Evolution? How?

Setanta wrote:

If there is such evidence, then surely you will have no problem presenting it here. Can you give us link? Better yet, can you give us link for that evidence, which does not lead to a website maintained by a religious group?

I have noticed that if you persist with a logical line of questioning, at some point these people will try very hard indeed to deviate from it, e.g. lapse into irrelevant poetry, restate their position, etc.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
If there is such evidence, then surely you will have no problem presenting it here. Can you give us link? Better yet, can you give us link for that evidence, which does not lead to a website maintained by a religious group?

I have noticed that if you persist with a logical line of questioning, at some point these people will try very hard indeed to deviate from it, e.g. lapse into irrelevant poetry, restate their position, etc.

Very similar to conservatives , Iraq, and WMD. Razz

0 Replies

Quote:

and there is much evidence that the earth has an age in the thousands not billions.

I believe that we all have our chairs pulled up , beverages in hand, waiting to hear this evidence. I , for one, dont care if it comes from a Creationist POV. Id just like to see some concrete evidence that refutes the old earth rule.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It's true, Mr. Mayor, he has no dick . . .

Yeh, that's the one Smile

Hehehe

0 Replies

If this report isn't evidence, I don't know what is:

Quote:

THIS IS FROM A HUMOR WEBSITE!!!!!!

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
and there is much evidence that the earth has an age in the thousands not billions.

I believe that we all have our chairs pulled up , beverages in hand, waiting to hear this evidence. I , for one, dont care if it comes from a Creationist POV. Id just like to see some concrete evidence that refutes the old earth rule.

Get ready for moon dust and speed of light changes.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
If there is such evidence, then surely you will have no problem presenting it here. Can you give us link? Better yet, can you give us link for that evidence, which does not lead to a website maintained by a religious group?

I have noticed that if you persist with a logical line of questioning, at some point these people will try very hard indeed to deviate from it, e.g. lapse into irrelevant poetry, restate their position, etc.

Very similar to conservatives , Iraq, and WMD.

Not similar to me at all.

1. When asked to justify a conclusion, I have never lapsed into poetry instead.
2. I do not re-state my position if asked specifically to provide justification for my position. If asked to justify my position, I re-state my justification.

My meaning was that a re-statement of the conclusion is not an appropriate answer when asked to provide justification for the conclusion. There is nothing wrong with any level of consistency in a conclusion or the justification for a conclusion. There is something wrong with merely re-stating the conclusion when asked to justify it.

Your post indicates that you digested just enough of my post to rather ineptly attempt to mirror my words back to give the surface appearance of a snappy comeback. If you though that your off topic jibe was clever, I find it to be merely annoyingly imperceptive. Now, let's take over the thread to debate Iraq. That would be polite, wouldn't it?

0 Replies

Brandon , I was just remarking on an observed correlation. I didn't expect you to agree with it.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
...Pi is the environment, Pi is numbers trapped in a circle... the cradle of the universe and the arrays of all probabilities, the rates of the rates and the quantum matrix that dictates from that point on

I think we need to just stop trying. I've born with this thread through dozens of posts. This is, unfortunately, like trying to talk to a lunatic in an insane asylum. It just isn't going to happen. You can't debate with someone who doesn't meet certain minimum standards of rationality. Truly, this is a pointless waste of time.

If you're speaking to or of me I take offence! You cannot even hold a conversation because you have to attack someone's sanity rather than respond on the content of the conversation. You are just dumping on this discussion and stifling the flow of ideas... Again, let's have some decorum here? Do not insult me again please... I am above lashing back insults... And I will not stand for it. If you insult me again I will report you to the moderator.

Yes, you cannot communicate with someone when their only response is unrelated insult.

Your response was less related to anything I said that my response is related to reality...

I post a reply that takes me over two hours to write and you post an insult that takes you two minutes to compose... Just because you do not understand what I am saying does not mean I am not right... Cut the insults and stick to the content... Again we are in a religious post... I think some of you science people need a change of attitude...

I stand totally behind every word in my last post and all you have done is quote actually some of the best parts and call me insane. How 7th grade...

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Rex, do you believe in the bible, and in evolution?

Yes

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Well, it certainly has me considering bailing, and Im usually a die hard . Rex, youre just not making any sense to anyone but yourself. Its getting a bit embarrasing just reading your posts and I say this as one who is trying hard not to be too meanspirited. What Brandon says is correct and Ill add that your understanding of quantum Chem is not correct.

Phenom that follow rules that can be evidenced, (oh really?) do not need some phony linkage to an ultimate "being". Youre trying hard to sound profound and its only coming out rather inarticulate and illogical.

Prove me wrong about pi give me a counter theory, but this is a weak post even for you FM...

So you don't believe in God well that is your problem not mine... You really shouldn't be in a religious post if you cannot stand to hear faith based doctrines...

Remember, I am not in your science threads trying to insult you and jam my ideas at you... I certainly could... but i do not feel that is the best use of my time... When you science left wingers come in and just post an insult without countering it, it is just spam... I you cannot understand what I am saying ask and I will clarify... If you do not want to understand or clarification then talk about something else...

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Brandon , I was just remarking on an observed correlation. I didn't expect you to agree with it.

It is not a correlation, observed or otherwise, because I do not often respond to a request to justify my conclusion by merely re-stating my conclusion. I re-state my justification. I was not objecting to consistency in his conclusions or justifications, neither of which is a fault. I was objecting to a tendency to only re-state his conclusion when asked to provide arguments in favor of it, and that I do not do.

Worry, not. I do not expect your objections to my arguments be anything more than hazy misunderstandings of what I'm saying. There is no fault whatever to consistency in position on an issue, and the effort to present it as a fault is simply a tactic for people who need to avoid debating the actual logic of an issue.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Set, try barking in a deep voice.

Does anyone have the remotest of clues as to what Rex's post is trying to prove?

I have forced myself to read it slowly and carefully, but have given myself a headache and a slight twitch under the left eye, and am unfortunately none the wiser.

For future entertainment, I think I will stick to sawing off pieces from the fingers on my left hand. I am down to three as we speak, so should be OK for a week or so.

You could start by asking me
...and being specific...

0 Replies

Ok my pi post was merged with two unrelated subjects...

One bing the scripture reference of the dogs and cats... and the other was a new theory I have about pi... You cannot read about this pi theory on the internet because I just made it up... Is it true? I think so... Can anyone intelligently please remark on the specifics of the second part of that post?

That is the beauty of a theory I am not going to apologize for thinking original thoughts. I am still going to share my ideas even though some people sometimes take offence... If it was not this, they would criticize the color of my tie or the suit I wear...

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
...and light is comprised of two distinct entities...

Sorry, I don't follow. What two entities?

This is my 3rd time asking you this one. Be specific with your answer.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

If it was not this, they would criticize the color of my tie or the suit I wear...

What utter nonsense. You're a thousand times too kind with yourself. The fact is that we attempt to make very specific logical arguments, and you answer with some kind of poetry gibberish. That isn't our fault. You show little sign of the capability to discuss this topic seriously.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
...and light is comprised of two distinct entities...

Sorry, I don't follow. What two entities?

This is my 3rd time asking you this one. Be specific with your answer.

two entities...

wave/particle... ok?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
...and light is comprised of two distinct entities...

Sorry, I don't follow. What two entities?

This is my 3rd time asking you this one. Be specific with your answer.

two entities...

wave/particle... ok?

Light is not composed of two entities. Light has one and only one nature, but when we try to make analogies to familiar objects in the world of our limited everyday experience, we end up having to say, "It's kind of like a particle, but kind of like a wave." This reflects only the fact that we are trying to compare light to more mundane objects that it is not much like.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
If it was not this, they would criticize the color of my tie or the suit I wear...

What utter nonsense. You're a thousand times too kind with yourself. The fact is that we attempt to make very specific logical arguments, and you answer with some kind of poetry gibberish. That isn't our fault. You show little sign of the capability to discuss this topic seriously.

This is a good debate actually finally some content as to what you may be trying to express.

No, you purposely omit God from your equations and then you wonder why you do not "know"(agnostic) anything... You are not trained to see this reality so you look on the horizon and you see nothing...

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
...and light is comprised of two distinct entities...

Sorry, I don't follow. What two entities?

This is my 3rd time asking you this one. Be specific with your answer.

two entities...

wave/particle... ok?

Light is not composed of two entities. Light has one and only one nature, but when we try to make analogies to familiar objects in the world of our limited everyday experience, we end up having to say, "It's kind of like a particle, but kind of like a wave." This reflects only the fact that we are trying to compare light to more mundane objects that it is not much like.

See, I am not the only one that babbles... Smile

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know