Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Chickens today were once dinosaurs having no feathers and no beaks.
More accurately, chickens today are descended from dinosaurs.
Fair enough.
1. did the changes making them into chickens over time occur because of genetic mutations?
Yes.
Thank you. We will refer back to this later.
2. Did these mutations occur in an individual at a time, all individuals in the whole group, or many individuals within the group coincidentally at the same time?
The mutations occur at an even lower level than individuals. They occur in individual cells.
They can, but that was not the question. Cells are found in individuals. Please address the question.
Most mutations, however, are not passed to offspring. It is only when a mutation occurs in a gamete (sperm or ovum) that it can be passed on to offspring.
Thanks. So then we will limit our question only to mutations that occur in gametes and zygotes.
If a mutation occurs in a gamete, then it can be passed down to offspring, who then possess the mutation in every cell, including gametes, which is how it passes the mutation along to its own offspring. (A mutation can also occur during cell division in the zygote, in which case the offspring will possess the mutation in only some cells.)
Thank you for the lesson. Teach if you feel inclined to, but please include answers to the questions asked too.
So, I'm going to re-phrase question #2.
2A. Did these mutations that can be passed down to offspring occur only in individuals at a time, the whole group at once, or many individuals within the group coincidentally at the same time?
3. If this/these proto-chicken(s) mated with an earlier generation that did not have the mutation, would that not hinder or stop the propagation of the mutation within the gene pool?
Nope, makes no difference.
I find this answer surprising, so I must ask some questions to understand better. I will use eye color as a placeholder example.
3A. Was the blue eye color in humans caused by a mutation?
3B. If yes, is the gene for blue eyes recessive?
3C. If an individual and successive offspring of that individual keep mating with individuals that lack the gene for blue eyes, will the rate of blue eyed offspring resulting from these matings rise, stay the same, or fall within the population?
A mutation spreads through a population by its carrier(s) producing offspring.
This does not reflect reality. For example, the gene for dark skin among blacks in America is almost gone. Hardly any black is dark anymore, though blacks brought to America during the years of slavery were very dark.
If mutations spread through populations only by its carrier(s) producing offspring, where are all the very dark black offspring? Perhaps factors other than just having offspring affect a mutation's spread (and expression) through a population.
This is, in fact, the simplest definition of evolution: the change in frequency of alleles (gene variants) in a population over time.
We are trying to stay specific, because that is where one sees the illogic of evolution, so please let's leave the general for now.
In summery, you did not answer question 2, so it was rephrased for you.
And your answer for question 3 appears to be, at best, incomplete, and at worse, wrong. Comments?
Thanks.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I've been on the internet since it began. I've met many people like Stephen. He doesn't want to discuss scripture, he wants to discuss his personal beliefs about scripture. And for him, his belief about scripture is more true than what scripture says.
So for example, in talking about John and Jesus, his focus is his made-up idea that there was a "rivalry" between John and Jesus, and he will bend scripture to fit his made-up idea. He will reject anything, even scripture itself, if it contradicts his made-up idea.
He isn't looking for answers. He is only interested in pushing his agenda. And his agenda is decidedly an anti-christ agenda.
So he doesn't care if his claims are shown to be nonsense, he just wants to be able to post them. This is why, when PGA 2.0, for example, showed him point blank that he was wrong when he claimed that John's father did not doubt, he simply stopped talking to him. He will switch to talking to someone else who allows him to keep posting his debunked idea.
For people like this, their emotional rush is only in posting derogatory things about God and the bible. I have found that the best way to shut them down is counterintuitive. Put his agenda front and center. Make him defend it.
Because his agenda is baseless and frankly, kind of loony, he is forced to defend something clearly not in scripture, and this part is important, clearly contradicts other parts of scripture he accepts. In the end, he become the best argument against himself.
But there will always be noobs who will gracefully assume he is just a confused guy searching for answers and allow him a platform.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You still here.
Yeah.
So? You're nobody. I just ignored you.I thought I asked you to please take a hike from this thread until you can accept truth as presented to you in this thread and others like it
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
How is the scenario not able to be answered without that information? What difference to your answer would that information make?
