Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
as always missed the point completely....since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
eating shit by "lower" animals is not an irrational act it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
fun fact There Is A Staggering Amount Of Feces In Our Food
Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.
hint: making false comparisons!
subjective!major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.No, there is perceived proof of evolution.
There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.
what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.
"No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
wrong! there is misperceived proof of god....
There is no "real" evidence.
only in humans ..so my answer stands.as always missed the point completely....Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.
hint: making false comparisons!
I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
only in humans ..so my answer stands.as always missed the point completely....
hint: making false comparisons!
I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
now I'm free! thanks massa! btw fuck you .
speaking of EMBOLDING, ALTERING OR FUCKING AROUND OF ANY KIND WITH A POST EVEN IN A REPLY IS GROUNDS TO GET TOSSED OFF THIS BOARD....Strawman.
Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make. I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.
only in humans ..so my answer stands.as always missed the point completely....
hint: making false comparisons!
I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
now I'm free! thanks massa! btw fuck you .
major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.No, there is perceived proof of evolution.
There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.
what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.
"No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
wrong! there is misperceived proof of god....
There is no "real" evidence.
The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.
Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance. This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.
The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination
You just keep repeating the slogans over and over
Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.
In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.
What a creepy stalker.
Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.
In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.
Well Omigosh and bless my soul!!! I think we finally might be making some progress here. There it is folks, in black and white!!! Hollie says that I got everything wrong which includes my assertion that her parents were gay-hating fundies. I always claimed that if she stopped cut and pasting long enough to deny my claims about her were true, I would stop. Being true to my word, I will not mention her parents ever again. Now if we could just get her to fess up about here lack of education and stop her from questioning everyone else's, I could quit with the ginormous fonts!!!
major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.
what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.
"No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
wrong! there is misperceived proof of god....
There is no "real" evidence.
Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..The questions have been answered.
Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.
My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.
just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief
There is no "real" evidence.
Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.
wow a whole list of false comparisons.Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
Class dismissed.
and as ways you'd be wrong I made no slur at you. or African Americans lying about it to the mods is chicken shit .only in humans ..so my answer stands.I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
now I'm free! thanks massa! btw fuck you .
You're such a class act, Daws. I think I'll let the mods know about your little racial slur right there which is an obvious stab at African Americans as slaves.
wow a whole list of false comparisons.Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
Class dismissed.
I'll debunk just three...
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!
Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!
Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.
The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?
However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.
Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.
one could only whis you would!only in humans ..so my answer stands.I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
now I'm free! thanks massa! btw fuck you .
Keep your fantasies to yourself.
WE are animals....as always missed the point completely....Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.
hint: making false comparisons!
I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
nothing to out .. so your temper tantrum is wasted.speaking of EMBOLDING, ALTERING OR FUCKING AROUND OF ANY KIND WITH A POST EVEN IN A REPLY IS GROUNDS TO GET TOSSED OFF THIS BOARD....Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make. I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.
So Daws is the little weasel tattletale. Nice try Daws. I have already verified with the mods that bolding a portion of someone's response in order to clarify the points you are addressing is perfectly fine.
So you can't win on the merits of your arguments so you resort to shady tactics to eliminate the people that call you out on your foolishness? I see right through you. Thanks for outing yourself.
