Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[RocksteadyDotNet]

It was a joke. Can't we have a little humor here.

I respect your right to believe whatever you want without insulting you and calling you names. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

Answer the question.

"If you say god always existed then we can just asset that the big bang singularity always existed."

Also, we're allowed to call you names. Anyone who denies a proven theory deserves to be ridiculed. Denying Evolution is like arguing that the sky is red. You're provably wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

While I haven't read all the way back, one glaring difference I notice is that the people arguing Phineas seem to just shout out names at him/her as though it proves their point better. Belittling someone doesn't make you more right. In fact, it adds nothing to the argument other than your own negative character.

Do you not agree that PJ has been obtuse to the point of dishonesty? Take the time to read the thread, and then tell me that you sincerely believe that PJ is posting in good faith.

If he is going to lie to me, I'm going to call him a liar. If that's too course for your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you find another thread to read.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have no doubt that you feel you have a rational reason for your unbelief. Can you allow that I have a rational reason for my belief?

Your beliefs are directly contradicted by reality, so no, you do not get to call your beliefs rational.

 

[Nik]

When I look at the probabiity of randomly creating one short strand of protein and then look at the complexity of the simplest one celled oraganism, I can only conclude that there was an intelligent designer.

You reject the possibility of trying and failing for billions of years. Eventually it's bound to happen, but you just can't wrap your brain around that so you have to invent some completely irrational faith to support a theory that is far more irrational than the origin of species.

We get it. You don't, but we get it.

 

[PowerEngineer]

While I haven't read all the way back, one glaring difference I notice is that the people arguing Phineas seem to just shout out names at him/her as though it proves their point better. Belittling someone doesn't make you more right. In fact, it adds nothing to the argument other than your own negative character.

I agree with you that the name calling and swearing adds nothing of value to the exchange of ideas.

Let me suggest, however, that if you do read through all the pages of this sad thread then you might conclude as I have that PJW has consistently and intentionally sought to frustrate any real discussion of the the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as an explanation for life as we know it. I'm afraid that these over-the-top responses are exactly what he is trying to elicit because he believes these outbursts of frustration somehow lend more credence to his belief in creationism (I think you have to be a few hundred posts into the thread before he even admits to that).

The bottom line for PJW (and many others) is that what they believe about the origins of the universe and of life is determined by their religious faith, and there's no argument based on facts and the scientific method that will change their minds. It's a bit like applying a screw driver to a nail.

If these 'believers' want to be honest with themselves and with the rest of us, then they should stop pretending otherwise. Don't try to dress up your faith-based beliefs in the garb of science (like ID). Just proudly (and if need be, defiantly) state them for what they are. Then we'll all be able to avoid a science vs. religion argument which is generally divisive and always unwinnable. 'Believers' are entitled to believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want. And so are the rest of us.

 

[Nik]

Well, in reality, if they cannot be honest with themselves, we cannot hope to expect them being honest with anyone else.

 

[Born2bwire]

:awe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A

 

[Nik]

Lolol

 

[sandorski]

While I haven't read all the way back, one glaring difference I notice is that the people arguing Phineas seem to just shout out names at him/her as though it proves their point better. Belittling someone doesn't make you more right. In fact, it adds nothing to the argument other than your own negative character.

Read the thread.

 

[Gibsons]

When I look at the probabiity of randomly creating one short strand of protein and then look at the complexity of the simplest one celled oraganism, I can only conclude that there was an intelligent designer.

Put about 10 decks of cards together, flip them over one by one, write down this sequence then calculate the odds of that sequence occurring. You'll get a crazy big number. You conclude that since it's such a big number, it couldn't have happened, therefore god. Anyone with a brain will say all results are equally likely or unlikely, but it had to be one of them.

 

[Jeff7]

While I haven't read all the way back, one glaring difference I notice is that the people arguing Phineas seem to just shout out names at him/her as though it proves their point better. Belittling someone doesn't make you more right. In fact, it adds nothing to the argument other than your own negative character.

What do you mean by "the"?

 

[Tweak155]

Do you not agree that PJ has been obtuse to the point of dishonesty? Take the time to read the thread, and then tell me that you sincerely believe that PJ is posting in good faith.

If he is going to lie to me, I'm going to call him a liar. If that's too course for your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you find another thread to read.

Doesn't matter what I think he is doing, only one seems to have to belittle the other to try and make their point.

 

[sandorski]

Doesn't matter what I think he is doing, only one seems to have to belittle the other to try and make their point.

He was asking for it.

 

[Tweak155]

Read the thread.

Reading the thread wouldn't change anything. I'll find 1 of 2 things:

1 - Phineas does his own belittling of other people, which doesn't justify others doing it back. Had others refrained from retaliating, they'd be the better character.

2 - Phineas never belittled others, in which he remains the better character in the argument.


Neither of these change who HAS the better argument, just referring to character in conversing with another human. And I really don't care who has the better character, just noting what I saw as of late.

I'm not defending either side of the argument at this point, ATOT is a lost cause on this topic, everyone knows this.

 

[Tweak155]

He was asking for it.

So?

EDIT:

I'm sure Phineas has the same opinion on everyone else attacking him.

 

[sandorski]

So?

So he got it. Any questions?

 

[Tweak155]

So he got it. Any questions?

Nope.

 

[Nik]

So?

EDIT:

I'm sure Phineas has the same opinion on everyone else attacking him.

He's proven himself to be a trolling antagonistic LIAR. Who the fuck cares what he thinks?

 

[Tweak155]

He's proven himself to be a trolling antagonistic LIAR. Who the - cares what he thinks?

Not my point. He hasn't verbalized himself the same way was the point.

 

[Nik]

Not my point. He hasn't verbalized himself the same way was the point.

Why does that matter one bit? His method of handling this thread far outweighs a few well-earned names thrown his direction.

You're ignoring the mountain of shit he's crapped onto this thread and picking on our calling him a few names?

Jesus christ, go fuck off in some other thread pls.

Though, to be fair, this thread's already been ruined by PhinneasJWhooptiefuckindo so I guess all the nothing you're adding to the thread doesn't really make it any worse.

 

[Rustican]

When I look at the probabiity of randomly creating one short strand of protein and then look at the complexity of the simplest one celled oraganism, I can only conclude that there was an intelligent designer.

I was driving to work today and at a stop at the intersection, the car in front of me had a licence plate number of X24-QPT7. I sat there thinking to myself what the odds were of seeing such a license plate labeled X24-QPT7 out of all the cars in the United States that were ever produced and of all the plates ever stamped at that exact place and time.

The odds of this occurring are so astronomical that it defies logical thinking that such an event could have possibly occurred naturally. There for the only plausible explanation is that the car in front of me spontaneously appeared fully formed with its driver just moments before i reached the intersection by some intelligent designer who's purpose was to make me 5 minutes late to my meeting at work.

\ sarcasm

 

[Ruptga]

Though, to be fair, this thread's already been ruined by PhinneasJWhooptiefuckindo so I guess all the nothing you're adding to the thread doesn't really make it any worse.

So what you're saying is this is now a nef thread? Sweet. Sounds familiar though... :hmm:

nef.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I was driving to work today and at a stop at the intersection, the car in front of me had a licence plate number of X24-QPT7. I sat there thinking to myself what the odds were of seeing such a license plate labeled X24-QPT7 out of all the cars in the United States that were ever produced and of all the plates ever stamped at that exact place and time.

The odds of this occurring are so astronomical that it defies logical thinking that such an event could have possibly occurred naturally. There for the only plausible explanation is that the car in front of me spontaneously appeared fully formed with its driver just moments before i reached the intersection by some intelligent designer who's purpose was to make me 5 minutes late to my meeting at work.

\ sarcasm

What do you think that probability is that the automobile randomly self-assembled over time? Of course, you don't believe that but you do believe that it happened for a single cell organism whch is infinitely more complex.

\ no sarcasm

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What do you think that probability is that the automobile randomly self-assembled over time?

How is that analogous to a biological organism?

Of course, you don't believe that but you do believe that it happened for a single cell organism whch is infinitely more complex.

Quite false, like basically everything you write, and of course, it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. You're doing the typical creationist tap-dance, leaping from one refuted canard to the next without ever coming to terms with the fact that creationism simply isn't borne out by the evidence. It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, and had you any shame you would be ashamed of yourself.

\ no sarcasm

You're a tool.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

How is that analogous to a biological organism?

I pointed out that it isn't. Biological organisms are much more complex than mechanical objects.

But you think that mechancial objects are designed and biological objects come from nothing via some magical random process.

Please explain your logic.