |
| Date: 2008/01/14 05:11:51, Link 145.74.83.198 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
What exactly is YOUR explanation? Ofcourse, we admit that the current explanation is not necceraly true, but the only think YOU can do is flame it. Do you have any better explanation to offer then the current one? Do you even know on wich observations etc the current explanation is based? |
| Date: 2008/01/14 13:06:53, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| You've got the full essay too? Sounds like an interesting read. |
| Date: 2008/01/14 13:25:57, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Thanks, that'll keep me busy |
| Date: 2008/01/14 13:57:45, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Someone at least doesn't like them, taken from that news link:
Can't really blaim them, with this....impressive list of slogans:
|
| Date: 2008/01/14 14:11:17, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
With this government? No, I'm afraid not. Funny thing is, using lots of normal christians logic, why won't they not be right? Scary stuff. |
| Date: 2008/01/14 14:21:54, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ooo like that, yes I can understand why marines would. Wouldn't advice it though, they'll only make martyrs out of them. |
| Date: 2008/01/15 17:15:43, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
They're soooo obvious ofcourse, that any member of his group can point them out, resulting in a nice little list:
Hmm...yea...that's scientific. Besides, I start crying at posts like that shoghi dude. Where the hell did he get his education? |
| Date: 2008/01/16 07:11:04, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I live in the middle of the Dutch Bible Belt, and I can tell you I've debated similair people. They didn't seem to make use of AiG presentations though, but still used those ye ol' YEC arguments. They did use our old friend Hovind. They even broadcast his presentation on our local tv-network (As I sad, I live in the middle of the Bible Belt here, it's full of crazy evangelical extremists here although not as bad as the Westboro folks...I hope). It was só awfull to see... |
| Date: 2008/01/17 07:51:21, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I bet you can still view it here. I still find Scientology a bit scary, especially thisp YTMND (although it's not funny, at all). Andthis is the sequel. |
| Date: 2008/01/18 11:49:12, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
We may not have a clue, but we really don't care. Bottom-line is, you have no clue what the ET and Darwinism is, you have no clue about the science behind it (or even about science itself!), you are not schooled in these things and you have proved that time and time again by the things you post. |
| Date: 2008/01/19 10:39:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| You don't know what natural selection is, wich you prove in that post. Please learn what natural selection is, thank you. I hope I don't have to explain why. |
| Date: 2008/01/19 16:07:48, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
@Kristine: Not only in economics, engineering and technical companies (stuff like Siemens and Mercedes, yea I've seen The Blind Watchmaker :P) love evolution for improving stuff for them. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 07:24:34, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Carlson...you just made me hate you, a lot actually. Sunday is dad-cooking day, he'll try to brew something again out of all the crap left in the fridge, freezer and places like that....yay.... |
| Date: 2008/01/21 10:45:41, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
This looks like the same old morality argument again, made over and over again for ages. This horse is só dead, is it even worth mentioning again? (hoped I used that expression in a proper manner ) |
| Date: 2008/01/21 13:27:14, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Fact is TP, the base of both Mike's and Dembski's method is complete pseudo-science, like this list in your opening post:
|
| Date: 2008/01/21 18:21:06, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
You don't completly grasp the idea of natural selection Daniel. But it's pretty easy (that's why I wonder why you've got so much trouble with it...). First of all, it's relative, because natural selection matters between other groups of animals. Imagine a population of butterflies living in a dark forest, you've got red one's and you've got brown one's. The red one's will be a much easier prey for birds for example, because they're much easier spotted by a fast flying bird then brown one's. The red one's will be the number one on the bird's menu, and will get eaten much more then the brown butterflies. The brown one's can preduce much more offspring then the red one's, and after a while a dominatly brown population of butterflies will populate the forest. You can turn it around ofcourse, and set them in a brightly collored field of flowers, where the red butterflies will have a survival advantage. Thus you can get a red population in the field, and a brown population in the forest. If certain separations occure, you ultimatly end up with 2 different species of butterflies. If anyone can correct me on errors, I'm not perfect afterall, please do. |
| Date: 2008/01/22 15:50:43, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
We should really set an own clothing line with our own logo, given to us by those friendly Christians from Conservapedia (they must have whole warehouses full of logo's). Fear us, we're grouping! |
| Date: 2008/01/22 16:32:01, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
Groping people like  and  ??? You scare me Bill, a lot. |
| Date: 2008/01/24 15:11:27, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
The best we're getting here are herons, pigeons and Apache's. But I've got my own personal wildlife: (I so love my cat, and this is a really small one) |
| Date: 2008/01/24 15:32:48, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
We ain't got hawks, someone else is eating our doves, *points at previous post* My cat would be a great LOLcat with that picture, won't it
Such a shame  Wildlife housings should alwayse be open. |
| Date: 2008/01/27 10:08:37, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Baseball?? Cricket?? Pffff, games for sissy's, it's all about hurling baby! Wished I could play that, think I would shit my pants 7 times though. |
| Date: 2008/02/01 06:38:45, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Joy, the dude in the discussion I started this topic about is back. I really don't get it, he still thinks specified complexity is new and research-able. I tried to address the fact that those things are long since addressed, I even showed an article from Wesley but he ignores it saying it would be wise to show something else then arguments from own ground (and he means evolutionists by that). So annoying, how do you EVER discuss with people like that? |
| Date: 2008/02/03 05:35:03, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I asked him indeed for papers on specified complexity. He just came up with someone named Orgel, wich is apperantly the one who came up with specified complexity (Dembski's inspiration?). Apperantly, he thinks that he also supports the ID hypotheses (at least I made him admit ID is not a theory at all) but I'm not that sure. He also popped up something, wich made me wanted to ask a question too: He says that fossils and genetic similarity's don't say affinity, but júst similarity's. So they're not really proof for common descent. He also sad that they're extremly prone to interpretation, people see in them what they want to see. That made we wonder, what do fossils and genetic similarity's proof? I know about TalkOrigin's 29 evidences for common descent article, but strangly he doesn't accept it. It may work for me, but not for him. The last thing he sad wich makes me wonder is (rough translation): Macroscopic events wich require extremly improbable microscopic events don't happen spontaneously, but can happen with intelligent intervention. Now I asked for an explanation for that statement, where he got it from etc etc. But he's in the hospital atm, so it can take a while. So maybe, in the meantime, someone here can explain what he means with that statement and where he got it from. It's an odd fellow, sometimes he dodges more questions then Neo dodges bullets, sometimes he's a really good person to discuss with, and sometimes he simply spews ad hominems vs sources and people (like he called TalkOrigins a collection of atheïstic madman not worth mentioning, and he swept all things I got from that website from the table). |
| Date: 2008/02/03 08:02:00, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I don't think he actually supports the Explanatory Filter, but it never hurts to ask ;) But yea, the thing about the fossils, you exactly make his point. What's the foundation for the common-descent interpretation from the fossil record and genetic data. He also decided he wanted to shift the subject to the origin of life and why it is so improbable and doesn't happen without an act of intelligence intervening. He says that a replicator can't arise from stochastic processes because that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ofcourse I asked for peer-reviewd papers and experiments, and I also asked if the processes involved in making a replicator are indeed stochastic or random. |
