Says he's busy and needs to stop posting, but looks forward to seeing us all again in January.
He wanted a ban.So is he the anonymous person that sent me this message?
He basically stated that he'd rather just be polite instead of posting penis photos.
Sometimes i just gotta take pictures damnit i cant help it. I just put them all over the internet along with home movies. So sad i just thought i should share and ask the question.
He wanted a ban.
He basically stated that he'd rather just be polite instead of posting penis photos.
Athiests piss me offI rather be a evangelical. Look at how their awesome leader is doing.
He's a republican - well I mean conservative since he's from England - wtf?
IRONY
He's a republican - well I mean conservative since he's from England - wtf?
IRONY
Dawkins is one of my idols you fundie fuck.
He's a republican - well I mean conservative since he's from England - wtf?
IRONY
Dawkins is one of my idols you fundie fuck.
I don't hate athiests, I just don't think they should have any rights. If there's a bus full of atheists, I say pull em over. >:(Pretty much, I agree.
I don't hate athiests, I just don't think they should have any rights. If there's a bus full of atheists, I say pull em over. >:(
(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h120/fallingsilo/901_hi_boys.jpg)Fixed.
I don't hate athiests, I just don't think they should have any rights. If there's a bus full of atheists, I say pull em over. >:(
LOLZ I AM ATHEIST THROW ME UNDER A BUS, IT IZ JEEZUS' WAY!!!!
Is Cher your God?LOLZ I AM ATHEIST THROW ME UNDER A BUS, IT IZ JEEZUS' WAY!!!!
Not under the bus, off it and into a maximum security prison. After enough water boarding you'll believe in my god
No, Raven Riley is. :-*
I'd love to hear your reasoning PD.They argue with him and insult Olive Garden. That is everything to him.
GO AHEAD. MAKE MY DAY.
I'd love to hear your reasoning PD.
GO AHEAD. MAKE MY DAY.
Evolution is perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There's just as much faith required to believe evolution as their is to believe creation imho.
PD was home schooled remember.
His family seems to be somewhat morally conservative so I assume so. :lolPD was home schooled remember.
By who, the official church of HATERZ BEWARE? ???
PD was home schooled remember.
But "God" has? STFU already, you sicken me. :lol
PD was homeschooled?
Still it has scientific backing, it seems like a better thing to teach our children then something based off of possibly fictional writing. If people want have a religion in their own families thats cool. I really wish people didn't take it so seriously though. Nothing is just black and white.
um...um...(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h120/fallingsilo/901_hi_boys.jpg)From 3rd to 9th grade.
um...um...(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h120/fallingsilo/901_hi_boys.jpg)From 3rd to 9th grade.
I'll just let you monologue you blind, unaccountable, sanctimonious prick.
Doesn't matter if you ignore it.(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h120/fallingsilo/901_hi_boys.jpg)After that I went throught 5 years of evolution training in HS and college, so quit yer bitching. I've finished all my biology credits, and I'm 19. So meh
*yawn*
That's my biggest problem with evolutionists. They feel they're superior to those who don't believe in evolution, and they act like they're intellectuals. Granted many fundies who teach/preach against evolution are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellows, but evolutionists have no ground to act like their theory is fallable when after decades they still can't explain basic issues like the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
*yawn*
The Zelda impressions are up so I'm going to read that.
*yawn*So because you're smart enough to know that there's proof that creationism is a lie isn't a good enough argument? Are you really that simple-minded?
That's my biggest problem with evolutionists. They feel they're superior to those who don't believe in evolution, and they act like they're intellectuals. Granted many fundies who teach/preach against evolution are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellows, but evolutionists have no ground to act like their theory is fallable when after decades they still can't explain basic issues like the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
*yawn*
The Zelda impressions are up so I'm going to read that.
You are correct, the theory that has evidence that is incomplete should be completely disregarded because magic people in the sky that require no evidence are much more rational.
*yawn*
That's my biggest problem with evolutionists. They feel they're superior to those who don't believe in evolution, and they act like they're intellectuals. Granted many fundies who teach/preach against evolution are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellows, but evolutionists have no ground to act like their theory is fallable when after decades they still can't explain basic issues like the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
*yawn*
The Zelda impressions are up so I'm going to read that.
You are correct, the theory that has evidence that is incomplete should be completely disregarded because magic people in the sky that require no evidence are much more rational.
So because you're smart enough to know that there's proof that creationism is a lie isn't a good enough argument? Are you really that simple-minded?
You are correct, the theory that has evidence that is incomplete should be completely disregarded because magic people in the sky that require no evidence are much more rational.I don't care what comes out of your mouth. It's the same thing over and over again.
Never said it should be disregarded; certain aspects of evolution and natural selection in general (which is not evolution per se) are fine with me.
My belief in God is based on faith, as well as my observations of nature and research into alternative views such as evolution. I would be much more content with evolutionists if they would get off their high horse and admit that the theory has many flaws, and requires a level of faith as well. But the "f" word is dirty to some people.
You don't have to put words in my mouth.
*yawn*
That's my biggest problem with evolutionists. They feel they're superior to those who don't believe in evolution, and they act like they're intellectuals. Granted many fundies who teach/preach against evolution are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellows, but evolutionists have no ground to act like their theory is fallable when after decades they still can't explain basic issues like the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
*yawn*
The Zelda impressions are up so I'm going to read that.
You are correct, the theory that has evidence that is incomplete should be completely disregarded because magic people in the sky that require no evidence are much more rational.
Never said it should be disregarded; certain aspects of evolution and natural selection in general (which is not evolution per se) are fine with me.
My belief in God is based on faith, as well as my observations of nature and research into alternative views such as evolution. I would be much more content with evolutionists if they would get off their high horse and admit that the theory has many flaws, and requires a level of faith as well. But the "f" word is dirty to some people.
I believe there is a god
You are correct, the theory that has evidence that is incomplete should be completely disregarded because magic people in the sky that require no evidence are much more rational.I don't care what comes out of your mouth. It's the same thing over and over again.
Never said it should be disregarded; certain aspects of evolution and natural selection in general (which is not evolution per se) are fine with me.
My belief in God is based on faith, as well as my observations of nature and research into alternative views such as evolution. I would be much more content with evolutionists if they would get off their high horse and admit that the theory has many flaws, and requires a level of faith as well. But the "f" word is dirty to some people.
You don't have to put words in my mouth.
And you refuse or are inable to refute it, so why do you care?And you believe god thinks your dumb enough to have to bet your life.
Evolution is a theory. It's not fact, it's not in stone, it's not worth betting one's life on. In many ways it's a modern day glorified retelling of spontaneous generation IMHO. In school we learn about spontaneous generation at a pretty early time (7th-8th grade), we laugh it off and then forget it. But in 9th grade the basic principle of it comes up again, but this time in evolution.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe in a higher being at all. I would have nothing against evolutionists if they weren't constantly parading around and calling me stupid, be it in the classroom or in publications, when they don't have a slam dunk case for their own belief.
In the end, it's about faith. I have faith in a higher being, and many evolutionists have a faith that something "magically" (to use Shake's terminology) came from nothing
:lolAnd you refuse or are inable to refute it, so why do you care?And you believe god thinks your dumb enough to have to bet your life.
Evolution is a theory. It's not fact, it's not in stone, it's not worth betting one's life on. In many ways it's a modern day glorified retelling of spontaneous generation IMHO. In school we learn about spontaneous generation at a pretty early time (7th-8th grade), we laugh it off and then forget it. But in 9th grade the basic principle of it comes up again, but this time in evolution.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe in a higher being at all. I would have nothing against evolutionists if they weren't constantly parading around and calling me stupid, be it in the classroom or in publications, when they don't have a slam dunk case for their own belief.
In the end, it's about faith. I have faith in a higher being, and many evolutionists have a faith that something "magically" (to use Shake's terminology) came from nothing
:lolThere's not hyperbole, that's literally how you're interpreting it.
You're killing me. Like I said, when you can leave some of the hyperbole at home (a little won't hurt nobody) and dispute my statements, go ahead. Until that time... :lol
Spontaneous generation doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. One is about life arising from inanimate matter; the other is about gradual change and speciation through heredity and selection pressures.
Evolution is a theory. Same as the germ theory of disease, or tectonic plate theory, etc. You can bet your life on it.
I never got the transitional fossil argument. There are lots of transitional fossils, showing the evolution of horses, whales, bony fish, etc. Shoot, look at archaeopteryx.
Where are you getting your information on this? You say you're not coming at it from a religious perspective, and I'll take you at your word. But it's not like you can find, say, a single university biology department that would make the claims you're making.
Abiogenesis is not evolution. Very different things. Simple concept.
Arguing from intuition will get you in trouble. There should be "millions" of transitional fossils? How many total fossilized dinosaur skeletons have been found? Seriously, where are you getting your information? It's doubtful you've done an independent study of the fossil record.
Scientists find something like this, (http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php) and instead of filling a gap, it just creates two: the immediate ancestor, and the immediate descendant.
What's the actual reasoning behind your objections to evolution?
how is a magical indescribable entity a "more reasonable explanation," disallowing for your interminable stupidity and ignorance on this subject as a factor
you, with your utter lack of grounding in science, have not demonstrated any flaws in evolution in any of your arguments; you've just parroted reguarly debunked myths about evolutionary theory and refused to read up on them
i call SHENANIGANS
how is a magical indescribable entity a "more reasonable explanation," disallowing for your interminable stupidity and ignorance on this subject as a factor
you, with your utter lack of grounding in science, have not demonstrated any flaws in evolution in any of your arguments; you've just parroted reguarly debunked myths about evolutionary theory and refused to read up on them
i call SHENANIGANS
Way to not address the issues. Why can't you explain the fossil record problem, or the biggest elephant in the room: how nothing becomes something (life)?
1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
Basic organic monomers (such as amino acids) that form the polymeric building blocks of modern life can be formed spontaneously. Simple organic molecules are of course a long way from a fully functional self-replicating life form. But in an environment with no pre-existing life these molecules may have accumulated and provided a rich environment for chemical evolution ("soup theory").
I miss malek already...
:'(
Not to jump in here, but I'm not sure where you're getting the "life from nothing" argument:Quote1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.QuoteBasic organic monomers (such as amino acids) that form the polymeric building blocks of modern life can be formed spontaneously. Simple organic molecules are of course a long way from a fully functional self-replicating life form. But in an environment with no pre-existing life these molecules may have accumulated and provided a rich environment for chemical evolution ("soup theory").
he's just really really amazed by consciousness and wants to believe it's so special as a chemical condition such that it MUST suggest a vast magical designer and preferably the christian one that hates fegs
I think we need to stop posting in this thread in case he drops in and gets the impression we care.
I think we need to stop posting in this thread in case he drops in and gets the impression we care.
I respect and fear Malek
Yes, there is complexity. Our bodily system contains many precise components put together to create us. The lack of one component could fuck up the entire process. Evolution would require the gradual addition of various aspects of our body (if we are to continue using humans as an example). Isn't it quite obvious how complex the body is, just based on its makeup? This sort of ties into the idea of transitional forms though; why can't we find clear cut examples of a dinosaur turning into a bird, for instance? To me, that would be the ultamite accomplishment in proving evolution. With humans and fossils, there's always debate on whether it's an actual human, or some ape-man ancestor. Yet a god damn winged dinosaur is rather hard to spin
phoenixdark, i can see where this road is leading, so: why do we have to have an answer for everything? you don't seem to need an answer for where your big ol' creator came from. how about you wait and let the scientific process do its thang
We have enough to reasssure those folks who ARE grounded in legitimate science that macroevolution is as strong a theory as to be fundamentally useful, and that theory continues to be refined and supported daily.
actually, the more i think about it, pd, the lengths you'll go to position yourself opposite those that have pissed you off and threatened your worldview is kinda impressive
i mean, you'll memorize entire bogus arguments for intelligent design just because some biology teacher challenged you
you'll defend indefensible republican policies just because randi rhodes and her forum posters struck you funny
Well please explain how life came from nothing at all, which is what evolution theorizes.Easy. EVOLUTION THEORIZES NO SUCH THING. There. Simple.
phoenixdark, i can see where this road is leading, so: why do we have to have an answer for everything? you don't seem to need an answer for where your big ol' creator came from. how about you wait and let the scientific process do its thang
I'm still waiting actually.
phoenixdark, i can see where this road is leading, so: why do we have to have an answer for everything? you don't seem to need an answer for where your big ol' creator came from. how about you wait and let the scientific process do its thang
I'm still waiting actually.
You're still waiting? Guess what? Science takes time! You remind me of those anti-stem cell Republicans that say researching is a waste since it will be ten years before we discover anything useful. Science takes time! You don't get the answers now, that's how the game is played.
Well please explain how life came from nothing at all, which is what evolution theorizes.Easy. EVOLUTION THEORIZES NO SUCH THING. There. Simple.
You answered a question by saying you don't think "the universe" was created by random whatever. Well, evolution doesn't need to explain the universe, or even a single star system, or the continents, or the atmosphere. Evolution is a scientific theory about specific phenomena, not a challenge to your personal belief system.
You still haven't given anything close to specific criteria for what constitutes a "transitional" fossil, other than a fossil that 1) Has Wings, and 2) Is A Dinosaur. I really have no idea what you mean by the term, and you're sort of giving the impression that you define it as "whatever hasn't been discovered." The tiktaalik is "interesting?" C'mon.
We're not going in circles. You're being horribly dense.
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with "how life came about." How hard is that to understand?
When someone tells you mountains were formed by drifting tectonic plates, do you respond with "Yeah, well where did the Earth come from??
Shake is cooler than BSG
I forgot about BSG last night. :-\
I always catch the repeat on Mondays at 11 if I miss it. ;)I forgot about BSG last night. :-\
Adama was badass - he doesn't fuck around.