Because the OP's post is a veiled attempt to reconstruct Societies in America and by making it hypothetical be immune to any charges of racism
Really? I didn't get that. On what do you base this charge?
Casual_Leftist is right to want to have additional information...
I too, would want to know why Society A is untrustworthy of strangers and why their crime rate is so high..... Crime is often a by product of poverty, Is there a correlation between their mistrust and their crime rates and/or poverty?
There may be, but I still fail to see how the answer would change your answer to the question
I would also ponder why Society A's crime rate would remain high if they merged with B.Is A genetically disposed to be criminals or is there another reason for their crime rates? Would merging societies fix their problems or exaborate them?Has B been "gifted" with opportunities that A has been excluded from?
I still fail to see how the answers here would change your answer to the question. Can you give me an example?
I would hope you would see the relevance of these questions...
I do, for real life society in general, but not to how they affect the answer you would give in his scenario.
Even the shout out for "Liberals" to answer the question leads a Reader to believe that a non-liberal would believe that either:
A. A separation of societies would be a better idea or
B. Mistrust of different Races (specifically Blacks) is justified
Do you have a previous history with this guy?
Created:
As will most rational people.I fail to see you point here.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Since we have real documented cases that qualify as prophesy, would you call all of them coincidence?
However, we don't live in a world of magic and supernature so that is all the 'proof' against prophesy needed.
Self-serving logic. No christian I've ever met believes in magic. You slap your self-defined word on the convo and then declare yourself correct. Convenient no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Hi Keith,
I have to say, this is one of the most succinct and elegant arguments for free will that I've ever seen.
Which probably explains the shortage of takers.
Created:
Posted in:
Sigh.
Money is representative of an asset that belongs to someone.
I'm not talking about money.
I am not suggesting injecting units into the system.Your concept of injecting units into the system
[Money] is not something that arises from imagination or on a computer screen.
I know. Did you notice that I didn't say it was?
Inflation is not perception.
Inflation is like color. It exists only in our minds. Notice I did not say inflation was not real.
I think it is fraught with problems - personally.
I think you should read the whole thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And yet you said he did not doubt. You said there was no indication in the passage that he doubted. You were wrong.
Yo called it a punishment. We asked you, "so what?" You couldn't answer. You said he should not have been punished, placing your judgement above that of God.
You insisted God did not strike Abraham dumb. We asked you, "so what?" You could not answer. We asked you, "Why did God have to behave the same way to two different people at different times?" You could not answer.
But you simply continue with your illogical argument that has been debunked. You refuse logical answers offered to you, and pretend you don't see the answers, but later (like now) will pretend the answer was your idea.
People began by thinking you were just ignorant, but many are now starting to think you are just dishonest. Is the emotional joy you feel from insulting God worth the loss of your reputation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The last time this happened was Clarence Thomas and he got through 👍.
True, but Thomas was before the dredded "me too" movement. Now the copycats and attention whores will pile on.
I hear that the Judge is supposed to testify first. How is that correct? Isn't the accuser supposed to state their case and then the accused defends? How can he defend against a claim that will be made after his "defence"?From what I've read they've agreed on conditions for testimony, She's going to be testifying Thursday.
My God, these people are souless hacks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
PGA 2.0 - Post #72
Gabriel makes known to Zacharias that to doubt what he says as a certainty is to doubt God, therefore, to confirm the message is from God Gabriel gives Zacharias a sign to confirm to him: "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you....you shall be silent...because you did not BELIEVE my words..
No matter how obtuse you pretend to be, scriptures show you to be ignorant. We all see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol!!
Jeepers, I would follow you just for the quality of your comeback quips.
Ouch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Yeah, just heard.
But really, we're talking democrats. Who couldn't see this coming?
Are we to believe at least 3 separate FBI investigations missed this?
Now if history is any indicator, the GOP will fold like a deck of cards. How I hope that doesn't happen.
Created:
Posted in:
Is there going to be a list of people banned and the length of the sentence and the reason for banning? I'm looking forward to seeing some names. hahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaha
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
someone has to pay for everyone else to have money.
Untrue. And as long as you believe this, my argument will be lost to you.
I've explained it. I won't do so again.