| Date: 2008/02/03 10:10:47, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Yes I have addressed that, since he kept talking about a No Design hypotheses and talked about it if it was the crux from the evolutional theory. I just sad that evolutional research hasen't found design or a designer yet, and thus it's not involved in the current research since they manage without. He does not talk about the workings from the so-called designer, I can't remember he ever did. He once sad that it didn't sound that wierd to him if we would've been designed by aliens. I've read about the nested hierarchy yes, but only like half a year ago or something like that. I sure have to fresh things up, I'll first dive back into Biology (International and 7th edition) from Campbell and Reece and I'll look up some info on the internet before I address it to him. I'll have to look first where the OOL discussion is going anyway ;) At least I've asked for papers and experiments, and I've "firmly" addressed his ad-hominems vs TalkOrigin-linked sources. I'm curious how he works himself out of that, I think he'll ignore it. Edit: He suddenly flooded me with quotes from an article from Orgel: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser....0060018 I'm reading it atm, but I could use some help understanding the article. I can't really ask the dude himself, since he's an IT person and not into chemistry. I've only just begun studying chemistry, so again if anyone could help me understand this article (what the article wants to say, things like that): help would be appreciated ;) |
| Date: 2008/02/03 16:27:38, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I SO recognise this from the guy I'm discussing with right now. I still find it hard to address, but maybe that's because I'm not yet familiar enough with the importance of peer-reviewed papers. |
| Date: 2008/02/03 17:05:50, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Your children are not you, they are individuals. You give them a very coloured worldly image and you don't recognise them as individuals. Raising childrens isn't about you and what you want, it's about the kids. You don't let them develop themselfs, you don't give them all the space to find out about morality on there own and let them find out what's right and wrong themselfs. That's very selfish, although you have good intentions, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." |
| Date: 2008/02/04 07:01:41, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
He only has a problem with the 2nd law with the origin of life, not really with evolution. His problems with evolution are bassicly with Common Descent. @rhmc: I don't know, but I'm not. It sounds very interesting though, I'll look something up about it for myself first |
| Date: 2008/02/04 09:00:21, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
Sorry Ftk, can't do that. It can almost be called criminal to brainwash your children like that, the fact that you may be christian does not mean your children are automaticly christian too, or jewish, islamic, hindu, hippy, communist etc etc etc: whatever. You do not let your children the room to fully develop themselfs. Wich right do you even have to teach your children those things? Your children are not yours, they are from themselfs: individuals, not your clones. It does not matter what you deem important, let them find out with trial and error. I wonder btw, if you teach your kids your distorted (read: distorted as in incomplete and factually wrong) views about life on earth? (wich is evolution, the origin of life, etc) If you do: STOP IT. You are définatly not the correct person to do that, you have lots of wrong views according the theory of evolution, you are not trained in ány way in the science of evolution and all linked subjects, you CAN NOT teach anyone about those subjects, your children are in that way not different that anyone. Why don't you understand and accept that? By the lack of a better set of words (abuse is a bit too heavy), what you are doing is a socially accepted form, aaaaall around the world, of child abuse.
Let them explore, don't force them your views. Kids are like sponges, by telling them those things you immidiatly form there personality for them, instead of letting them figure it out by themselfs. Let them see all uncoloured raw information without any interpretation from you, and let them figure it all out by themselfs. Be as objective as possible. And when they're old enough, you can discuss your views with there views. Give them the oppertunity to view facts, and not interpretations of facts.
If he forces his own dogmatic views to his children, rather then respecting them like developing individuals and let them figure out all by themselfs, like it's the truth (like YOU are doing), yes then he is just as bad.
Don't you see how horrible this is? "Do like I say, or SUFFER." that's it, just terror, no room for an own path, no room for a personal life. Nope, if you don't do what He says you'll suffer eternaly. Don't you see how terrible this view is?? Is it even the correct Christian view? Why are you right in these matters, and millions and even billions of other people are wrong? DON'T raise your children like you know the truth, you are doing know, that's bad. |
| Date: 2008/02/15 10:07:41, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
T-rexes? Imagine Giganotosaurs then , if we're talking about carnivorous dino's: But ofcourse, if you really want to see some earth-rumbeling dino action, see these little babies:  Those would actually make the earth rumble when they would mate. |
| Date: 2008/02/20 19:03:33, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse. |
| Date: 2008/02/22 10:37:44, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
They make things easier to understand for people outside the ivory tower of biology. Sure, there are analogies, but they're A supperficial (yea, wrong spelling) and B even analogy's don't mean they're the same, because they simply aren't. Can't you see those things for yourself? |
| Date: 2008/02/27 17:01:15, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
A happy happy birthday here from Holland! Sadly I can't present you with a nice LOLcat, since all the good one's have been given already. I can however wish you another happy happy year full of burning churches and ebola spreading (HA! Now that one is taken too! ), ofcourse you can't stop that, that's a LIE, you can't leave the almighty fundie atheist camp wich has assimilated all forms of science to conspire against those....theists! Don't leave us! Good luck, have fun, and may the Non-Intelligent-Not-Caring-Force be with you Disclaimer: This post does not resemble the true opinions of Assassinator, nope not even the "Happy Birthday" Edited, because you're worth it (this never gets old). |
| Date: 2008/03/06 14:33:18, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
I thought this was our symbol: Looks evil doesn't it? Mad scientists all around! |
| Date: 2008/03/07 16:50:38, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I agree with that, although I think that parents can never be real honest educators for there children. But it's stupid to think you can ignore parents in education, and parents who know what they're doing should be involved with school (homework assignments, extra lessons outside school, workshops etc). But ofcourse, only parents who know what they're doing. Most parents I know and see around here are FAR from qualified to teach stuff, and that doesn't have anything to do with religion (except for the religious-extremist part of the population from the village I live in), they simply don't know enough. In the end, it's not about what the parents want, it's about what the kids want. Let them explore, discover, make own choices and let them learn from mistakes. |
| Date: 2008/03/07 17:25:36, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| It's actually pretty funny to see how people follow a comedian/actor on a subject like this. I still wonder how those minds work, makes me want to study psychology. |
| Date: 2008/03/10 18:59:16, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
@Erasmus:
People who say this should be honest with themselfs and go hermit-style. No gas, no electricity, not visiting stores, no doctor, nothing.
Remember: the government is the help of the people (at least it should be in our country's). They help us with stuff we can't do, and we give them money to do that (taxes). If we see certain things in our society suck, we should do something about it, because we can (democracy, remember?). Besides, it's not about the fact that they would say what they need to learn, it's about the arguments they give for that.
Problem here: your kids aren't you or clones from you, it's not about what you want it's about what your kid wants. If you're an honest parent you let them discover stuff themselfs, you may not care but they might. Kids aren't property, they're individuals in development. Anyway, I don't really get home-schooling. I mean, how can you school kids on your own? Imo, kids learn best from eachother with help from parents and experts wich is not at home. @Pennybright:
You gotta be kidding me?? And they should supposidly rule the world?? It's worse then I thought...(I start wondering if the US is a real democracy at all, or even free!) |
| Date: 2008/03/13 07:23:22, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Who does God think he is then? Saying me what to do, if I don't I'll get punished and if we ask why the excuse comes that we wouldn't understand anyway. Wich would also mean that God isn't all-powerfull: he can't even explain his own morality to us. Why would his morality be superior anyway? He apperantly destroys someone's life just to prove a point. Like philbert says, why on earth do I want to worship such a sadistic being?
