345 replies to this topic

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

Says the guy in the thread about how vestigial organs are proof of evolution.

I don't think I ever said that they were. Too bad JJJ isn't here to remember.

Quote

And I'm familiar with your Jedi mind tricks...they won't work on me.

These aren't the fossils you're looking for. Seriously though: if you think animals can adapt to their environments (within species), why do you think that they can adapt juuust to the point where they would still be able to interbreed but no further? What's the magical line there that stops them from getting just different enough that they are not sexually compatible any more? How much can they adapt before stopping and why?(which is not even really necessary as there are some species which can interbreed: the whole species concept is not really always a firm line, its just a convenient way of dividing up the spectrum of variability)

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

Says the guy in the thread about how vestigial organs are proof of evolution.And I'm familiar with your Jedi mind tricks...they won't work on me.

No one said vestigial orgns were proof of evolution but I see along with the other facts that you made the leap as well. I simply said that if it was designed it was done poorly and not very well. And back to that point will you explain what your God was thinking when he made the Ichneumon wasp species? Let me tell you about them little daisies. The female finds a "victim" like a caterpillar and then paralyzes it. After it's frozen up it lays her eggs inside it. When the eggs hatch they start feeding on it's organs, making a point to save the heart and nervous system for last. It wants to keep it alive as long as possible up until the larvae hatch and eat through it's sides on it's way out. That shit makes the Alien movies seem like the Flintstones and no Jedi mind trick makes it anything less than horrific. I hope the caterpillar doesn't feel pain watching itself being eaten alive from the inside out. So what was your beneficent creator thinking on that one? Just having a little fun creating some species one day? He must be one sick son of a bitch.Now obviously natural selection, however hideous, would explain it. And I love the way you throw things like Eugenics about. Darwin didn't come up with the idea, if your ultimate creator is all-knowing, he did.

[Randy Reed]

vbnautilus, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

I don't think I ever said that they were. Too bad JJJ isn't here to remember. These aren't the fossils you're looking for. Seriously though: if you think animals can adapt to their environments (within species), why do you think that they can adapt juuust to the point where they would still be able to interbreed but no further? What's the magical line there that stops them from getting just different enough that they are not sexually compatible any more? How much can they adapt before stopping and why?(which is not even really necessary as there are some species which can interbreed: the whole species concept is not really always a firm line, its just a convenient way of dividing up the spectrum of variability)

Great Dane meet Chihuaha.

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

Yea, easy to say: "I would have made the avocado pit smaller", but when you start thinking about how much of creation is in a symbiotic relationship, how physical laws must apply universally and how all things come together in a harmonious symphony of beauty, it makes the task a little more daunting.Maybe enough to even consider the possibility that we aren't up to the ability to judge it?

It's certainly a good enough point to consider it.If at the end of a biology class the final exam was "Write the physical laws of a universe such that sentient life results", I think that would be pretty darn tough and I would become keenly interested in partial credit and how the grading curve works, exactly.However, a big problem with the argument from design is that we don't have any particular reason to think God wanted the universe this way except here it is. It's a bit circular, in fact. Did God want life on Saturn? No, says the creationist, because there isn't any. Did God want dinosaurs? Yes, says, the creationist, for awhile and then not, because there they were and then there they weren't. What exactly would a failure of the hypothesis of intelligent design look like, if we assume by definition that everything exists is what He wanted?

[Balloon guy]

BaseJester, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 2:59 PM, said:

It's certainly a good enough point to consider it.If at the end of a biology class the final exam was "Write the physical laws of a universe such that sentient life results", I think that would be pretty darn tough and I would become keenly interested in partial credit and how the grading curve works, exactly.However, a big problem with the argument from design is that we don't have any particular reason to think God wanted the universe this way except here it is. It's a bit circular, in fact. Did God want life on Saturn? No, says the creationist, because there isn't any. Did God want dinosaurs? Yes, says, the creationist, for awhile and then not, because there they were and then there they weren't. What exactly would a failure of the hypothesis of intelligent design look like, if we assume by definition that everything exists is what He wanted?