This is like trying to get the guy who believes he is locked in prison that the doors are unlocked if he would only try them.
Inflation is nothing but perception. There are interests that wish to keep that perception alive. Most people have been so steeped in the status-quo they have become unable to see that their culture is not a prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Yet another bloated post pretending to contradict my position.
There is no need to address your filler fluff because its purpose is to obfuscate, so just the main parts, OK?
Unfortunately, stating a falsehood vehemently and forcefully doesn’t make it any less false.
Even stating it with pseudo intellectualism doesn’t make it any less false either, just more smarmy.
You’re still arguing as if you thing Abiogenesis is a theory like Gravity or Evolution, or is treated as such by science. It isn’t.
If you could read, you would know that I just said to moose that trying to compare abiogenesis to gravity was incorrect. Dismissed.
None of them are treated as proven, or much more than interesting avenues.
It is obvious you aren't well read in science lit.
While I’ve seen a few ignorant pro-science individuals....
Lol. Not scientists? Not atheists? Just "pro-science"?
...this is mostly something that is done by people like you, and religious zealots who don’t want to accept anything scientific
So " pro-science" individuals who don’t want to accept anything scientific? Lol. Do you read what you write?
Abiogenesis - that life originated from non-organic material is mostly conceptually accepted by everyone because science doesn’t normally consider magic as a viable option.
What about accepting something because of its scientific evidence instead of because you arbitrarily call something else "magic"? This is highly illogical. First, as if it is an either or situation, it isn't. And second, calling what has been scientifically observed for all of human history is ludicrous. What exactly is "magic"? That life comes from life?
I suspect that you’ve just pulled this out of the air
Well, since it was you who said it, it had to be you who pulled it out of somewhere. I make my own arguments thank you.
Considering you could have literally posted the most common experiment that has been made
And yet you could cite no evidence or experiments either. Does that not agree with my claim that there is no evidence? After all your copious blather, you could cite no evidence. None.
...rather than being simply about the initial creation of life in the first place,
Thanks for supporting my argument. As we are talking about life starting, the formation of simple amino acids is not the point.
...your claim that these experiments require absurd conditions is not just unsupported, it’s without merit too.
It isn't my claim, its your poor reading comprehension. I did not say or imply these experiments require absurd conditions.
I am not sure whether you are making these false claims from a position of ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty, but I am pretty sure which it is. I try not to label people, so I will let you wrestle your own conscience if you have one.
Given that the topic isn’t taught beyond its basics - and the one experiment - in school, it’s hardly surprising that people wouldn’t be able to name more than one experiment.
It is surprising. Each person debating here for abiogenesis has implied that he is science literate. You included. Yet checking them, we find nothing but excused and misdirection. Boiled down to pertinent information, your post would be 2 paragraphs at most.
So raising what experiments people know or don’t, has little to do with the science or it’s validity
But it has much to do with their implication that they are well versed in science. Like you, they haughtily say I know nothing, and am ignorant or dishonest. Now you apologize for them admitting they are uninformed laymen.
Nonetheless some of the experiments, and processes I’ve described above are some of the big ones in the field of abiogenesis:
And not one of them produced any evidence for abiogenesis, or indeed any new information.
...and they don’t really have names.
You still could have cited them. You didn't. Hmmmm.
Scientists will never see any combination of biotic materials come alive. We can make replicating strings, and complex compounds, but we will never see life.
Questions:
1. If abiogenesis is true, why are there no instances of it anywhere or anytime in the known universe?
2. If abiogenesis is true, why can it not be replicated?
3. On what evidence is the idea that a group of organic material can become alive?
4. Other than the inductive conclusion from the universe having a start, what makes anyone think abiogenesis is a valid idea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Ethang cannot grasp what a dumb-bell geometry is.
But Ethan does know what a dumbbell is. ; )
No you dont,....
Believe me, I do...
The Oxford English Dictionary describes "apparatus similar to that used to ring a church bell, but without the bell, so noiseless or ‘’dumb",
See? I do know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah. He probably has that post in a .doc file he simply pastes into the window over and over. I simply cannot see what's so great about that post that makes him believe its worth posting over and over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You did. I ignored you.You still here. I thought I told you to take a hike.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
But Ethan does know what a dumbbell is. ; )Ethang cannot grasp what a dumb-bell geometry is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Thanks for alerting me, and I apologize to you and moose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Answer #1What is the alternative explanation for the origin of life, that isn't abiogenesis?
What we all see everyday. And have seen since time began. Life comes from life, never from non-life.
Answer #2
Abiogenesis is not a valid explanation for the origin of life, even if we do not have an alternative. No illogical theory is validated just because we cannot presently explain a phenomena.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Actually it is. Do you have the mechanism by which matter becomes alive?Except, you are positing "spontaneous" where it being spontaneous is not necessary to Abiogenesis.
An external stimulus to go from organic matter to "life" is not antithetical to Abiogenesis. The jump could be directly or indirectly.
Except that abiogenesis does not exist. You have no example of it. No instance of it. No evidence for it.
I did not discard it, It isn't evidence. It doesn't exist in reality. It's baseless conjecture. No science supports it.
You can keep repeating this, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, its not going to make the evidence that supports abiogenesis, not evidence.
I don't say it to make the evidence not evidence, I say it because it isn't evidence. And my not saying it will not change it into evidence. Inductive speculation of a no evidence fantasy cannot be evidence.
Except science doesn't, partly because if abiogenesis is not true, then you necessarily have to accept the universe itself is timeless and infinite...
Untrue. This is just the false dichotomy you want to limit the choices to. You do not know how or if the universe had a beginning, and as you've forgotten, life preceding the beginning of the universe is also an option.
They didn't discard it because it can be both a particle and a wave and that's not paradoxical in the least bit. Light is made up of particles, and acts like a wave in motion. And you want to say other people are neophytes?
My argument has no paradox except if your false dichotomy is arbitrarily hoisted on it. And there are science neophytes, people who think net mining can substitute for an education.
Seriously, again, the inherent and intrinsic nature of transitive series is that they have to have a beginning, or be infinite. It can't be both, and it can't be neither.
I have not said it was both or neither. You have. As such, that "paradox" is yours, not mine. If science shows me that life comes only from life, then I must consider that life may be infinite. Again, in science, we do not choose conclusions. We accept what science indicates.
You are more than welcome to argue....
No thanks. I'll stick to the argument you are struggling to.
On a final note, if you don't like these necessary consequences of what you are arguing,....
They aren't necessary. You just want them to be. Illogical things can never be necessary.
...then try actually carrying out your logic and rationale fully. As you have been cutting it short this whole time.
I don't see how. My argument is fully formed.
Life comes from life"
Yes, that is true, but thats not a disposition on whether or not it makes sense that life can ONLY result from life.
That is what the science indicates. You keep your fantasy, I'll stay with the science. Do you have a single instance of life coming from non-life? Why not?
If that is true, then either life always was, or life couldn't ever have been because at one point there was no life for life to come from.
Exactly.
Obviously there is life now, so we are left with two possible conclusion.
Lol!! Actually, we are left with just one conclusion. You reason that either life always was, OR it never was, and then suddenly insert abiogenesis in the options. Very slick.
Either life always was, or at some point in some way life came forth from non-life.
Yes, and science has answered this question. Life always come from life. There is no instance of abiogenesis, and no theory explaining the mechanism.
I've said nothing about a timeless universe. The universe being finite and life coming from life may both be facts.
They are both facts.
Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casual_Leftist
So it's more a trans thing, than a simple gender thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
All I want to know is who did your proto-chicken mate with
It mated with other proto-chickens.
Thank you stronn.
OK. Understood. Now let's examine this closely.Go back far enough in chicken ancestry, and eventually you reach a generation that would be unable to mate with modern chickens. They could, however, mate with nearby generations. But there is no clear demarcation.For instance, a chicken from a few hundred generations ago might successfully mate with modern chickens 99% of the time. Go back further, and you will get to a generation where the success rate drops to 70%. Further still, and the success rate drops more, until it reaches zero. There is no clear point at which you can definitively say that one generation is chickens while the previous generation is non-chickens.