Who is God to be so arrogant to not explain it? So we should just let murderers go when they say "Yea, I got a plan wich you don't understand anyway.", I wonder what we would do to the judges then. What kind of lame excuse is that? Anyway, about the topic starts. It's so funny to see people like that, a couple of days ago I've seen an advertisment from the WWF simply saying "Help us stop global warming!". It's so arrogant, so ignorant, I couldn't stop giggling. Stop global warming...hilarious. Must be a new symptome from the Bambi Syndrome. |
| Date: 2008/03/13 19:17:09, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
What's wrong with asking certain things? Why can't we question God, what in God's name is wrong with that? Does it make us inferior? Does it make us burn and suffer forever? Why wouldn't God say those things? Or am I interpreting what you sad totally wrong and did you mean this against what I sad about global warming? (those things happen ofcourse, better clear them up)
Can you please tell that to God then? I'm just asking for some explanation from His side, nothing more. If God thinks that's wrong, He can say that to me. I still don't understand something, why on earth worship such a being? Why worship a being who apperantly does nothing for you even if you ask it from the deepest bottom of your heart (ask my grandma about that)? Not doing those things is 1 thing, but apperantly He won't even explain anything! How on earth is that not cruel? Why can't we demand certain things, have you ever heard about the principle of equal trade? |
| Date: 2008/03/14 10:22:51, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Oooo we got a whóle lot of God's to compare with your God, craploads actually! Even compared to humans He's completly awfull, at least WE are trying to do something about shit. (note: not necceseraly meaning global warming with that)
Why not? Apperantly he has a WHOLE lot of power, what's unreasonable about asking some kind of refference? Now if I would've asked something completly rubbish, something wich is really bullcrap, but no I'm asking basic and fundamental questions. Not even an explanation about why they would be too much to answer, now how's that not arrogant? Besides, why would God be better and more worth then me? Who does God think he is? |
| Date: 2008/03/14 15:07:46, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
O really? Says who? Haven't seen anything wich points in that direction, and we all know that the Bible isn't a biology/physics/chemistry book. |
| Date: 2008/03/14 16:41:57, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
That's not what I sad, you bind certain properties to the word "God" wich I doubt about, since there is nothing that points that way. Remember that the word "God" is kind of hollow by itself, different people give different meaning's (millions of them). Besides, if that being indeed created everything, we don't have to beleive in it. Such a being either exists, or it doesn't exist and it does not matter what your personal opinion is about it. If it created the universe, it did that for all of us, it's the same for all of us. We live in the same universe, on the same earth, it didn't get into existance on a different way for you then for me. Now that would be silly, wouldn't it? |
| Date: 2008/03/14 20:09:14, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
It does not matter what you beleive in, the earth came into existance the same way for you as it did for me. That has nothing to do with opinions, either a 'supreme' being (wich you call "God") did create this planet or it did not. Also, there are WAY more creation-myths then just yours, hundreds, maybe thousands of local myths exist all around the globe. Science however isn't based on age-old stories.
Like Ian already sad, your life (and mine, partially) are good. But what about those couple of billion people who live below the poverty line? The people who need to drink the water there neighboors took a dump in, the people who still die from something as diarrhea. People like this skepic:  Can you féél the love flowing here? Why the héll do I want to worship a being who allowes (read: I'm not saying the being caused it) those things?? |
| Date: 2008/03/15 05:41:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
They are, everything non-random (because random things like forest fires and vulcanoes are called genetic shift, or was it drift? keep mixing those up) that alters the allel-frequencies in a population is a selective agent. Predation, like those falcons, is an (non-random) example of them.
It's about the fact that predators would be scared shitless, won't hunt them. Our current explanation is that that's because they look poisonous even though we're not (and we can check that, just capture one and check if they have poison glands). If you've got something better wich eliminates our current explanation we would be glad to hear it (and perhaps a Nobel-price in biology would await), currently you haven't offerd anything better. |
| Date: 2008/03/15 20:32:29, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
dheddle
Simply sad: sending people to hell is evil. But that's not what it's about. It's about the fact that we're getting told that God loves us all, but A apperantly he condemns craploads of people to eternal doom and B he apperantly does not care about the majority of his creation suffering horribly. It's not about the fact that God would do such a thing, it's about the fact that those things aren't really making Him a good subject for worship. Ofcourse there is another option, he does care about those things but he simply can't do anything about it. That would mean however he isn't all-powerfull, and it would also be a problem for all-knowing. Afterall, then he would know that the majority of his creation would suffer that much, that he would know he would care about that and that he would know he couldn't do anything about it. But despite all that knowledge, he created us. Wierd isn't it? skeptic
Would you mind telling that to this kid,  That picture speaks for itself, doesn't it skeptic? |
| Date: 2008/03/16 09:34:49, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Skeptis, you totally miss my point. I never sad that starvation is evil, or talked about some Utopia. I ment that against your bullshit about choices, YOU have choices. Was it that little boy's choice to starve to death? Was it his choice to get born there? You ARE lucky, lucky you cán choose. They can't. If your God exists, with those properties it's simple: he wants those children to starve, he lets them starve, he lets them suffer. Skeptic, do yourself a favor and stop bullshitting about choices. You're damned lucky you're not born in Kenia or Ethiopia. You're damned lucky you cán choose and they cán't, and you know that. Edit: I see you posted slightly faster, so it's that kid own fault he starved to death?? Was that his own responsibility?? In light in all of your logic skeptic, why would I worship your God? Why shouldn't I worship another God, because there are countless numbers of Gods. |
| Date: 2008/03/16 16:53:06, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Skeptic:
Certainly, but you know that the little kid I showed earlier has nothing to do with that and doesn't deserve that.
We never sad it was God's fault, we just blaim him for not doing anything. And again, that little kid and thousands like them have nothing to do with those choices. You do know that don't you? I wasn't talking about us as a whole, I'm talking about individuals, individuals like that little child who are apperantly ignored by God and left to die horribly just like tens of thousands like him. It's about this Skeptic: You and I have choices, that little kid had none. Nothing has been done about it, he died slowly and horribly. We're only wondering how that is compatible with a loving God, we're just wondering why the héll we want to worship such a being. Do you understand that? @Louis: No no what he sad about population control, is that population control would be a 'solution' for climate change. I do find it almost funny that we westren people think we can and should stop climate change. Really, isn't that the most retarted thing you've (and anyone) has heard? |
| Date: 2008/03/18 15:41:26, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ofcourse, it would be completly ridiculous if science would teach science! I mean, science is best learned from people who've got nothing to do with science, isn't that SO obvious? With things like that, I even start thinking if people in the project aren't starting to back off. Even those people have limits. |
| Date: 2008/03/20 09:00:24, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I recognise his voice too...from that black dude (John Tickle or something) from Brainiac, but I doubt that's helpfull. Too bad these video's are completly futile, they'll keep repeating themselfs like broken records anyway. |
| Date: 2008/03/24 15:17:29, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Finished high school last year, busy atm with a Bachelor in Bio-Informatics although it's not sure I'm finishing that (I found out I hate programming). Maybe I'll quite and start a Bachelor in journalism, still talking/working with my study-councelor. |
| Date: 2008/03/24 15:38:22, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Well at least I got O'Reilly's book Learning Python (but I've never heard from Rush Limbaugh), and I'll keep that (not like most students who stop after 1 year and sell there books on Ebay). So even if a certain interest in programming would return, I can pick it up with some help from friends and books. I just don't think that Bio-Informatics is my "thing", shame though but you can't really expect a 17 year old to immediatly know what he wants to do for the rest of his life. PS: I'm not really sure if I should feel slightly insulted by that post J-Dog |
| Date: 2008/03/28 15:10:42, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I think it was L'Oreal claiming to have the latest hype in face-créme land: amino-peptides, well woopydoo isn't that the most amazing stuff you ever heard from! Cilit Bang with it's "active oxygen" is also a great one. Or what about that "DNAge" stuff, claims to repair the DNA from your skin with some kind of simple acid, wich is in craploads of food. Worst is, when my mum watches it, she really thinks it's honest science, then I have to tell her what it really is. Hurray >.< |
