Total posts: 3,556
Gender Reassignment Surgery does not exist in America today.
Prove me wrong.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The problem is that people are pushing this too younger and younger kids, and making it seem like a good thing, when in reality, there is no evidence to back that up.
This is the problem you made up, "there is no evidence to back that up",
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, a living human that is morally wrong to kill, is a human that has been birthed. So, let's say the baby is halfway through the vagina. Is it ok for me to stab the half of the baby that is in the mother still? There has to be an absolute point.
Wow, this thread started out incredibly stupid, and it just keeps getting more and more stupid.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Some of us have good genetics and take care of ourselves you know.
Well duh, astronauts have to take care of themselves, everybody knows that.
Created:
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Nope, go to a public school, and not beat up.Actually, it would be pretty hard to beat up a 6'2 185lb gym rat.
LOL, yeah, that's the ticket....and an astronaut too, yeah, an astronaut, that's the ticket...a 6'2 185lb gym rat astronaut, that's the ticket.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Do you get beat up at school a lot?
He's gotta be home schooled.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The Southern Poverty Law Center lists 100 white nationalist groups, 78 racist skinhead, 99 neo-Nazi, 43 neo-confederate and 130 Ku Klux Klan chapters.I think they also lost groups like the daughters of the confederacy as white supremacist so their numbers should be taken with a grain of salt
Yeah, we should probably rely on YouFound_Lxam for more accurate data.
,
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Tell it to the 450 white supremacist organizations in this country kiddie.
The Southern Poverty Law Center lists 100 white nationalist groups, 78 racist skinhead, 99 neo-Nazi, 43 neo-confederate and 130 Ku Klux Klan chapters.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well now the lefts arguments have gone from this is good, to this is not good, but we don't care anyways.
You can keep your gas stove, but only if it identifies as electric.
You better watch yourself, we turned M&Ms into lesbians, imagine what we can do to a punkass kid with Gender Dysphoria.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But for some reason, the woke left has and is trying to make the idea of medically transitioning kids (a non-reversable surgery that changes their entire life) a normality.
Well duh, after we won the war on Mr. Potatohead, and almost destroyed the country with the secret attack of the football player taking a knee, then making toddlers get sex changes was just the logical next step.
You want to talk about destroying civilization, don't forget our subversive victory in casting a black woman to play a fish,
You think the war on Christmas was bad, wait till you see what we have planned for Halloween.,
Bwaaahahaha.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Mike Pence is a lawyer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
As long as we're on the subject of the website name, it would make sense to make suggestions of new names.
I submit "Sidewalker Is Wonderful Debate Site"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
..a strong arument can be made that Kurt Godel proved in cannot be a closed system.Nothing he offers informs of a closed Universe scenario.
Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive and therefore it is conclusive as far as logic and science are concerned. It states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be complete without reference to a higher system in which that system must be embedded. Mathematically, Gödel proved that even an axiomatic system as simple as arithmetic cannot be internally consistent and logically complete without reference to a transcending system in which it must be embedded.
Logic and science are indeed axiomatic systems, therefore logic and science themselves have proven that they are not complete without reference to a transcendent system. Gödel proved that the ideal of science is therefore impossible, which is to say that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced, which eliminates the possibility of a unified scientific theory which would have to include arithmetic.
The full range of the human experience of reality is such that it has personal and impersonal, transcendent and immanent aspects. These can be taken as aspects of one rich reality, which can only be spoken of analogically in any case, rather than in the complete and exclusive descriptions necessary to represent the Universe as a closed system.
“Gödel proved that the world of pure mathematics is inexhaustible; no finite set of axioms and rules of inference can ever encompass the whole of mathematics; given any finite set of axioms, we can find meaningful mathematical questions which the axioms leave unanswered. I hope that an analogous Situation exists in the physical world. If my view of the future is correct, it means that the world of physics and astronomy is also inexhaustible; no matter how far we go into the future, there will always be new things happening, new information coming in, new worlds to explore, a constantly expanding domain of life, consciousness, and memory.” — Freeman Dyson
Nor does validate or invalidate an origin of biological life, or the opposite, eternal biologic life.
Thanks Rainman, I got your opinion the last twenty times you said it.
but our current scientific theories involve fundamental violations.Provide the info please. I think it is not valid info.
I already have multiple times in this
thread, pay attention.