Exactly like the many failures of evolution theory if we didn't duck and hide behind the anthropic theory?

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

I don't think I ever said that they were. Too bad JJJ isn't here to remember.

Quote

These aren't the fossils you're looking for. Seriously though: if you think animals can adapt to their environments (within species), why do you think that they can adapt juuust to the point where they would still be able to interbreed but no further? What's the magical line there that stops them from getting just different enough that they are not sexually compatible any more? How much can they adapt before stopping and why?(which is not even really necessary as there are some species which can interbreed: the whole species concept is not really always a firm line, its just a convenient way of dividing up the spectrum of variability)

The magic line is pretty clear, only a dope ravished brain would be at a loss to find it.Like begets likeAlways has, always will

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

http://www.livescien...ial_organs.htmlThe list is like a top ten of leftover features that animals no longer need due to evolution. Though if the creationist are correct it could be labeled the top ten features of un-intelligent design. I was surprised the nose didn't make though.

Randy Reed, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 12:19 PM, said:

No one said vestigial orgns were proof of evolution but I see along with the other facts that you made the leap as well. I simply said that if it was designed it was done poorly and not very well.

Great Dane meet RR

Quote

And back to that point will you explain what your God was thinking when he made the Ichneumon wasp species? Let me tell you about them little daisies. The female finds a "victim" like a caterpillar and then paralyzes it. After it's frozen up it lays her eggs inside it. When the eggs hatch they start feeding on it's organs, making a point to save the heart and nervous system for last. It wants to keep it alive as long as possible up until the larvae hatch and eat through it's sides on it's way out. That shit makes the Alien movies seem like the Flintstones and no Jedi mind trick makes it anything less than horrific. I hope the caterpillar doesn't feel pain watching itself being eaten alive from the inside out. So what was your beneficent creator thinking on that one? Just having a little fun creating some species one day? He must be one sick son of a bitch.Now obviously natural selection, however hideous, would explain it. And I love the way you throw things like Eugenics about. Darwin didn't come up with the idea, if your ultimate creator is all-knowing, he did.

Actually eugenics is a logical furtherance of evolution, as is Nazism et alOnce you remove the ability to place value on morality because you reduce it to a relativistic level, you open the door wide for genocide and mass murders because of the need to protect the gene pool. Add in a few factors such as economic difficulty, maybe a fear of lowering of a standard of living, and you have the catalyst to do those unspeakable things that evolutionist have perpetrated on society a few dozen times, to the tune of a few hundred million deaths. That's 20 times the deaths blamed on religion...20 times in 1/400th the amount of time.Only the Christian influences on society make this currently repugnant enough to stem the natural state of man to hate those that are different. You are welcome for our influences on this society.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 8:07 AM, said:

You are welcome for our influences on this society.

Thanks for putting those homos in their places, they suck.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 8:07 AM, said:

Once you remove the ability to place value on morality because you reduce it to a relativistic level, you open the door wide for genocide and mass murders because of the need to protect the gene pool. Add in a few factors such as economic difficulty, maybe a fear of lowering of a standard of living, and you have the catalyst to do those unspeakable things that evolutionist have perpetrated on society a few dozen times, to the tune of a few hundred million deaths. That's 20 times the deaths blamed on religion...20 times in 1/400th the amount of time.

this is dumb, even for you..

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

Exactly like the many failures of evolution theory if we didn't duck and hide behind the anthropic theory?

Failures like what?If we found species (particular complex ones) with no genetic similarity to anything else that would be a problem for evolutionary theory. What could we find that we be a problem for Intelligent Design? Is there any possible hypothetical physical evidence that makes Intelligent Design less likely?

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

Actually eugenics is a logical furtherance of evolution, as is Nazism et al

This is just ****ing stupid. Is throwing people off cliffs the natural furtherance of the law of gravity?

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 9:07 AM, said:

Great Dane meet RRActually eugenics is a logical furtherance of evolution, as is Nazism et alOnce you remove the ability to place value on morality because you reduce it to a relativistic level, you open the door wide for genocide and mass murders because of the need to protect the gene pool. Add in a few factors such as economic difficulty, maybe a fear of lowering of a standard of living, and you have the catalyst to do those unspeakable things that evolutionist have perpetrated on society a few dozen times, to the tune of a few hundred million deaths. That's 20 times the deaths blamed on religion...20 times in 1/400th the amount of time.Only the Christian influences on society make this currently repugnant enough to stem the natural state of man to hate those that are different. You are welcome for our influences on this society.

Well, regardless of your claims on morality and Eugenics, it has nothing to do with whether Evolution is factual. As you say, "reduce it to a realistic level" which you seem to have a hard time doing. Evolution is not a religon it is scientific fact. Should we disregard the multiplication table because someone "feels" it might be bad for morality?Again you avoid replying to the actual topic of "design" presumably since their is no good explanation on your part.And then you spout off the propoganda about how Evolution is a religon and killed people which is total bullshit and you know it, but not unlike a Christian to ignore facts and go with whatever fits to their own version of history.You can stick your fingers in your ears and chant "pants on the ground" or throw a hissy fit but it never changes facts.It will lead to misleading and ridiculous statements like this one though.

Quote

Only the Christian influences on society make this currently repugnant enough to stem the natural state of man to hate those that are different. You are welcome for our influences on this society.

Man got along fine in his natural state long before Christianity was ever conjured up, and though I won't deny the intent of religons to impose morality (being good intentioned) it most often ends up dividing people and inciting hatred more than it helps.

Quote

to hate those that are different

Xenophobia, fear of the unknown is a driving force in religon dividing those that are "different". Christians hate the Muslims, Muslims hate the Jews, etc.etc.etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we all recognized each other as being 99.9% alike and stopped dividing people into groups who chase one of the million gods man has made up so far?

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

Well, regardless of your claims on morality and Eugenics, it has nothing to do with whether Evolution is factual. As you say, "reduce it to a realistic level" which you seem to have a hard time doing. Evolution is not a religon it is scientific fact. Should we disregard the multiplication table because someone "feels" it might be bad for morality?Again you avoid replying to the actual topic of "design" presumably since their is no good explanation on your part.And then you spout off the propoganda about how Evolution is a religon and killed people which is total bullshit and you know it, but not unlike a Christian to ignore facts and go with whatever fits to their own version of history.You can stick your fingers in your ears and chant "pants on the ground" or throw a hissy fit but it never changes facts.It will lead to misleading and ridiculous statements like this one though.Man got along fine in his natural state long before Christianity was ever conjured up, and though I won't deny the intent of religons to impose morality (being good intentioned) it most often ends up dividing people and inciting hatred more than it helps.Xenophobia, fear of the unknown is a driving force in religon dividing those that are "different". Christians hate the Muslims, Muslims hate the Jews, etc.etc.etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we all recognized each other as being 99.9% alike and stopped dividing people into groups who chase one of the million gods man has made up so far?

Nothing you say here is suprising because you have bought into the great lie called evolution.It is strikingly similar to those who are believer's in communism.They are raised in a communist country, have only been taught communism is right and capitalism is bad.As such they pretend all the ills of the world come from the decadence of capitalism, and look for the day when capitalism is replaced with communism.They don't understand that capitalism made this world, and that communism is a parasite sucking off the life of capitalism.They ignore the reality that communism only works on paper and continue to support it, even though everything around them tells them they are believing in a lie.To face this reality is asking a lot of them. But those of us on the other side just shake our heads and wonder how they can be self-decieved. Don't they see that what they believe is obviously wrong? That they are forcing all truth through their shaded glasses of communism and that once those blinders are removed they will see that communism only works on paper?Evolutionist are not different. You see all data after you force it through a pair of evolutionist glasses.You see that throughout nature we never see information added to systems without an outside source of intelligence, yet you keep beliving in the delusion that a simple life form became a highly complex one by random forces with no intent or purpose.You look at all the benefits that your Creator gave you in life and attribute these to time honed developments with a purposeless intention.You seek to gain dominance over the whole world, while you lose your souls.Life did not come from non-lifeSimplicity did not give birth to complexityMan did not accidently appear here for no purpose.You might as well believe that a pile of discarded computer parts not only reassembled themselves into a Cray computer, but that this computer also wrote a program on itself that became self-aware and began to try to deduce where it came from.Even if you allowed for the computer to 'fall together' 'given enough time', you can't explain where the program came from.All you are doing here is trying to pretend that parts of the subroutine you don't like lend proof to the irrational opinion that the program wrote itself.

[Balloon guy]

BaseJester, on Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

This is just ****ing stupid. Is throwing people off cliffs the natural furtherance of the law of gravity?

There is no logic to your comparison.Evolution teaches that certain traits are desirable, that other ones are not.We breed many animals to get the traits we think are better, and try to breed out the traits we don't like.Why is doing that to humans different?Don't couples who go to get invitro do this by selecting one or both of the contributors for their child? Are they not practicing a mild example of eugenics?I understand your repulsive reflex here, you have inside you a God given sense of right and wrong.But on paper, either we protect the gene pool, or we become what the movie Idiocracy predicted. As long as we are randomly formed life forms with equal value to a tree in terms of purpose and value., then the act of eugenics is nothing more than natural selection rearing her amoral head and trying to create the best life form it can through the tools at hand. To deny that is to be irrational to the entire meaning of evolution.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 4:37 AM, said:

There is no logic to your comparison.Evolution teaches that certain traits are desirable, that other ones are not.We breed many animals to get the traits we think are better, and try to breed out the traits we don't like.Why is doing that to humans different?

well, when we intentionally breed two animals together, that isn't exactly NATURAL selection, is it?

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 4:37 AM, said:

entire meaning of evolution.

You have shown time and time again that you have a great understanding of what this is...

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 5:26 AM, said:

Nothing you say here is suprising because you have bought into the great lie called evolution.It is strikingly similar to those who are believer's in communism.They are raised in a communist country, have only been taught communism is right and capitalism is bad.As such they pretend all the ills of the world come from the decadence of capitalism, and look for the day when capitalism is replaced with communism.They don't understand that capitalism made this world, and that communism is a parasite sucking off the life of capitalism.They ignore the reality that communism only works on paper and continue to support it, even thgouh everything around them tells them they are believing in a lie.To face this reality is asking a lot of them. But those of us on the other side just shake our heads and wonder how they can be self-decieved. Don't they see that what they believe is obviously wrong? That they are forcing all truth through their shaded glasses of communism and that once those blinders are removed they will see that communism only works on paper?Evolutionist are not different. You see all data after you force it through a pair of evolutionist glasses.You see that throughout nature we never see information added to systems without an outside source of intelligence, yet you keep beliving in the delusion that a simple life form became a highly complex one by random forces with no intent or purpose.You look at all the benefits that your Creator gave you in life and attribute these to time honed developements with a purposeless intention.You seek to gain dominance over the whole world, while you lose your souls.Life did not come from non-lifeSimplicity did not give birth to complexityMan did not accidently appear here for no purpose.You might as well believe that a pile of discarded computer parts not only reassembled themselves into a Cray computer, but that this computer also wrote a program on itself that became self-aware and began to try to deduce where it came from.Even if you allowed for the computer to 'fall together' 'given enough time', you can't explain where the program came from.All you are doing here is trying to pretend that parts of the subroutine you don't like lend proof to the irrational opinion that the program wrote itself.

Nothing you say is surprising here because you're like a parasite that feeds off of others and sucks the lifeblood out of people. Someone says Science, you yell morality. Someone says Evolution you scream it's too complex. Another says Natural selection and you scream communism. You dodge and dart always avoiding facts and perptrating your lies.

Quote

It is strikingly similar to those who are believer's in the muslim faith.They are raised in a muslim country, have only been taught the muslim faith is right and christianity is bad.As such they pretend all the ills of the world come from the decadence of christianity, and look for the day when christianity is replaced with the muslim faith.They don't understand that christianity made this world, and that the muslim faith is a parasite sucking off the life out of christianity.They ignore the reality that the muslim faith only works on paper and continue to support it, even thgouh everything around them tells them they are believing in a lie.To face this reality is asking a lot of them. But those of us on the other side just shake our heads and wonder how they can be self-decieved. Don't they see that what they believe is obviously wrong? That they are forcing all truth through their shaded glasses of the muslim faith and that once those blinders are removed they will see that the muslim faith only works on paper?

This is typical of you and religon. Ignore facts, divide and conquer. You believe what you want and then separate and attack anyone not like you. Divide by methodist, catholic, babtist, hindi, muslim, buddhist, etc. Anyone that doesn't believe in your morality can go burn in everlasting hell. Then you like to further separate by politics, Republican vs Democrat, Liberal vs conservative, US vs Europe vs everyone. We show overwelming evidence of evidence to the point that it is no longer a "theory" in the sense of being unproven, but as a theory that is accepted as fact, like the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity but since it would make your "beliefs" wrong, and make no bones about it, you are simply defending your "beliefs" not facts you attack evolution as if it is a religon which it is not. It is strictly science. Whether you like it or not, we share the same genes as fruit flies and rhubarb, polar bears and elm trees. We came from the same gene pool and the same building blocks of life. There is no evidence anyone created, designed or sprinkled magic fairy dust over the particles.

Quote

Evolutionist are not different. You see all data after you force it through a pair of evolutionist glasses.You see that throughout nature we never see information added to systems without an outside source of intelligence, yet you keep beliving in the delusion that a simple life form became a highly complex one by random forces with no intent or purpose.You look at all the benefits that your Creator gave you in life and attribute these to time honed developements with a purposeless intention.You seek to gain dominance over the whole world, while you lose your souls.Life did not come from non-lifeSimplicity did not give birth to complexityMan did not accidently appear here for no purpose.

Evolutionist just look at facts without deluding oneself into believing it's anything other than what it is. You always bring up the arguement for complexity which has been blown out of the water on so many occasions it's hardly worth repeating. It just shows how irrational your religon tends to mold you. The benefits of the creator? Um, what benefits would those be? Last I checked i'm on the same planet as you? Air, water, what? What did your creator give me? I think this is where crow yells, cultspeak. Then you move onto the whole "world dominence" thing. WTF are you talking about? What the world domince of the Christians? The Muslims? Who? Isn't that what you are fighting over? Isnt' that what you want for Christianity? For everyone to believe in "your" morality because an ancient book, written in an ancient language with no vowels that even the most learned scholars on the planet can't agree on what the hell it says?You act like people can only understand morality through "your" rose colored glasses, yet your morality incites, attacks and divides. Most people can't even openly admit that they believe in evolution and doubt God's existence without someone like you deomonzing them and having their family, job, friends and others threaten, ostrazice or be prejudiced. Admiting to athiesm or admitting to believing the fact of evolution is akin to being any other prejudiced group in American and your at at it's core, the evil, the divider. You are at best an equal to the communist you despise.Creator, souls, booga booga, cultspeak, hate the others, follow the shoe, ingore science, instill fear and hatred. Ban the books. Yeah, I get it. I understand where the evil comes from.

[Balloon guy]

Mills, on Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 5:13 AM, said:

well, man made genetic engeneering isn't exactly NATURAL selection, is it?

With that logic then man putting on animal furs interfered with natural selection.All my life I've heard about how man supposedly lost many of his animal senses, like smell and hearing because our brains grew bigger and our thumbs were opposed.If our brains becoming bigger was a factor in what natural selection 'took away' in the past, then why would you want to argue that our abilities to 'adapt' to our surroundings are unnatural just because we use a microscope and a chemical splicer? I guess is you want to claim that this is not true, then you will have bigger arguments from your side than from mine.

[Balloon guy]

Mills, on Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 5:15 AM, said:

You have shown time and time again that you have a great understanding of what this is...

I understand it completely and am honest in what it is.The irrational ones like you are the ones who dance back and forth between acting like there is a purpose, while claiming there isn't one.I just refuse to paint it in the rosy colors you guys need to allow yourselves to continue to believe in the delusion.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 5:22 AM, said:

With that logic then man putting on animal furs interfered with natural selection.

yea, that's exactly the same logic....