religion

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't remember this scene (at this angle and with Riker doing this) Is this from outtakes?

Its the aliens made the shitty casino book episode.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And really, Eliseus, your vitriol is a pretty clear indication that you're grasping some of the things I'm saying and perhaps wrestling internally with the realization that maybe you've been misled for quite some time now. If that is indeed the case, then I actually do apologize for being nasty towards you.

Everyone can be misled. I've been misled plenty. It sucks. I don't think anyone here is a bad person, and I have a bad habit of trying to make examples out of people, so if you've been victimized by me in that way then I'm sorry.

No. You CLEARLY argued point of views that you ADMIT you have no idea what you are talking about. You didn't "accidentally" do any misleading of the sorts. You argue valid points, sure valid points that were struck down, but valid points none-the-less. If you don't know shit and are "seeking" some answers. Don't argue like everyone else in here is some kind of moron and only your opinions are valid. HENCE the sit back and shut the fuck up. You didn't present anything in some type of question format like "here is what X says, what do you guys think, or what counter arguments do you have." and listened. You argued "here is what X says, show me your counter arguments, they are irrelevant, they don't matter, I'm right, you are wrong." and try to "disqualify" people from the conversation that disagreed with you. I've been here arguing since the beginning of thread. To argue that that isn't what happened is completely fabricated like your intelligence.

To also make it clear. I think you are a bad person. I think you are a horrible person. Not only are you very clearly 1-sided. You have already admitted to basically opening your doors to religious people just for the sake of ridiculing them. Who fucking cares if what they do or don't believe is true. You treat other humans in general like shit, and it's quite obvious from your posts. You try to act like a reasonable person after going through pages upon pages of shit posting, just to end up doing......... more shit posting. Then you act like you never did anything wrong. Your opinion is the only one that matters. This isn't a science vs religion debate. This is you fucking showing that anyone that disagrees with you in general is wrong. You have implied it very strong. I would like to say I don't know this or I'm wrong, but I think 150 pages of you is actually quite evident of the matter.

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No. You CLEARLY argued point of views that you ADMIT you have no idea what you are talking about. You didn't "accidentally" do any misleading of the sorts. You argue valid points, sure valid points that were struck down, but valid points none-the-less. If you don't know shit and are "seeking" some answers. Don't argue like everyone else in here is some kind of moron and only your opinions are valid. HENCE the sit back and shut the fuck up. You didn't present anything in some type of question format like "here is what X says, what do you guys think, or what counter arguments do you have." and listened. You argued "here is what X says, show me your counter arguments, they are irrelevant, they don't matter, I'm right, you are wrong." and try to "disqualify" people from the conversation that disagreed with you. I've been here arguing since the beginning of thread. To argue that that isn't what happened is completely fabricated like your intelligence.

To also make it clear. I think you are a bad person. I think you are a horrible person. Not only are you very clearly 1-sided. You have already admitted to basically opening your doors to religious people just for the sake of ridiculing them. Who fucking cares if what they do or don't believe is true. You treat other humans in general like shit, and it's quite obvious from your posts. You try to act like a reasonable person after going through pages upon pages of shit posting, just to end up doing......... more shit posting. Then you act like you never did anything wrong. Your opinion is the only one that matters. This isn't a science vs religion debate. This is you fucking showing that anyone that disagrees with you in general is wrong. You have implied it very strong. I would like to say I don't know this or I'm wrong, but I think 150 pages of you is actually quite evident of the matter.

This guy is mad about something.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You CLEARLY argued point of views that you ADMIT you have no idea what you are talking about.

Still falling into simplistic conflation, just like from the very beginning. Demonstrating intellectual honesty, which is what I just did, doesn't invalidate any of my arguments. Again (I've never had to say "again" so many times), every admission I made in the last few posts I had already made earlier in the thread. Science doesn't jump to conclusions; creationism, and every immoral subset underneath it, simply does. This creates inherent, intrinsic immorality and I will not apologize for pointing this out, and I will reiterate it as many times as is necessary.

And just so you know, I wasn't saying I misled you. I wasn't trying to lead you anywhere, but rather show you how to think in a morally acceptable way. I am saying that you've been misled, probably by most of the people you think are your friends. No one develops a psychology like yours alone. I've seen it too many times to not know better.

Now, if you want to rebut with some actual points about how I've contradicted myself, then go right ahead. I can assure you I haven't, because I've been intellectually honest with you all from the start.

And I'm done now. I have actual real things to attend to - you know, like contributing to a secular society that has come about because of science.

[radditsu]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/073694...&tag=natdee-20

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am going to explain evolution again for the creationist here. More than likely will regret this decision in 30 pages or so.

Creationist admit to small changes in a species. What they have trouble with is speciation. "A dog will always be and always has been a dog", they say.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With small changes over time you can end up with completely different species.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The individual symbols on this picture dont represent a single animal. They represent a species as time progresses. The amount of time between each snapshot is irrelevant for this explanation. Feel free to imagine a thousand millennia or a million years.

Creationist believe the blue symbol (pictured above) would produce the purple star symbol in a few short generations. The illustration above is a nice but it doesnt show the hundreds or thousand of generations with smaller changes BETWEEN each symbol. Each of these generations would be a small step closer to looking like the next symbol in the picture. This is micro-evolution in action and the sum total is called macro-evolution. The same exact mechanism is responsible for micro and macro.

Honestly, if I thought horses gave birth to squirrels or that blue symbols gave birth to purple stars then I wouldnt believe the shit either. That isnt what the theory claims though.

Pretty colors!

This explains perfectly slow change over time and speciation.
But in order to prove the transition into a different kind of color green would have to become an entirely new and in seen color, not one that is in the same color spectrum as itself.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How did all life originate from one cell

First, I would state it arose from a colony of cells not a single cell...a colony. We have examples living today of fungi that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, others that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells.

Here is a possible theory. It is all hypothetical but shows just how easy early animals could evolve from just a single colony of cells:

1) A species of single celled organisms began forming aggregates of cells stuck together by a glue of secreted proteins and sugars (we can see species which do this today). All it takes is a few mutations to produce this effect. These cells have an advantage over other cells in some environments.

2) It is important not to forget these cells didnt live in colonies BEFORE the mutation that started gluing them together. These single cells developed flagella BEFORE a mutation started gluing them together. Now, a mutation appears that orients the flagella in the same direction, so that most of the flagella could work together to control the swimming direction of the colony.

3) Now you have a mutli-cellular colony that is fully mobile. It is important to remember that these cells are developing multiple mutations simultaneously. It isnt just one mutation at a time. During that same period this group of cells could be also developing mutations that allow chemical signals to be sent from one cell to another or to detect light.

4) It isnt hard to imagine from here how this colony could develop into a more sophisticated one later. A little mutation here, a little mutation there, and the cells are able to become ever increasingly complex and specialized. Small steps...

One thing you also have to consider. This isnt just one colony but trillions of colonies all mutating randomly from one another. Nature then determines which will survive an which will perish after each new mutation. You may have a handful of colonies all developing the proteins that glue them together simultaneously or thousands of years apart. Some colonies may not have had flagella for instance when the gluing protein mutation arose. Some colonies wouldnt ever produce the gluing mutation. It all depends on the random mutation and the environment selecting for it.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

First, I would state it arose from a colony of cells not a single cell...a colony. We have examples living today of fungi that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, others that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells.

Here is a possible theory. It is all hypothetical but shows just how easy early animals could evolve from just a single colony of cells:

1) A species of single celled organisms began forming aggregates of cells stuck together by a glue of secreted proteins and sugars (we can see species which do this today). All it takes is a few mutations to produce this effect. These cells have an advantage over other cells in some environments.

2) It is important not to forget these cells didnt live in colonies BEFORE the mutation that started gluing them together. These single cells developed flagella BEFORE a mutation started gluing them together. Now, a mutation appears that orients the flagella in the same direction, so that most of the flagella could work together to control the swimming direction of the colony.

3) Now you have a mutli-cellular colony that is fully mobile. It is important to remember that these cells are developing multiple mutations simultaneously. It isnt just one mutation at a time. During that same period this group of cells could be also developing mutations that allow chemical signals to be sent from one cell to another or to detect light.

4) It isnt hard to imagine from here how this colony could develop into a more sophisticated one later. A little mutation here, a little mutation there, and the cells are able to become ever increasingly complex and specialized. Small steps...

One thing you also have to consider. This isnt just one colony but trillions of colonies all mutating randomly from one another. Nature then determines which will survive an which will perish after each new mutation. You may have a handful of colonies all developing the proteins that glue them together simultaneously or thousands of years apart. Some colonies may not have had flagella for instance when the gluing protein mutation arose. Some colonies wouldnt ever produce the gluing mutation. It all depends on the random mutation and the environment selecting for it.

Once upon a time..........

Good story really it is.

Ok so that sounds simple enough I can imagine that happening honestly I can.
Now all we have to do is gather some of those cell colonies that still exhibit those properties and Boom! We have the proof.

You should ask oxford for a grant.

[capco]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Once upon a time..........

Good story really it is.

Ok so that sounds simple enough I can imagine that happening honestly I can.
Now all we have to do is gather some of those cell colonies that still exhibit those properties and Boom! We have the proof.

You should ask oxford for a grant.

Can you even begin to fathom the immensity of time that is 5 BILLION years?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by capco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can you even begin to fathom the immensity of time that is 5 BILLION years?

Time! The God of evolution. Can't prove a hypothesis in a lab? Just not enough time.