Current cosmological theory explicitly violates the 1st law, in an expanding universe light is "redshifted to a lower energy state, and Dark Energy is understood to be the intrinsic energy per volume of empty space, in an expanding Universe the volume of space expands and so does the total energy.A photon going to longer wave { lower frequency } length does not violate 1st law. Try again.
Its basic high school physics, the frequency of light determines its energy, the
red end of the spectrum is lower energy, the blue end is higher energy, for
light to redshift, it must lose energy.
The conservation law is fundamentally incompatible with General Relativity,I dont think so. Try again.
Whoa, “I don’t think so” is really a
strong argument, but I’m afraid you think I was talking about your fantasy
world where reality is a matter of what you think? Nope, I was talking about the real world, logic,
science, that kind of thing. If you can
muster an argument with some of these attributes, I’ll be glad to debate it with you.
The 1st law doesn't even port to quantum physics in any recognizable way, it cannot deal with wave particle duality, or the collapse of the wave function.Sine-wave is conceptual abstract of multiple quanta { observed reality }
Meaningless Nonsense.
Those are our three best physical theories, the 1st law conflicts with all three in basic ways, in the end, the Conservation law is going the way most of our classical laws of physics have gone, to a limited domain of applicability.Not.
Oh boy, "Not" is another strong argument, hard to refute, how about this, "Uh huh, is to".
Pleases share evidence of such violation.
I already
have several times in this thread, try to pay attention.
Relativity Theory: The theory of the conservation of energy is based on time-translation invariance, which requires that the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, be fixed, not changing with time. Relativity theory states that time and space are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved. Consequently, depending on their relative motion or relative gravity, different observers will measure different energies of the same system, and as time and space evolve, the total energy changes.
Big Bang Cosmology: Current theory says the Universe is expanding, this violates the 1st law in multiple ways, 1) the evidence that the Universe is expanding is the Redshift of light, if the light is redshifted, then it is losing energy as space expands. 2) The acceleration of the expansion is explained by Dark Energy, defined as a constant value in the density of the vacuum energy of empty space, the volume of space grows as the universe expands, so the total energy (density times volume), increases. 3) The inflationary epoch postulates rapid expansion of the Universe based on changing energy density, hence, nucleosynthesis, flatness, and the baryonic asymmetry that gives us a Universe in the first place, are all dependent on the violation of the 1st law.
Quantum Physics: The Conservation law doesn’t port to quantum physics because the concept of energy is different than it is in the classical physics the 1st Law is based on. Classically, a particle has a constant energy, which is the sum of its potential energy (position) and its kinetic energy (momentum). But in quantum mechanics, the state of the particle isn’t a function of position and velocity; The state of the system is given by the wave function, which is mathematically incompatible with the 1st law’s time translation invariance.
In quantum physics, the system is defined by the Schrodinger Wave Function, which predicts probabilities and the energy of the system is an average of all the probabilities, the energy of the system is constant as the system evolves. When a measurement is made, the wave function collapses to a single state and the energy of the system changes, the average energy is not conserved in the process of quantum measurement in violation of the 1st law.
Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle virtual particles are created in direct violation of the conservation law, these exceptions have been demonstrated, precisely measured, and accounted in things like zero-point energy, the Lamb shift, and macroscopically, the Casimir Effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry for all the Orwell references, lol; having to teach this next quarter.
I doubt whether classical education ever has been or can be successfully carried out without corporal punishment." - George Orwell
Knock em dead
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Wylted was actually born in Kenya.
Show us your birth certificate!
Show us your tax returns!
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Got it, thanks.
I'm still confused though, this site makes me feel like I'm trapped in a Fellini movie.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
If this is the second election, why did Whiteflame say "The sites first ever election is officially underway" in the 1/16 thread titled DebateArt.com 2023 Election Voting.
I'm confused.
Created:
Posted in:
I propose a solution:
Those who voted for RM should secede from the site and retain RationalMadman as the president of the newly created and completely seperate group , Wylted's domain will be called Mainland DART, and RM's domain will operate as an independent and autonomously group providing a home for all the smart members (like China and Taiwan, except we don't all have to be terrible drivers).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If RM really wanted to win the presidency, he should have clearly lied about being for proxy wars for profit as Wylted most certainly did. You can't expect to win if you do not choose the correct lie.