Chickens today were once dinosaurs having no feathers and no beaks. Now, 1. did the changes making them into chickens over time occur because of genetic mutations?
2. Did these mutations occur in individuals, the whole group, or many individuals within the group coincidentally at the same time?
3. If this/these proto-chicken(s) mated with an earlier generation that did not have the mutation, would that not hinder or stop the propagation of the mutation within the gene pool?
That is all for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol.
I tell him I won't read his illogical and repetitive posts any more, and he tells me to take a hike and then re-posts the same boring and repetitive post again.
ooh 6 Trumpanzees!
Lol. Must be more of them than idio-umps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Sorry man. Your posts have become repetitive and boring. I have no reason to keep reading the same illogical thing over and over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Ta daaaa! Ethan, champion of your freedom!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
You are free to keep imagining things. I will go with the clear science instead of assumptions. Life comes from prior life. That is science. That is what the evidence indicates.
>4) Given there is evidence to support beyond that at one point Earth had zero organic matter present, then there was, you are left with two likely conclusions, abiogenesis and Panspermia.
Illogical and misleading. Having organic matter is not the standard. For years we have known that meteorites sometimes have organic matter. Don't try to dishonestly lower the bar. Organic matter is not evidence for abiogenesis.
>I think you obviously misunderstood my religious point as being crucial to what I'm saying. It wasn't at all.
Then it truly is a mystery why you mentioned it.
Further, you must dismiss all the perfectly good science supporting life from life. Why would you do that?
>1) as opposed to dismissing all the perfectly good science that illustrates the universe is finite and has a beginning?
I have not dismissed that. That is just a red herring you wish to insert. Science often initially has things that appear mutually exclusive. But we never throw out established truth for pet theories with no evidence. No one knows how, when, or even if the universe had a “beginning” or existed but simply changed states. But we do know that life comes only from life.
>2) Abiogenesis does not discard that life comes from life. How TF could it when a crucial component of the transitive series argument is that life does indeed result from life. Imagine that.
Lol. American Indians call this, arguing from both sides of your neck.
>It's quite humurous that you would be aware such theories and hypotheses aren't made in a vacuum, they build upon previous theories, laws, and observances. And yet discard that by arguing against Abiogenesis, you are de facto arguing for the universe being timeless and consequentially inifinite, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports a universe that is both finite and has a beginning.
This is why experienced debaters like me do not allow people like you to make their arguments for them. I argue against abiogenesis because science argues against it. I've said nothing about a timeless universe. The universe being finite and life coming from life may both be facts like light being propagated as a particle and a wave. They only seem to contradict to neophytes who pretend to know science.
When scientists found out that light was also propagated as a wave, they did not discard the particle theory of light, because the clear science supported it. They had to stay with the science.
>Concluding, say you are following "science" all you want, it doesn't make it true. And really, the more you speak more obvious it becomes you lack understanding of even basic scientific concepts, terminology, and principles.
Anyone can make this claim, but you have nothing. I have 6,000 years of evidence. There is no science that supports abiogenesis. There is no scientific principle for abiogenesis. So claim I lack understanding, what you lack is evidence for your claim.
>For example, discarding inductive reasoning as illegitimate when science does not exclude inductive reasoning from conclusions made, it still very much incorporates it, particularly in the realm of the "why" and "how" aka the realm of scientific theory.
I did not discard it, I am saying that is all it is. It isn't evidence. It doesn't exist in reality. It's baseless conjecture. No science supports it.
>I must have missed the part where human history was all there is to history... Heard it here first folks, the 13.8 billion years proceeding human history doesn't matter. And while we're at it, the only way probable conclusions are determined is through deduction and direct observation.
Only reliably recorded and documented history is good enough to be a basis for scientific conclusions considered factual. You certainly missed something.
>Just ignore that at one point Earth was inorganic, and then magically there was organic matter, and later on, life. No, that's certainly not indirect evidence life came from inorganic matter.
After all, things come from nothing alllll the time, amirite?
You can't fake an argument for me big guy. No one has said life does not use matter. Everything uses matter. The claim is that life does not start spontaneously. There must be prior life
Bodies without life are common. Organic matter is not life. Abiogenesis is fantasy. The universe is chock full of organic matter, yet not life. The standard is spontaneous life, not the simple presence of organic matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
>Lol, ah yes, such a paragon of logic.
If you are posturing to call yourself smarter, I concede now. We accept you are the smarter one and I am your intellectual lesser. Is that enough for you to give the “I'm so smart” innuendo a rest?
>Holding that the ovservation of organic compounds such as proteins being produced from inorganic compounds isn't evidence of abiogenesis.
It isn't. Is the observation that logs occur in nature evidence that log cabins occur spontaneously?
>What stellar logic do you have for us next? That a tree being made of wood is not evidence it came(even if indirectly) from fauna such as a tree?
There is no objection of where they come from. The question is about where they go. For example, the natural occurrence of oil in nature is not “evidence” that cars assemble spontaneously.
>First off, gravity has not, and cannot be directly observed. We observed it's effects, not gravity itself.
We observe no “effects” of abiogenesis. It has no effects because it is nonexistent. Comparing it to gravity is an attempt to obfuscate.
>But this is an erroneous conflation of scientific law, and scientific theory. As it appears you lack an understanding of how they are differentiated:
What law? There is no law for abiogenesis. And what is differentiated? Abiogenesis doesn't exist.
>Laws are observances of what is. There is a law of gravity,…
Because we observe the effects of gravity in reality. There is evidence for it.
>…but gravity is also a theory. Why?
The theory is to explain how gravity works. There is no law or theory of abiogenesis.
>A hypothesis, which is synonomous the common use of theory, is just a speculation of how or why, with little to no evidence to support.
But the phenomena must first exist! This is why we don't have hypotheses for things like Santa Claus or Karma.
>Why is abiogenesis a theory and not a hypothesis? Because it has evidence to support it.
Not true. It has no evidence to support it. That amino acids occur in nature is not evidence that life occurs spontaneously.
>1) Organic compounds such as proteins can result from inorganic compounds. As organic compounds are the foundation of life present in every living organism, it only makes sense that organism resulted from organic compounds.
The bodies of organisms are made of organic compounds, but a body is not life. Nor is the simple existence of a compound evidence that a complex process occurs.
>You are more than welcome to argue that the foundations of what something is comprised of isn't evidence of it being produced by such foundations.
Thanks for trying to suggest an argument for me, but this isn't my argument. My argument is that the foundations of what something is comprised of isn't evidence of the process that creates it.
That is like saying ovens are evidence of cakes.
>But as you aptly pointed out, this doesn't happen in a vacuum. And you'd be discarding that every other thing in existence is a result of what it is foundationally comprised of, even if indirectly. This is the necessary and consequential nature of transitive series.
Now you are opposing the fake argument you tried to make mine. Slick move.
>2) A transitive series of events is either infinite, or has a beginning, full stop. It cannot be both, it cannot be neither. As it's a de facto logical paradox for something to be both infinite and finite. Given that evidence overwhelmingly supports that the universe itself has a beginning point, this consequentially means evidence supports that life itself had a beginning as well. Life> Life is a transitive series, full stop.
So? What about my argument does this contradict?
>Given that evidence overwhelmingly supports that the universe itself has a beginning point, this consequentially means evidence supports that life itself had a beginning as well.
This is not logical. Life may have preceded the universe. The universe might never have had a beginning - as in never not existing. Your entire argument rests on a wobbly series of “Ifs” that you unreasonably treat like facts.
>3) If life had a beginning, that necessarily means at one point there was not life, then at another there was. That life had to result from something, ex: ex nihil, nihilo fit. From nothing, nothing comes.
Yeah, IF. But science indicates otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You were calm. And your reply was well thought out. Good post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Good points, but my point was more to the faddish nature of it than to the quality of the phone.
Its the same phenonom with everyone suddenly having tattoos, or wailing about kids separated from parents, or weddings having bridesmen and groomsmaids. Fad. All fad.
People following the fad all say, "I wanted to be unique". Really? So you go and do what the majority are doing to be unique?
I have 3 grown daughters, and none of them has ever wanted an
I-phone, a tattoo, or a democratic voter's card. So proud of them.
Created:
How is the scenario not able to be answered without that information? What difference to your answer would that information make?
My question for liberals is:
I'm as far as one can get from a liberal, but I'll answer anyway.
are the Asians wrong to treat the blacks differently than they treat each other?
No.
If so, was it also wrong for members of the all-black society to treat each others in the way they are treated by Asians (and themselves) in the racially mixed society?
No.
If not, why was it acceptable then but not acceptable once the races mixed?
It isn't. But political correctness, based on emotion and not logic, demands it.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol. This thread is funnier than I expected it to be.
Though I don't see how the strike through current system is lacking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I was just about to say the same thing to you! Then I realized, if you would heed that, I would not need to say it to you.
You sound frustrated. Are you OK? I'm sure the mods were fair with you. Don't take things too much to heart. If you observe the CoC, you will be fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Funny that the mods telling me to cease and desist, makes you more civil. Weird.The mods telling you to cease and desist does make me happy.
It will make everyone else happy to see your personal attacks and name calling disappear entirely.
Most people won't be happy to see your personal attacks and name calling disappear entirely. You were good entertainment.
If it doesn't, you will.
Lol. Is that why you've stopped? To "save" me? You are so sweet. But I was right. It stopped as soon as you did. Call me crazy, but I still like the new you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
What ever make you happy Goldy.
But I still like the new you. Do you feel restricted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I know. I don't care where the egg came from. I've never contradicted it. All I asked is, who did the "chicken" from your egg mate with?I have already told you that the egg came first and why.
Though you call others ignorant, you have not been able to answer. You can't cite where you say I lied. And insist a Christian proposed abiogenesis.
As such, I have to conclude you have nothing sensible to add to this convoy, and I can put you back on ignore. But you did well, for once, you tried to debate. Perhaps you will do better in later attempts.
Buh bye.
Created:
Posted in:
You really shouldn't cackle that way. It makes you appear mentally unstable.
Anyway, I am not an evolutionist. You are. I don't believe in abiogenesis, you do.
All I want to know is who did your proto-chicken mate with? It's OK to say so if you are ignorant. Really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So what? Why must He behave the same way with different people at different times? Where is the logic in that assumption?There is clearly a contradiction. This risen god disallows one person to touch him on the one hand , but allows, indeed encourages, another person to do the complete opposite.
What am I asking. Of course you can't answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Seems like you've become lost on the thread. The proto-chicken is the idea of the evolutionists to explain the answer to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
You often lose track of the debate in threads so its no biggie. If you do not believe in the proto-chicken, just say so. If you do, then tell us who did it mate with.
If you don't know. That's OK too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oh I know. But there was a rumour going around that BoT was the sock of AirMax. Surely you heard it?
Either way, the more the merrier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Now that we have a propito chicken I must admit to being confused by you and your ignorance of evolution.
You're confused but I'm ignorant? Funny.
Just for your absolutely lacking edumacation I need to tell you that you have no idea what you are prattling about rooster.
As you have never addressed the question, how could I? I doubt even you know what you're prattling about.
Sorry. I am not a moron evolutionist. Ask the person who proposed the proto-chicken.Now what was the shape of the egg your protimo chicken hatched from?You seem to have fantasy lifeforms that only exist in your fantasy worldview, can you perhaps relate this to reality or is it beyond you.
All I want to know, and what you are dodging is, who would this proto-chicken mate with? You haven't a clue do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sounds just like him. So we do agree on something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Lol. You would know.
I told you. When you stop.
Looks like you had a little come to Jesus meeting. I like the new you.
Created:
Posted in:
And no new answers to the question you're dodging.
That is the problem with evolution. It makes no sense upon examination, and those pushing it can't answer questions to it.
I think Lunate proposed 2 proto chickens. Would you like to adopt this suggestion seeing as how you can't come up with one on your own?
Or will you just bray again?
Created:
Posted in:
As I said, when you stop. Insult me now and see what happens. Or are you afraid?
Created:
Posted in:
Its your story. I never mentioned God, and the proplto chicken is yours.
But we still don't know who he'll mate with as you are still dodging the question. Afraid?
Created: