Letting 'em all in the ring

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Ricter, Jun 26, 2006.

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

    LMAO, the stick in my butt?? Beetlebrow, you're so uptight they couldn't pull a pin out of your ass with a John Deere tractor.
     
    #11     Jun 27, 2006
  2. You are as uptight as the cork in a bottle of cheap wine...so go ahead pull the stick outa your A-hole, and try real hard not to lick it...

     
    #12     Jun 27, 2006
  3. <i>They pointed out that our galaxy probably contains a whole lot more than a few hundred Earth oceans. Multiplying the age of the Milky Way times many billions of possible planets � and comets too � they readily conceded that random chance could make successful cells, eventually, on one world or another. (Or, possibly, in the liquid interiors of trillions of newborn comets.) All it would take then are asteroid impacts ejecting hardy cells into the void for life to then spread gradually throughout the cosmos. Perhaps it might even be done deliberately, once a single lucky source world achieved intelligence through � well � evolution.</i>

    What a strange, strange chain of logic.

    Let's say you could prove conclusively that the chance of complex life evolving from a primordial ocean on any given Earthlike planet is extremely low.

    Let's say that, further, you are willing to posit enough Earthlike planets in the Universe that the probability of life having evolving on at least one of them, somewhere in the Universe, is reasonably high.

    Why, then, would you need to resort to an idea such as panspermia to explain our existence? Wouldn't you just conclude that the planet we know as Earth is just one of the extremely small proportion of Earthlike planets where life did happen to evolve?

    Barring evidence of other, biologically similar life in the Universe, you can't argue for panspermia on the basis of probability alone.

    Martin
     
    #13     Jun 27, 2006
  4. That's all fair enough, but conservatives should actually support darwinism because it confirm what they always suspected about human nature. It's no stretch to say that biology flatly refutes virtually everything liberals hold dear.
     
    #14     Jun 28, 2006
  5. Maybe you should start talking about "SCIENTIFIC LIBERALISM", borrowing from your bloody commie masters.
     
    #15     Jun 28, 2006
  6. stu

    stu

    Do you see how your comment could be said not to have been subjected to Intelligent Design?
    You know the answer is unknowable as a fact? . Is that what your "fact" says about anything and everything not yet known - that it is unknowable ?
    Who would want to suggest such a thing? There is other than Random chance or ID.

    To strive to fill this void with facts, based upon those such as " a dropped ball falls to earth every single time, for everyone eveywhere, throughout history " - theory of gravity facts , you are surely more likely to be more correct than anyone.
    What is sickening about that ? Where is the mocking? What is there so mocking about questioning ID'ers beliefs?
    Some may say that to form a false argument about being mocked so you can infer others are being intolerant, is only an example of yourself being dishonest AND intolerant.
     
    #16     Jun 28, 2006
  7. maxpi

    maxpi

    Soo... the debate was always framed as "science versus religion" [by the "science" people], then religious people argued from a science viewpoint, and now people are feeling a little threatened by that and looking for a new place to go with the argument, like throw it in with Hindu religious stuff?

    Basically, without public funding, evolution would have died a natural death decades ago. If atheists had to start your own atheist school and live or die by the debate over evolution, your funding would not happen for very long because evolutionists really cannot prove a thing scientifically. They cannot recreate creation in a lab for peer review. What they can do is make sure, via political means, that they continue to indoctrinate people in their belief system via the public education system and refuse to debate on the merits of their belief system.
     
    #17     Jun 28, 2006
  8. stu

    stu

    The debate was, things fall to the ground. IDer's say that gravity is Intelligent Falling. Science on the other hand, explains, tests, demonstrates, predicts, and so puts to practical use the how and why of what gravity is.Evolution is a proven fact. It needs no funding. It has, is and can be demonstrated and proven anytime. Were there the condition that public funding be only supplied to those who can prove evolution is a fact, then the 'atheists' would get all the $$. ID'ers cannot prove evolution is not a fact.
     
    #18     Jun 28, 2006
  9. IDers don't have to prove evolution is not a fact.

    Just show us how evolution has to be a fact....of ignorant chance....

    I don't think anyone disputes that some force consistently acts on bodies in motion (we call it gravity) but that is not a proof of gravity.

    Gravity itself, the force itself, is still a mystery as much as we can't see it, test it, hold it, taste it, hear it, smell it...we can only see the effect of something consistent.

    That something could be God, you can't rule it out.



     
    #19     Jun 28, 2006
  10. Stick to hocus pocus and name-calling, Z. You're badly out of your element (intellectual dishonesty and evasions) here, and making yourself look even more ridiculous than usual.

    And just in case Z posts with some fantasy scenario regarding my complete and total ownage of him last night, here is the link

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71701&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

    If you want to see Z putting his foot in his mouth so deeply that he's choking on it, read from about halfway through.

    I have spanked Z badly on these forums. Coincidentally, the 2nd worse spanking I gave him was on his ID thread, where he was reduced to calling people names and threatening TOU violations when his arguments were clinically dissected by a number of members. But the ownage last night was the worst. Check out the post in which he says that the "opinions of ET members are worthless". My response was this

    Profile For ZZZzzzzzzz
    Search for all posts by this user.
    Date Registered: 06-14-04
    Status:
    Total Posts: 12026 (16.17 posts per day)

    ...perhaps the most efficient ownage of Z, ever, except perhaps RM's post describing the tactics of the troll.
     
    #20     Jun 28, 2006