RM should have said his Mom was in the twin towers on 911, his grandparents were Holocaust refugees, and that he worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Support the insurrection to overturn the election and hang Wylted1. Sidewalker2. SkepticalOne3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.Wylted, about your execution this election...we're taking a collection to get it done. 😄
I've already started building the gallows.
Created:
Posted in:
Support the insurrection to overturn the election and hang Wylted
1. Sidewalker
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
White supremacy? Thanks to the current wave of “anti-racism,” that concept can cover everything from white people intermarrying to being good at math…
Oh pulease, "good at math" has nothing to do with black and white....it's Asian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
we really don't know alot about...
Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in the forest, the greater the clearing, the more contact we have with the unknown.
That sounds right to me, you would think that the more we know the less we don't know, but that doesn't seem to be the case, it seems that as what we know expands, what we don't know expands right along with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
it is possible the conservation principle still applies across the universe as we really don't know alot about black holes and very dense matter with relatively low energy in proportion to the mass constantly escaping as Hawking radiation.
For that to be the case the Universe would have to be a closed system, and there is no way we can know whether or not it is a closed system, a strong arument can be made that Kurt Godel proved in cannot be a closed system.
The law of Conservation has always been fundamental, it is embedded in the structure of most classical theories, and a lot of effort is put into preserving it with new kinds of energy and creative mathematics, but our current scientific theories involve fundamental violations.
Current cosmological theory explicitly violates the 1st law, in an expanding universe light is "redshifted to a lower energy state, and Dark Energy is understood to be the intrinsic energy per volume of empty space, in an expanding Universe the volume of space expands and so does the total energy.
General Relativity tells us that depending on how they are moving in relation to one another, different observers will measure different energy for the same system, it also gives us a dynamic time and space which eliminates the requisite translationally
invariant background. The conservation law is fundamentally incompatible with General Relativity,
The 1st law doesn't even port to quantum physics in any recognizable way, it cannot deal with wave particle duality, or the collapse of the wave function.
Those are our three best physical theories, the 1st law conflicts with all three in basic ways, in the end, the Conservation law is going the way most of our classical laws of physics have gone, to a limited domain of applicability
Created:
Fake news, yuge conspiracy, witch hunt, Biden should just declare that he is a stable genius and move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
It's been my experience traumas and issues never stop. Life is hard. Someone or something is always waiting to trip up your long term goals.
How do you make God laugh?
Tell Him your plans.
Created:
Posted in:
What happens if everybody follows through on their threat to move to Canada if Wylted wins?
Will all posts have to end in "eh".
Do we have to eat poutine?
Will curling become the official site sport?
Created:
Posted in:
I’m sorry, I thought the conversation was about science, I was talking about science, you are the only one denying science in favor of speculation.Thread title, how did life come about. Either there exists origni{s} or not. Simple concept you have yet to grasp. I dunno that is possible crete biologic life, from where before there was none, and niether do you, ergo its all speculation. Accept this truth or keep letting your ego try to prove otherwise.
No shit Rainman, either there was an origin or there wasn’t,
I get that, my dog gets that, but hey, if declaring that profound fact is
necessary to fluff your ego, go for it.
Murphys law states, that, anything that is possible, sooner or later will occur. And this is more so in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. Logic common sense, that, is often based on empirical evidence if used by many scientist etc.Your ego working over time, to present an origin of biologic life, of which there is no direct evidence proof, regardless of you constantly hoping that whatever you say is the proof. Get read Swalker.
Either there was, or there wasn’t, woo hoo, that is
profound, and it makes you smarter than me, it makes you smarter than the
scientific community, your ego is fulfilled.
The evidence shows clearly that life came into being between 3.5 and 3 billion years ago.Came to exist on Earth. Again, drop you ego, and read my lips/text, we have no direct evidence of and origin of biologic life being created from where before there was none. We dont know how that biologic life ---bacteria--- came to exist on earth. Its called speculation, not direct evidence. Drop your ego and accept that truth.
Science is speculation, scientists are stupid, you are so
smart that you deny science, yep, that’s a big ego you got there.
I understand science, and there is an abundance of deductive scientific evidence that there was an origin to life, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between science and your fanciful speculation, I’m not sure what that fantasy crap is, but I know what it isn’t, it isn’t science.You dont seem to grasp that 'deductive ' is not direct evidence of and origin of biologic life on Earth. Drop the ego and accept this simple, logical common sense truth. Can you do that SWalker? no? I didnt think so.
You forgot the geometry stuff, isn’t there a hexidecimally
triangular geodesic showing that it is infinately finite and horizontally
vertical that you are more smarter than science?
I have explained the evidence several times,You have offered no direct evidence of biological life being created from where before there was none.
Got it, the vast majority of accepted science doesn’t count,
observation doesn’t count, inductive reasoning doesn’t count, deductive
reasoning doesn’t count, science bows down to your speculation because of the
rhombic circularity of the innermost outside of Buckminster Fullerene and the null geodesics of Roger Penrose.
I get it, you deny science so you can speculate your fantasy, because your ego demands it, got it.Your repeating the word ' science ' is not direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. I dont know if it is possible or not.Ive offered speculation on an alternative viewpoint, of eternally existing biologic life in some black holes etc.
Considering the octogonic singular dualities of the
photonically consistent irregularities, of course there either was or there
wasn’t, and that is the circuitously direct evidence that there wasn’t.
I accept science, and recognize that we have an abundance of direct evidence that black holes exist.Ive repeated such to you many times, Glad you finally come to believe what I and most cosmologist have believed for 10 or more years now, however, we are all still speculating as to what these phenomena are at center of most galaxies. We have no direct evidence that these phenomena are actually black holes.Yes the fit much of the criteria we would attribute to black holes, but that is not yet empirical evidence.Were both speculation. Yours is and origin --that I dont deny may be feasible--mind is an alternative view of eternally existent biologic life in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I think my version is more simple than and origin from scratch. Well not totally from scratch, because we have evidence of left-handed amino-acids existing in metorites.
But panspermia only applies if the amino acids are either
tetrahedonally oblong or intermittently continuous.
Why does your ego demand that you ignore the eternally existent direct evidence of the origin of biologic life?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't think you should be able to sue your parents for giving birth to you...I do however, think everyone else should be able to sue your parents for giving birth to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It's actually "80 for Brady", and sure, it's got some great stars and I'll probably watch it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I grasp the facts just fine,False. Like me your speculating about, an origin of biological life, wehrease i'm speculating about eternally existent encoding of biologic life in some or collection thereof.
I’m
sorry, I thought the conversation was about science, I was talking about
science, you are the only one denying science in favor of speculation.
you seem to think that if we can't reproduce it in an experiment then there is no direct evidence,Your False. It is not just that one thing. It is that plus, we have no direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, anywhere in Universe. Just your repeating there is, does not make it so. Provide the specific evidence when you have it. You do not, because you have none.
There
is a boatload of geochemical evidence of the conditions of the primitive Earth over
time, the evidence shows that the Earth came into existence around 4.5 billion
years ago, and the evidence is that conditions of the early Earth could not
support life for the first billion years, there is evidence that around 3.4
billion years ago the conditions were such that Earth could support life, and
we have fossil evidence that single celled life existed around three billion
years ago. The evidence shows clearly
that life came into being between 3.5 and 3 billion years ago.
that is nonsense, unless you are a science denier, there is plenty of evidence that life came into existence at some point in the history of the Universe.No there is not one shred of direct evidence for an origin of biologic life. Repeatedly you dont seem to grasp the differrence between indirect circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence. Ex we have direct evidence of evolution, via bacteria, and again, I dont know if that is simple to complex, complex to simple or just lateral evolution. Understand?
I understand science, and there is an abundance of deductive scientific evidence that there was an origin to life, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between science and your fanciful speculation, I’m not sure what that fantasy crap is, but I know what it isn’t, it isn’t science.
When you find the direct evidence of black holes, dark energy, singularities, or syntropy, please share.I'm speculating just as you are. Call it blather, then that is what your doing also. Its obvious your ego is in the way of truth and facts regarding direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. We none, nada, zip etc.
Nope, you are speculating, I am talking about science. Your ego is in the way of accepting science
in favor of your fantasy.
If the tree in my front yard is standing when I go to bed, and during the night there is a storm and when I wake up the tree in on the ground, I would consider that direct evidence that the tree fell last night. I suppose you could bloviate about fallen trees are eternally existent and throw out some random geometric shapes as supporting evidence, but why be flakey. The change of state between last night and this morning provides direct evidence that the tree fell.
Ive asked you repeatedly to present direct evidence, and of course you dont, because, there is none. Your ego walks in fear of this truth and fact.