| Date: 2008/03/29 13:25:35, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Well, the most bullshit in commercial's are in beauty-product commercials. And those products aren't really for a 10-year old ;) I think the king (or rather queen) from this bullcrap is L'Oreal: the latest discovery in skin-healthcare, amino-peptides!!! Grrrrrrr... But yea, it's true that advertisers exploit the ignorance of the average Joe/Jane. With such logical bullshit as the example above, I even wonder if it's légal to do it... |
| Date: 2008/04/02 19:16:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
From Louis:
QFT I say, I really don't understand it. I got bullied around a lot when I was on high-school and middle-school (hope that's the correct term) but I never got into real fights, although I nearly lost my temper once (and I had a strong desire to, literally, smash someone through a computer screen). Anyway, I never bothered with 1 of the above, although Aikido appealed to me for it's fluent style and "pwning" (I'm a gamer, sorry) an opponent with the kinetic energy he creates himself. Side note, how to prevent a fight, get named Staff Sergeant Max Fightmaster Then you're safe for life, "No you fool! you can't fight him! He's Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster! Think about this for a second!" |
| Date: 2008/04/04 09:53:47, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
It all comes down to this: if we don't watch out, we're going to f*ck ourselfs. We can do all we want, we're just destroying ourselfs. If we want to live properly as well the next 200 years or so, we'll have to change certain things. If we don't care, we can just do what we want because in a stamina-fight between us and Earth, Earth alwayse wins. And that's the only benefit we should keep in mind. That's all there is to it, and it has nothing to do with the Bambi-Syndrome wich is rampant out there. |
| Date: 2008/04/04 13:00:09, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Please Christopher, don't make this thread more scary then it is already. But just to give him a break, I'll do it for him: Jesus = 74 Root from 74 = 8,602 ofcourse rounded off. |
| Date: 2008/04/04 19:44:41, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Best is, we've been warned for that at the beginning of the end (and I think you know what I mean with that): Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught... Only then you will realise, that money can't be eaten. And after that, our all time favorite comes: I told you so, didn't I? |
| Date: 2008/04/05 19:30:28, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Another Brick in the Wall? (sorry, couldn't resist) |
| Date: 2008/04/08 04:28:36, Link 145.74.83.189 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I sometimes do, but I still prefer written language over face-to-face. I'm way to impulsive to discuss things like this, I don't have the time to really think about what I want to say. Also, what Louis says, some friends of mine are complete tards if it's about science, but ofcourse I don't want to spoil our friendship over that (although I'm dissapointed when I find out retarted things). The only exception, are my parents. Especially my mum likes pseudo-science stuff, and falls for the bullshit beauty-product commercials (like DNAge) and then I totally burn here. My dad is a douchebag when it's about politics, and he's fun to burn down as well. To illustrate the atmosphear at home: I've been kicked out the house 7 times, and I think I'll move out pretty soon. |
| Date: 2008/04/08 05:17:47, Link 145.74.83.189 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ooo that's not needed, I'm Dutch, at least pot is alwayse a doorstep away ;-) (although I live in the middle of the Dutch Bible Belt, but it's still Holland; we had a weed 'farm' 1 block from my house) But yea it's mostly for arguing, but my dad and I don't really get along anyway since character wise, we're WAY to similair. It's not that he's christian, or some other kind of fundie, it's just he's a tard on some area's. And lot's of times, there is a complete lack of logic in his parenting (and even my mum acknowledges that sometimes). And that's a pretty volatile mix. |
| Date: 2008/04/08 18:52:21, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
I really can't wait for that moment, because that would mean they would start thinking for themselfs ;-) At least I will try 1 thing my dad lacks right now: dialogue. He thinks I should listen to him just because he's my dad, problem is I simply won't do that (ofcourse, the fact that I'm still a kid and that I sometimes still am a impulsive and rebelling teen plays a part as well, I won't deny that). And although I never hestitate to at least try to discuss with my dad lots of time, I do hestitate to discuss with other family members. My grandma for instance, she's amazing, is a "regular" christian and a creationist (although I doubt she's a YEC). I once started a dialogue about that with her, when I was 10, and never bothered again because it's a way too nice relationship to spoil wich such a debate.
I've lived with them my entire, yet short, life and I still do. Although they're pretty friendly in most cases, some are actually pretty scary. 1 Morning I was biking to school pretty early in the morning past 1 of those folks houses, there a mother who looked a bit like that girl from The Ring (a sleeping-gown wich looks Victorian, pale face, long black hair although not hanging infront of her face) kept following me with deep-socketed dark eyes. Scared the crap outa me, but luckely even she is a bit of an excess from that community. Although that community is pretty damned clear they're fundie's, the fundie's who definatly don't look or sound fundie frighten me the most. I met this really beautiful and friendly girl a while ago, and I was shocked when I found out she was a YEC fundie. It was so wierd, I also attempted dialogue with her but I left that to rest as well because I didn't want to create tension. That's the main reason why I barely discuss controversial things at all with other people, I can't stand tension.
I never really felt the urge to go into Amsterdam, I visited it once on our way to the popu-science museum Nemo, but I wouldn't call that a real visit to Amsterdam. When I watch that city on tv and what I've seen on that 1 trip myself, Amsterdam feels a bit...icky to me. Although I'm definatly not a christian boy, I'm pretty damned prudish on some things ;-) |
| Date: 2008/04/08 19:07:34, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Just watch The Mask where he plays, *gasp*, someone who actually embraces and uses science (a psychologist, treating Stanly about his mask problems)! Must be the hardest part he played his entire life, especially the fact that his character embraces logic. |
| Date: 2008/04/09 14:55:39, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Really? I thought those anti-gay Bible camps (for gay boys and girls to "transform" them into straight people, I can just wonder about the problems those kids will have in the future, my society-teacher in high-school commited suicide from supressing it) were relatively new, or would just be the last twitches? |
| Date: 2008/04/09 15:01:18, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
Although Showgirls sucked (o ha ha ha), it still had lots of hot naked girls. Wich is what matters with a porn-flick. Now this is a proper cult-classic: PS: midwifetoad, suprise us with some good Photoshops from both of those filmposters. It's excellent material. |
| Date: 2008/04/11 19:17:14, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
Scientists often use simplifications and personifications to (try to) explain certain things, simply because it's handy and it's the easiest way to do it. And yes, some people mix that up. But ofcourse, antromorphisation is nothing new or special. Just look at the climate-change stuff what's all around us, craploads of people seem to suffer from the Bambi Syndrome when we're talking about nature. Compared to that, those little simplifications for the sake of explanation are nothing, but they can get irritating sometimes but a WHOLE lot less irritating then the Bambi Syndrome. |
| Date: 2008/04/12 10:43:17, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
I know, that's what made the movie fun for me (lots of the original Disney movies are actually pretty dark and evil) :P But say that to your regular 9 year old, like my sister (e.a, kids are raised with an antromorphesised version of nature). Like skeptic says, it's a regular heard sentiment and it's increasing with the climate debate. It's pretty dámn irritating, I saw a WWF advertisement in a magazine simply saying "Stop climate change!". It really made me go, "WTF?". Anyway, it's pretty dumb from myself that I forgot about it. The best example wich fit with skeptic's earlier examples is ofcourse ID. If ány group of people abuses the anthromorphisised examples from scientists to explain things, and the human habit of anthromorpisation in general, it's the ID community. |
| Date: 2008/04/12 13:55:41, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
The whole idea of "Stop Global Warming/Climate Change" is retarted already, not just stupid. Isn't it just arrogant to think we can or should stop those things? By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^ But yea, you're right, problem is people don't care about what you like. They only care about the money they earn with it, the New World's new god. |
| Date: 2008/04/13 08:36:42, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
O no I never denied the "problem" (I don't call it a problem really, climate change is pretty normal, the Sahara wasn't alwayse that desert), I just hate the fact that we're putting all our efforts in trying to stop it instead of learning to deal with a changing earth. Because why on earth to people think we can or should stop climate change? The earth changes every seconde, yes Holland could be flooded in the future (the risk of living in a giant bathtube), but what's wrong with that? Millions of years ago, Holland was just the seafloor and it could become seafloor once again, what's wrong with that? Yea, then we have to move, like animal life does for millions of years, why should we be an exception? It looks like people can't accept that the earth changes, also in our dissadvantage and instead of learning to deal with it we're trying to stop it without even knowing if we cán or even should, isn't that dumb? |
| Date: 2008/04/13 12:26:38, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
I think we indeed talked passed eachother ;-) Because, obviously, I agree on most of what you wrote there.
What kind of minimisation would you have in mind then? Wich effects? For example, we can easely see we cause massive deforestation and desertification and the damage it causes to loads of people. The problem is as well, that those things are mainly caused by the same people, simply because there are lots and lots of them. Isn't that our main problem, that we're simply with too many? And, I think we're not focussing enough on learning to live with possible effects. And even if we do, it seems that we're mainly focussing on ourselfs and less on the country's that really need our technical expertise on this subject.
You don't have to be afraid that I think something like that, I fully realise that simply moving away from changing enviroments is FAR as easy as it sounds ;-)
Again, ofcourse I realise that such a worst-case scenario can become reality. The problem is again: can we really do something about it? The liveability (if that word even exists, but I hope that you know what I mean) of area's has changed craploads of time's, the main difference now is that hundreds of millions of people live in area's who are prone to change already (coastal area's). Can we stop those area's from changing? Can we even protect those people? Ofcourse I deeply hope we can, but sometimes I think really really bad things to those people are going to happen wich we can't stop. I don't think we're thinking enough about what can happen to those people and how we can protect them. I see expensive projects to put CO2 in the ground, I see alternative energy's. Do those things (well, at least some of them) help? Yes, they can help with coping with the changes for us in the future, but what direct help do they offer to those millions of people who can be very screwed?
Ofcourse I agree that we are destroying and depleting lots of things who are vitale for our survival (or at least for our current civilisation), but it seems that those direct things aren't the things who are in the spotlight right now (deforestation, desertification). CO2 is thé subject right now, and although I realise we should definatly decrease polution output wich also means less CO2, I think "Guys, aren't there things who deserve that space in the spotlight more then that?". That's mainly my adversion against the current debate, that we're making the wrong priority's. |
| Date: 2008/04/13 14:11:10, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Well, I agree on 1 thing, that is that we (media, certain groups) use CO2 as a really really big scapegoat to blaim all climate problems on, that it's THE cause of the predicted climate change and current weather changes. Forgive me, but I still doubt we are thé cause of all the changes since it happend before without us. Ofcourse we can't ignore our influence, but again is CO2 worth his spot in the spotlights? Aren't there things who need our attention much more? Like deforestation, like desertification, like the real changing (and not the possible cause) of coastal area's. |
| Date: 2008/04/13 14:30:35, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
That's not what I read on Wikipedia (it says Asia), but I kinda fail at reading. |
| Date: 2008/04/15 03:00:12, Link 145.74.83.197 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Well, still, even though they look similar, that's not that strange. It's still the same cell, the same processes. There isn't that much room for difference, the Harvard animation kinda set the standard (so to say). No wonder they look alike, although the walking over the microtubule really made me frown. The rest isn't that super-duper plagiarised, tbh. (I really feel like playing the devil's advocate) |
| Date: 2008/04/15 03:20:36, Link 145.74.83.197 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
@Louis regarding his reactions to my posts: Well, can't say much else then that I agree with you ;) Tha faulty portret the media paints of science may be one of the reasons I want to get a bachelor in Journalism.
O yes indeed, as Louis sad earlier, the main source from people's knowledge about science is the mainstream media. And the media is portrating science and scientific knowledge, data and theories very, VERY bad. And it's not just with global warming, ID may find it's foundation in these matters. |
| Date: 2008/04/15 10:06:34, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Do dogs care if they stink or not ;) Anyway, you guys sure have some fascinating wildlife around there. It's just boring crap here in Holland, the little and plain birds (blackbirds, pigeons, several species of tits and unfortunatly not the interesting types of tits) we have here are mostly chased away by my 2 cats (who still occasionally catch one, picture on 1st page). The best I can spot here, are grey herons who occasionally fly over. They like my neighborhood (densly build quarter build like 12 years ago) because lots of people have small ponds in there backyards, thus fish. Also the nightly sky isn't that woopy, because I live 200 meters from a freeway. And still the area where I live would be labeled as "country-side". Yay for Holland... |
| Date: 2008/04/15 10:36:47, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Did biologists in general even worked on Expelled? |
| Date: 2008/04/20 09:06:46, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
He sure as hell is, I live next to people who are actually worse. Yes, indeed, worse then that guy. *shivers* |
| Date: 2008/04/23 07:07:43, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Skeptic, this has nothing to do with opinions. We simply asked you to support your opinion, because we can't discuss without content. Apperantly, you don't understand what Louis sad, he sad he wanted (just like me) to see some foundation for your statements. Really, how the héll can you base your opinion on data you haven't seen (does it even exist)?? I really don't understand how you do that. |
| Date: 2008/04/23 12:09:45, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
That's been done by saying, "Don't worry, it's all part of a big plan we don't understand, it's all for our good!" and well, that's it. |
| Date: 2008/04/24 18:37:46, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
No no no he díd think, and thát was the problem. Who needs thinking when you got the neo-cons ;) |
| Date: 2008/04/25 17:42:05, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
|
@Louis: Well...skeptic did point out what he exactly ment, and where he got it from. Isn't that like, more you could ever ask for? At least enough to like, react on his opinions, right? Anyway,
Indeed, can't say nothing more then I agree. The point I'm kinda worried about, is the affordability from goods like that, and if they don't come too late for those tens of millions of people who are fleeing already from the changing enviroment already. What can we do to prevent them from dying an mass? We're already on the good road, making sure are alright and prepared, but what about them? |
| Date: 2008/04/25 18:27:16, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Hell yes they're fleeing, especially in Africa, people running from desertification and drought. I'm not sure about SE Asia, but I can imagine it will happen or already is happening with increasing floods. The really shitty side about those African people moving, is that they move to more fertile area's (ofcourse), but because they're with so many and just want to survive, they completly drain those area's as well and then the story starts over again. And o boy, the locals from those refugee area's don't like that. But what to do? It's like a spiral diving deeper and deeper. |
| Date: 2008/04/25 18:35:35, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I'm not a huge fan from his style of jazz (I'm more of a John Coltraine person), but he sure as hell is one awesome trumpetist. Shame to see such people go, glad to see those people are rememberd. |
| Date: 2008/04/25 19:02:02, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Well ok I can agree on that, posting articles who just repeat your own p.o.v isn't an explanation in any way. And I as well still want an explanation from skeptic (yes skeptic, you indeed) on why it's indeed crap in his eyes (I'm not even condemning his views), and not just examples of more people who agree with him. But I'm just pretty optimistic and saw sóme content, seeing at least a weeee small oppertunity for a reaction on his views ;-) Just my hopefull side I guess. |
| Date: 2008/04/26 05:18:08, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
It's not about the earth or nature here, climate change IS a part of nature. This problem is purely about us humans: how do wé as a species manage with the changing enviroment. The answer is, a large part of our species manages véry shitty with the changing envoriment and is likely to be in a world of hurt.
And thát kind of attitude grinds discussions to a halt, or even preventing them to take off in the first place. Just try, show it to us, and wait for a reaction. The only thing we ask for is to explain why climate tipping points are bogus in your eyes. Just dive a little bit in the deep, show us what you got, and we can have a discussion about the content. That would be a nice change, wouldn't it? EDIT: It seems Louis posted a split second before me (my my you're up early), and as you can see he talks about the content. Now please, be a sport, and help this make a constructive discussion, ok? ;-)
And that short-sightness is 1 of the main problems we're facing. It's not neceseraly about you, it's about our children and grand-children. It's not even about us Westren folks, we'll manage in the end, it's about those millions of near-dead people in developing country's who have no way to go. |
| Date: 2008/04/26 05:46:07, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
The "please be a sport, and help this make a constuctive discussion" was ment against skeptic, not you Louis ;) I don't really think you're too harsh, I amaze myself why I keep so calm sometimes. But ofcourse, can't agree more, there can't be a fruitfull discussion without support for any claim. Now let's wait what he comes up with (I keep hoping, but that's just me). |
| Date: 2008/04/26 11:46:51, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||||
An agenda to whipe out the poor country's?? Before this goes on the conspiracy-express, care to explain? Ofcourse more things are at work, things aren't as simple as we portrait it. But yea, we're to blaim with our huge amount of overconsumption, what's so wierd about that?
You do know that skipping posts doesn't give you any real credibility? Really, how can we ever discuss with you like that? You may skipped it, but unfortunatly he has some valid points there if you like it or not. Ignoring only makes it worse.
Science is never sure, ofcourse, but are you saying we're not picking the correct variabeles? Care to explain more about that piece of text?
First of all, isn't the whole ideá of a model like that to try to find a connection between temperature and CO2? If the variables are completly unlinked, we don't expect to see a relation between the 2. But like you say, it's an oversimplification, so do you have a more realistic example then?
This goes a little bit above my head, it's more something for Louis (at least he's more at home in the pharma industry). Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg and that's just one topic, phew! |
| Date: 2008/04/30 12:25:24, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Question: how the hell do you keep those bees in the box, and isn't such a hive way to heavy for a cardboard box like that? Anyway, 2 days ago I saw a pretty nice bird, wich I've never seen here before. I didn't take a picture, because I was just on my way back from school, but I think it was this one:  The Eurasian Nuthatch, mainly because it was spurting down up and down the trunk of a tree so smoothly. But I could be wrong ofcourse, I'm far from a connaiseur ;-) |
| Date: 2008/05/08 13:15:40, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Why do you want so dearly to do it at your place? Aren't we fine over here? No banning and stuff like that, no post deletion (although some posts can be moved, but not deleted). Really, we cán we friendly folks. Also, we don't want to just discuss science. Some people already asked some questions, that would prevent nasty mix-ups and stuff like that. |
| Date: 2008/05/13 07:09:17, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Why do you only want to discuss on your own place? I mean, if you got good arguments, they're good everywhere. By the way, better answer "Yes" to those questions from Zero, because he has the math as proof! |
| Date: 2008/05/18 11:09:29, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
*claps* Brilliant, that's simply amazing. I'm surrounded by punks (note: I mean, people who have the punk life-style) who ofcourse bash Bush every single day. That's nóthing compared to what this guy does, awesome. |
| Date: 2008/05/18 12:19:31, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Awwwww that really is cute, most of the time's those shows are just mindless laughing material. But there sure are gems. |
| Date: 2008/05/19 08:39:53, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Wow, she allowed me to post there:
|
| Date: 2008/05/19 09:55:51, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
Yea the video sad some good things about ID, got shitty when it went on about evolution. Very superficial, but to be honest I did not expect Ftk would post something like that Nor did I expect my post to come through, it seems like she....changed a bit, would that be possible  |
| Date: 2008/05/20 07:15:32, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| I live in a little rotten village (where I'm surrounded by religious extremists, I live in the middle of our Bible Belt) called Waardenburg in the middle of Holland. I don't think ányone lives near me, and also that I'm the only Dutch person around here. I can't wait to move out of this place, and I already started thinking about migrating some day. |
| Date: 2008/05/20 17:23:26, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Then I can say again, poor spider, deprived from his food ;) |
| Date: 2008/05/25 16:41:07, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Can't wait as well. Ya know, you guys sure revived my love for the outdoors ;) Anyway, maybe a funny little "wildlife" story to tell as well. Yesterday, at work, we had ourselfs a bird in the supermarket's storage. For some odd reason, all my co-workers were scared shitless from the little fella. I just found it a pretty nice experience to watch a bird up close, and his singing sounded even better! And because I was the only guy around (all my co-workers are girls, except for the boss who wasn't around) I was the one who could scare it away, and thus I got crap all over me (thanks girls!). I think it was one of these:  A female blackbird, a kinda dull and normal bird but the song it sang was still really nice, but I'm definatly not sure (1 of the reasons I would like a camara on my cellphone). All in all another fun day at work, at least my newest co-workers who just had her first day has one to remember. |
| Date: 2008/05/26 09:51:36, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Hmm yes then it was definatly not a female blackbird. I can only recall it was a slim bird who was totally brown, with a fluty song. It could be a European Starling, but I can't recall it being that spotted. The beak was also different, it had a darker color. |
| Date: 2008/05/27 13:22:56, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||||
I am ashamed from some of my age-companions. It's nothing special though, you should see my school.... It's (hopefully) just another phase, sometimes.
Can't réally blaim them hmm  (The LOLcat universe is soooooo big) |
| Date: 2008/05/27 14:44:07, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Can all the links above even be called "action"? Really, it's all just the same crap, boring monotous chatter from odd people. Not much fun, where is the creativity in the anti-evo camps, that would spice things up. |
| Date: 2008/05/30 08:06:27, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Haaaappy birthdaaaay! Kinda late I know, but it's about the idea |
| Date: 2008/06/05 19:02:49, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Then do us a favor, and make it clear. Apperantly you kind of failed at first, because we all missed it. |
| Date: 2008/06/12 09:12:11, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||||
For wich he has how much evidence? Any emperical data, emperical observations perhaps?
Any emperical data? Evidence? Proof? Any scientific foundation for that statement?
Again, any support for that statement? Without any foundation, those statements are nothing but hollow cries. Besides, how the héll can you "know" that emperical evidence is not there if you don't have any science degree? Do you have ANY education on these matters at all? |
| Date: 2008/06/12 09:21:06, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Care to explain please? |
| Date: 2008/06/12 09:36:56, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Nice one, but emmm, care to adress 1 of those previous questions from anyone of us? |
| Date: 2008/06/12 19:21:08, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
You do need to understand that it doesn't matter if something is interesting or not. The only thing that matters in science, is data, evidence, support for your claims. It can be as dull as batshit (and I bet somewhere in the world, someone heavely dissagrees) but if it's thoroughly supported, it doesn't matter a damned thing. Fact is, that for example his hydroplate theory is complete and utter rubbish, and it doesn't matter how interesting it sounds. I can't imagine you can't understand that. Same with sources. It doesn't matter if a 10 inch tall blue Odin worshipping tripple winged elf provides the proper foundation for a statement or theory, it's the foundation itself wich matters and not the person (thus including his personal beleives). But really, lets put it aside then if you don't care about it. You care about common descent, ok, what do you have to ask about common descent then? |
| Date: 2008/06/12 19:29:48, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Speciation has been observed, numerous times. Go Google it or something. Another thing is, that we don't insist that it's "merely" due to microevolutionary changes over billions of years. John S. Wilkins. probably adresses the problem with micro and macro evolution better then I ever can in this article he wrote:
It isn't all 100% done and over in the field of biology Ftk, it isn't as closed as you seem to think it is. |
| Date: 2008/06/13 11:33:51, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Can you explain, please, how you can say that without any proper education on these matters? That's a mystery to me, so can you please enlighten me? By the way Ftk, can you also please explain to me why the hell you are avoiding any post wich goes against the scientific statements you made? Like Louis posts, sure you got 0 respect for him, but that doesn't make the content of hist posts less valuable. Again, personality's do not matter in science. |
| Date: 2008/06/14 18:28:52, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Happy B-day to all you folks. |
| Date: 2008/06/16 11:03:11, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
 |
| Date: 2008/06/17 06:01:53, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Dammit, why isn't that being broadcasted here in Holland, I miss all the good stuff! O well we dó have the Daily Show over here. Anyway, not much new stuff in that one, just saying what we already knew. That Colbert guy is awesome though. |
| Date: 2008/06/17 14:50:49, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Happy birthday! Good luck with getting that done ;) |
| Date: 2008/06/22 14:12:59, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| 1 Thing though: hate mail is nothing more then contra-productive here. I doubt anything will help, but if you try, do it seriously. |
| Date: 2008/06/26 10:34:13, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
You dó know that, without ány form of support that is just a hollow comment? Support it please. (What will happen with this comment, I wonder I wonder...)
Seeing you have no proper education on these matters (evolutionary biology, chemistry, ecology, just to name a few) and he actually did, that's why he's in his position right now, I wonder how you will rock his world... *gets really dirty pictures in his mind* |
| Date: 2008/06/26 10:39:38, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Ftk, I wonder about another thing. Do you actually realise that discussions tend to fail if you ignore the actual on-topic responses to what you say? |
| Date: 2008/06/26 10:50:52, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Why are they assholes Ftk? Because they mock you? Ever thought about why they mock you? Instead of whining about them, just post what you want to post. It sounds like you actually want to post someting ontopic, something wich is supported by evidence! The excuses are worthless. I think lots of those "assholes" would fall of there chairs if you do. |
| Date: 2008/06/26 10:53:31, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Leaping, falling. Same emotion, different directions ;) But whatever will happen, I'll grab my popcorn. It's amusing really, more drama then TV can éver produce. |
| Date: 2008/06/26 11:13:06, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Ooo you'll have a problem then if both are present. If that's the case, lets hope that it doesn't happen then ;) But anyway, Ftk, do you read that?? People you call assholes would actually he háppy and cheerfull if you would post what you seemingly want to post. What are you waiting for? Astound them! |
| Date: 2008/06/27 05:28:08, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Maybe it's because I'm just a naive young dog (most probably), but for some reason I find it difficult to mock those ignorant folks. For some reason I keep trying to explain things to them, apperantly it won't come through that they really will never ever change, wich is something I can't understand, thus I keep trying even móre. I keep being fascinated with there crap, why...no idea. Where does that magical attraction to the TARD come from, it's hyyyypooooontiiiisiiiiing. Hopefully it won't screw up my Bachelor in Journalism next year, we should set up the Anonymous Tardaholics ;) |
| Date: 2008/06/27 18:21:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Wow, I never thought I would be viewed as an optimist really :P Because what I actually ment is that, although I keep trying, I do know that it's useless anyway. Besides, if someone is genuinly interested or really confused and really wánts to learn something, he/she isn't a tard really. Maybe that defines that wierd species we call the Tard: a skull as thick as Dembski's bullcrap. |
| Date: 2008/06/29 10:03:52, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Is that even póssible?? How can someone scratch open there skúll in the first place, and even if that's possible do it without waking up! That's just scary shit. I used to scratch open my legs during the night though, sometimes untill it bled. Never got myself tested on an allergy though, I better do, I don't want to end up with my lower leg scratched off or something...apperantly it seems possible. |
| Date: 2008/07/01 11:16:22, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
I heard someone using "bits" to measure that, although I after I asked more about it (how do you measure it, where does it come from, where are the publications about it, etc etc) it became awfully silent as usual. The only "bits" I've ever seen in something actually scientific, was in an online sequencing program (I think BLAST but I'm not sure) a while ago. Can't remember exactly in wich context though. |
| Date: 2008/07/01 13:34:17, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Emperical data, facts. Like with all forms of science, so where are they when it's about ID or Creationism?
Evolution is allowed to "change stripes" because that's the way science works. Science keeps correcting itself, that's the power of science. If something is wrong, it will change. O and by the way, Dembski's "Design filter" or commonly known as the Explanatory Filter (if that's not the one you mean, correct me) if utterly useless. To save me a lot of typing, read this nice little article from our own Wesley Elsberry: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf
Money can be spend on science. So either start conducting it, or stop moaning. And you sir, are only talking about (bad?) theology, and not science. |
| Date: 2008/07/01 14:15:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||||
The problem is, like what's sad before, that Creationism ánd ID have not shown they're science. |
| Date: 2008/07/01 15:00:46, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Ok then, I'll try: A couple of posts back, you sad that when ID or Creationism has shown it's science, it has been ridiculed, called lies etc. So can you explain please, what Creationisme and/or ID has done exactly to show that they've done to show they're actually scientific. Because as far as we know, they have not. Maybe you could tell us more about it then. |
| Date: 2008/07/02 04:30:04, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
@Nomad: If you make it to that stand, please share your experience with us by making some pictures ;) Sounds funny. Anyway, I'll probably won't do much. I'll just work (yeap, summer vacation for students means work, woohoo) so I can pay for a laptop (about 700 euro's) and the schoolbooks I need for next year (apperantly about 600 euro's). Yay...summer... I should do something about my potbelly though, a 17 year old weighing over 90 kg's (even if he's almost 2 meters in length), isn't réally good. |
| Date: 2008/07/03 13:57:04, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
That discussion I made a thread about (a long long time ago) has flared up again. And this guy is summing up ID like this: ID says that *ahem* non-trivial algoritmic systems cannot spontaniously arise. To realise non-trivial algoritmic systems, you need an intelligent designer. How does that compare what Dembski says in his book? PS: And ofcourse, I kept asking if he could actually start talking about biology here. And ofcourse, he won't do that, because according to him everything would just get confusing then. A lovely discussion. PPS: He sums op the theory of evolution like this: A bunch of just-so stories for wich there is A no evidence that it happend "that way" and B no evidence that it can happen. Ofcourse I'de love to respond to the bloke, but because he doesn't talk about biology and apperantly just about sci-fi (that's what it looks like), I have no idea what to say. Ain't those people lovely? |
| Date: 2008/07/03 14:17:14, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
My my, 35, you're getting old! So a very happy birthday from that shitty little country called Holland! |
| Date: 2008/07/04 11:29:50, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
|
Maybe these quotes aren't the most tardish, but they sure are the most ingenious pro-ID argument and anti-evolution argument I've seen in a while. I'll try to translate them. The pro-ID one:
Anti-evolution:
The bolding is from me. |
| Date: 2008/07/04 13:18:41, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Now really, you have been given the oppertunity to transform this thread from a flamewar into a (hopefully) usefull thread where is the actual content of the matter is being discussed. And you're just waving that away? Don't you think that's a shame? Some people would be jumping up and down out of joy, others would fall of there chairs, totally flabbergasted. I'm réally curious about what you actually have to say about the content, and not about the people here, and I think many others can't wait to hear that from you as well. Our ears (well, eyes) are wide-open. Come on, give it a shot, trying doesn't hurt. |
| Date: 2008/07/04 18:48:24, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Yes indeed ;) He actually sounds suprised that no one ever suggests that we are just really high-tech technology. Latest from him just came in, he quoted an article stating this:
And he's suprised that's not common knowledge. Like no one knows that natural selection only selects on the phenotype...yea that's true hidden knowledge, they're all hiding it from us! No idea what his point with the algorithm is though, I can't stand that math-language...I háte math. Anyway, what I want to say with quoting this, is that you guys would lóve to discuss with this bloke. I bet that he would be one of the few ID-supporters that would actually engage in a meaningfull discussion. Ok, I bet it would end in nothing anyway, that happend to me as well, but at least he would say something meaningfull. To bad he hates the attitude on places like that, or else I would've tried to get him over here ;) |
| Date: 2008/07/05 12:19:58, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Another happy birthday! |
| Date: 2008/07/05 19:40:58, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ooo that's normal, like my new discussion partner sad, life is just high-tech technology anyway ;) I guess that because of there low budget, ISCID has to do with a little less high-tech receptionists. They have to save all there money for that super-duper research they're conducting. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 10:17:59, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||||
No, you don't. How can anyone answer your question if a vital part of the question is nothing more then a big gray blur? Then it is impossible to formulate a proper answer, since the question is meaningless. We could call the stuff "life" by the way. O and I can answer your question, here's an example about such a benificial mutation from a bacteria in nature, the nylon eating bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria
Good enough? The evolution of a whole new set of enzymes, that's big. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 10:23:19, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Or you could start with giving evidence for your statements. And how do you know that's a fact? Do you know him? Do you know his history? Anything other then this forum? Any evidence that that's a fact? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 10:39:53, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
You asked for examples of important benificial mutations in natural enviroments, I gave you one. Thus, I did what you asked, what's the problem? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 10:41:35, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
And since when is that an excuse to just do it yourself as well? I thought you were a grown up (not unlike me, I'm just a kid) who would know better then that. Because guess what: we don't know. For example, I discuss with an ID "sympathist" for months now, and you won't hear people here calling him (the bolding is because most of the time, they talk about the ideas) a delusional idiot, because they don't know him. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 11:54:33, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
It would help if you would actually do the same, and support your claims with e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. But the answer to that question is simple: it's an improvment of the creature, helping it to survive better compared to other members of it's population. I'll write down a little story as an example so you know what I mean: Bob and Frank were walking in the woods. Suddenly a mountain lion pops up, sniffs around looking for prey. Then all of a sudden, Bob grabs his running shoes and quikly puts them on. "What, you can't out run a mountain lion!" says Frank. Bob responds very simple": "Ofcourse not Frank, I only need to out-run you." This is called relative fitness. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 12:00:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
If you look really really good, you've seen that there is a simple yet unanswered list of questions. As long as the questions remained dodged, they keep mocking. If the questions start getting answered, and evidence is produced by Ftk for her claims, then people would either fall of there chair or jump in the air (depends on the height of the ceiling and the hardness of the floor) and don't have time anymore to call names. By the way, before you defend Ftk so easly, you've seen her insults lately? Like "coward" to Wesley, just to name 1. What do you think of that then? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 12:03:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
I can get that from ID, but evolution? Sure the development of the evolutionary theory started before Darwin, but since the dawn of time? Can you support that statement please? Other then that, it doesn't matter whereither ID is religion here, it matters that science belongs in the science class, and ID is not science (yet perhaps, heej you gotta keep an open mind here ya know) thus doesn't belong in the science class whereither it's religious or not. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 12:23:16, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
Ok what do you want to see. Please try to be specific, and please post a question wich we can actually answer (not like your information question) because we know what to answer to. Fire away luv. And in the meantime, do deliver some evidence yourself ok? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 13:12:45, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
No, it should not. Why not? Because it's not science. Science belongs in the science classroom, hence the name "science classroom". When ID shows it's science, it can be taught. Before then, it won't. Or do you want the creation myths from the Lakota tribe be taught in science class as well? Or astrology? And also, scientific classrooms are not the place where scientific discussions take place. Those take place in the scientific community, in labs, in university's and nót in some random high-school with 15 year olds. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 13:16:06, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
So the question would be: Why is common descent so important. Not a too shabby question I suppose, let me quote from Theobald's article "29+ Evidences for Macro-evolution.":
Any other questions? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 13:24:37, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
I'll repeat: ID = not science. Science classroom is for science. Thus, ID does not belong in the science classroom as long as it doesn't show it's science. Ok? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 13:55:27, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
To do science? You can perfectly do nuclear physics without common descent, you can perfectly do math without common descent, you can perfectly do astronomy without common descent. Shall I go on? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 14:04:01, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||||
*hugs back* But really, you can do science without common descent. The reason why common descent is so important for biology, is that it's the best explanation we've got, or better sad by this:
|
| Date: 2008/07/11 18:32:42, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||||
Is that an...excuse so you don't have to explain it yourself? Because I can't get my hands on that book, so can you explain it? Apperantly you've read it. |
| Date: 2008/07/13 18:14:52, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||
| Author: Assassinator | ||
Ooo I réally want to answer that, as you may know I've been discussing with someone for a while now, according to him "common design" predicts that: 1: That the designer didn't 'reinvent the wheel' every time and used parts over and over again, sometimes with minor adjustments. This would explain the shared use of DNA, the 'standard liberary or enzymes' and other shared similarities. 2: Common design predicts that new designs were introduced suddenly. After that variations from those were made, and sometimes they were replaced all toghether by new designs. 3: Common design predicts that the properties of lifeforms and the sequence they arise are all part of a plan. That could be detected by large global changes who are... And then I can't translate it anymore, because his Dutch is pretty crappy. Ofcourse my question regarding these predictions was easy: what's the theory behind these predictions? I'm dýing to get an answer from him in our thread (yes, I am a tardaholic as well), but he's on vacation. |
| Date: 2008/07/15 05:00:52, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
|
Ftk: What do you actually know about biological anthropology? What do you know about what those fossils mean? |
| Date: 2008/07/15 11:10:53, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
| Happy Birthday, and thanks for making me feel like a little pup! |
| Date: 2008/07/18 07:57:16, Link 86.90.80.45 | ||||
| Author: Assassinator | ||||
To bad ID isn't science hmm? Let them start by gétting scientific first, and then *gasp* produce some research and actual evidence.
I thought Jesus didn't like lying? Couple of things: A: Science isn't an ivory tower, scientists are eager to share there knowledge and experience to people who are nog arrogant quaks. The only thing they would like, is for people to show some effort, and ofcourse not be arrogant quaks. B: Have you forgotten the 150 years of research and data áfter Darwin? C: Do you actually know whý Darwin's theory is still around? I haven't seen a lot of the UD thread, but what I've seen I enjoy, and it sure teaches me a lot. |
| Date: 2008/07/19 17:34:10, Link 86.90.80.45 |
| Author: Assassinator |