I have explained the evidence several times, your ego
demands that you deny science. Its fine
that you have your science fiction accounts, very creative, and it’s fine that
your ego demands that you proclaim yourself smarter than the scientific
community, just don’t pretend that it has anything to do with science.
Ive never said the origin of biological life is not possible, only that we have no direct evidence. Do you understand these simple words? No? I didnt think so. Your ego is in the way.
I get it, you deny science so you can speculate your
fantasy, because your ego demands it, got it.
Based on circumstantial evidence, many people believe black holes exist at center of most galaxies. If you dont want to believe that, fine by me.
I
accept science, and recognize that we have an abundance of direct evidence that
black holes exist.
If you want to go on beliveing there is direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, is also fine by me. Please share when the direct evidence is observed.
OK, and please share if you come across anything
resembling a logical, rational, or scientific basis for your make-believe fantasies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All theories as you stated.
Yep, that’s
what science has, theories.
So no one as yet knows anything for certain then.
Science is empiricle, and the term "empirical" presupposes inductive reasoning, it fundamentally attempts to derive general principles from specific instances, but the truth of those general principles is inferred, they can never be proven empirically. Inductive reasoning can only allow you to have probabilities, not certainty.
Will we ever know?
Knowledge is accumulating at a ferocious pace, and over time it is becoming more and more complete, the truth goes marching on so to speak, but no, we will never know with certainty.
Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is why we think that finite creatures can comprehend the whole, that our finite minds can circumscribe an infinitely diverse universe of reality of which we are a mere part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Nonsense, there is a preponderance of solid and direct observational evidence that the history of the Universe demonstrates a temporal sequence that went from a world with no biologic life, to a world with biologic life, clearly establishing the fact that in time, biologic life originated from a state in which biologic life did not exist.Again, you dont seem to grasp the facts...we have no direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, and that is what you cannot present that direct evidence. When you find the direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, please share
I grasp the facts just fine, you seem to think that if we can't reproduce it in an
experiment then there is no direct evidence, that is nonsense, unless you are a science denier, there is plenty
of evidence that life came into existence at some point in the history of the
Universe.
You blather on a lot about Black Holes, Dark Energy, singularities, syntropy, and a lot of other things that by your criteria there is no direct evidence that any of these things even exist. When you find the direct evidence of black holes, dark energy, singularities, or syntropy, please share.
You blather on a lot about Black Holes, Dark Energy, singularities, syntropy, and a lot of other things that by your criteria there is no direct evidence that any of these things even exist. When you find the direct evidence of black holes, dark energy, singularities, or syntropy, please share.
What we have observed is a universe in which entities of matter are increasing form and complexity in space and time, the evidence is clear that temporally speaking, biologic life emerged at a point in time, that much we know with certainty.What we dont have, is direct evidence of an origin of biologic life irregardless of your comments. None of which provides any direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. Like myself, all you have is speculation of and origin of biologic. You dont seem to understand between speculation and factual evidence of an origin please share when you understand and provide the direct evidence.We dont even have direct evidence of evolution, other than bacterias, ive not seen any info that clearly gives evidence that bacteria evolution is simple-to-complex rather than, complex-to-simple or lateral evolution. Understand SW?
There is no direct evidence (or rational basis) for anything
you have typed in this entire thread.
Other than ego fluffing, is there a point?
Other than ego fluffing, is there a point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
RationalMadman
RM seems to be taking it seriously, the alternative is a troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Naught { energy aka physical reality /\/\/ or Spirit-2 } is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed { fermions < > < >bosons }. Grasp the 1st law of thermodynamics.3} Naught is created nor destroyed only transformed from Spirit-3 Gravity and Spirit-4 Dark Energy into Spirit-2 { fermions and bosons }, etc eternally. You dont seem to grasp this simple cosmic scenario, that, is transferred from 1st law of thermodynamics, by me.Are you refering to 1st law of thermodynamics that ive presented three times in this thread, and countless times at DArt?/\/\/\/ >>> _______________________ >>> then what? 1st law of thermodynamics, energy{ physical reality } cannot be created nor destroyed, ergo, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, that, can only transform its various phases of occupied space.Huh? You dont seem to grasp the 1st law of thermodynamics, naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed eternally and this translates over to our finite occupied space Universe. Understand? It is simple.
I’m sorry, but it’s only simple if your science is over a century old. Today, the 1st law is only an axiom of science, it isn’t a conclusion of science, and in fact, current scientific theory is explicit that the 1st Law does not hold for the Universe as a whole. The most obvious example is that we know the Universe is expanding because of Redshift, but if the light is Redshifted, then it is going to a less energetic state, there is a net loss of energy in the Universe.
Back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, the 1st “law” was mathematically formalized as Emmy Noether’s time-translational symmetry, which is the theoretical basis of the conservation law, but time-translational symmetry only applies to a static system with a single frame of reference and coordinate system, and only to a closed system, which is to say, it only applies to Newtonian physics. So theoretically, any system that evolves with time will not obey the conservation law, with our most successful current theories, Relativity Theory, Quantum Physics, and Big Bang Cosmology, the conservation law is no longer applicable either theoretically or experimentally.
It’s been over a hundred years since the energy conservation law (and the corresponding time-translational symmetry) was an unassailable principle. Conservation of energy is really only an approximation that holds for systems in which the background is not dynamic and therefore does have time translation symmetry, which is to say, in scenarios where Newtonian Physics applies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
We have no evidence that biologic life ( * I * ) came from before where there was none.
Yout dont understand. We have no evidence of any orgins of bioologic life. All we know is, that it exists, ergo, to best of our knowledge it has existed eternally, since we have no evidence of and origin. Understand?
We have no direct evidence of origins of biological life, and after many years of human mind doing experiements, humans have not created biologic life.
We have no direct evidence of any origins of biologic life. We have no evidence of a spark-of-life occurrence.
Nonsense, there is a preponderance of solid and direct observational evidence that the history of the Universe demonstrates a temporal sequence that went from a world with no biologic life, to a world with biologic life, clearly establishing the fact that in time, biologic life originated from a state in which biologic life did not exist.
What we have observed is a universe in
which entities of matter are increasing form and complexity in space and time, the
evidence is clear that temporally speaking, biologic life emerged at a point in time,
that much we know with certainty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I had to work for everything too, and I had a lot of success over the years, I rose to the top of my profession by working harder and smarter than the next guy, and everything I got I earned, my success was well deserved and I have nothing to be ashamed of......but I know damn well that working just as hard and smart, I would not have had nearly as much success if I was black, and that is shameful.Realistically, everyone knows that, everyone......and anyone trying to deny the existence of that dynamic has an agenda and is a liar.That is a strait up lie.
LOL,
maybe it’s not true in your trailer park, and maybe it doesn’t happen in your
video games, but out here in the real world kiddie, it’s true and anyone with
half a brain knows it. (Of course, this
does not apply to child brains that aren’t fully developed yet)
And if you are going to feed into this stupid ideology that white privilege still exists then you are just plain wrong.
The
redneck teenybopper is going to tell us the ways of the world, that is just
adorable.
And yes, there is a difference between white privilege and racism.It's literally in the name.
Yes,
but they are certainly related concepts, for instance, people who deny that white
privilege exists are racists.
White privilege is white people with more privilege than others.... oh, wait that doesn't exist in America today.
I don’t
care what they told you at your Klan meeting kiddie, there’s more to America
than your trailer park and the 10th grade.
And here is my whole problem with the black folks who say they are oppressed.
I understand,
white trash needs to believe it’s them that are being oppressed, I mean how
else can they explain working their way to the bottom rung of society.
You have a lot of black people on Tik Tok......with their 1000-dollar phones.... with a roof over their heads........with access to schools and colleges......electricity, water, food, heating, air, etc. and they are saying that they are so called...oppressed? They are using the same system that is oppressing them, to say that they are oppressed.
Whoa,
you mean to tell me they got food, water, AND a cell phone, and they are STILL being uppity? Man, they are so ungrateful.
And why do they want to be oppressed.
I don’t
know, why do you want to be stupid?
I have never heard of a group of people, who are trying to prove to others that they are oppressed and keep it that way. Because it's not like they are trying to end racism.
Did
they teach you that at your Klan meeting? Do some research kiddie:
They are just calling white people stupid and saying that they are better (not all black people granted, just the hypocritical ones). AND some white people are saying this too. So, they are just oppressing themselves at this point.
Don’t
worry kiddie, you have your whole life ahead of you and I’m sure white privilege
will never affect your career, just remember to always ask, “You want fries
with that?” and you’ll reach your full potential all on your own.
Examples of black people fighting against this thinking....and they are black, saying that they are not oppressed:
Examples of teenagers embracing this thinking...and some TV shows for you.
Created:
Posted in:
Well isn;t that cute, the little rocket man thinks he can play in the big boy sandbox.
Plus he's got those cute little outfits, waddling around with the goofy haircut, playing make believe, he's just adorable.
Make us laugh little one, make us laugh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I must have been stoned and missed out on that white privilege when they were handing it out. I have had to work for everything
I had to work for everything too, and I had a lot of success over the years, I rose to the top of my profession by working harder and smarter than the next guy, and everything I got I earned, my success was well deserved and I have nothing to be ashamed of...
...but I know damn well that working just as hard and smart, I would not have had nearly as much success if I was black, and that is shameful.
Realistically, everyone knows that, everyone...
...and anyone trying to deny the existence of that dynamic has an agenda and is a liar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Half the drunk these days. Twice the pervert lol. But yeah that was the good old days. Ain't what it used to be.
Sure isn't, it's a lot more Felliniesque now, maybe that's just a sign of the times, the whole world is a lot more Felliniesque now.
Nice to see you still kicking anyway.
It's good to be seen still kicking under the circumstances, when I first came back I was beginning six weeks of radiation and chemotherapy (turns out smoking is bad for you), done with all that now, going back to work the end of the month, probably dissapear again after that, we'll see. Good seeing you too.
You were a fairly fierce combatant in the philosophy board as I remember it.
Yeah, philosophy and science were my thing, can't get anyone here to debate me though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why is it a good thing to have career politicians? Shouldn't politicians put people before their careers?
You mean like the way your boy Trump is so selfless?
Pelosi failed to deliver a massive amount of promises over a period of decades with no consequence. Is that what you hold as the gold standard for modern government? Pelosi? Seriously?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did the fact that I never said a word about
Pelosi tip you off?
If AOC and the progressive squad got even half of the concessions from Pelosi that the HFC got out of McCarthy, you would have had medicare for all by now. Just think on that.
The HFC made McCarthy squeal like a pig.
Instead, AOC's progressive squad was sold a bill of goods, empty promises, and token seats of power, with veiled threats as well.
Is
that your guess about how long McCarthy will last?
If you want your voice to be heard, you cannot forever be afraid to offend anyone.
Just be patient, I’m trying to offend everyone, but it takes
time.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
They had to go with mandatory bee vaccinations because they refused to wear the tiny little masks.
Created:
Posted in:
The Republican House went from hating Nancy Pelosi to getting the majority, and then hating Kevin McCrathy.He had to cut so many deals to get elected, going forward he has to get Matt Gaetz seventeen year old girls, and make Marjorie Taylor Greene's tin foil hats, and most critically, he agreed to a rule change that says any congressman can call for a no-confidence referendum if they don’t like how he’s doing his job.
So, how long do you think he will last, I think there's no way he makes it past 6 Scaramuccis.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Sidewalker is a legend from way back.
LOL, yeah, I was a legend in my own mind, man, that was a long time ago.
I thought I recognized you, Irish, heavy drinker, pervert...ok, that's redundant...you're Irish right?
I think Airmax was around back then too, and Sadolight maybe, other than that, I'm thinking most everybody else at this site wasn't even born yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I invented nothing in this thread. I know what the alternatives are.
I know, I looked it up after the post, more often than not I have to go Google something when I read your posts . I know a lot of new stuff because of you, a lot of it I really didn't want to know (ie. these new pronouns). I was blissfully ignorant of Ze/zim/zeirs, fortunately I still don't know what they mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
How many are there now?
Apparently, a bunch. Seems there is this interplay between people not wanting to be excluded, and not wanting to be included, that just proliferates genders. I'm pretty sure RM invented three new groups of pronouns just since you started this thread, so there's really no end in sight.
Since the beginning of time, men have not understood women, so my solution is as follows; any time I come across a gender that I don't understand, I'm going to consider that a woman, and to hide the fact that I don't understand, I'm going to stop using pronouns altogether, and just address everyone as "Hey you".
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It would be like if I defined Montana as:“A state bordered by Wyoming, Idaho, Canada, and the Dakotas”. This makes a definition circular.
How is that circular?
Created: