The Debate Thread

DeletedUser

It was presented as a neutral article, but with an obvious bias. So it was in fact, a "ridiculous" post.
 

DeletedUser

Virginia said:
You're right. If I have offended you, I am very sorry. I admit it.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said offended me. But personal insults offend against my prinicples, which is a response that doesn't involve personal emotion and is easily fixed by an acknowledgement of it. I have no expectation of people always being perfect or unmoved by emotion. I am not myself.

I shouldn't have let what you said get to me.
Click to expand...
To be honest, i still have no idea what did get to you. If someone told me my understanding of physics was faulty and pointed me in the direction of some useful information, I'd go off and have a look at the information. (Well, i would if i gave a pip about physics.)

There are very few things that I have ever "trolled" about. The things I have were "obvious." Like telling Oisin we should go back to the good old days (the stone age). Also the debate about women. I never meant it the way it was taken, and I can see very clearly why it was taken that way, so I just let it be. I don't think women are vulnerable weaklings. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
All we know of you is what you write in this forum. There are no non-verbal clues. And when I responded to your comments on women, you continued to argue the case so exactly how do you expect others to know when you are serious and when you are not? If you like to provoke controversy just for fun it is unreasonable to expect that those "ridiculous" arguments don't colour our opinions when you are actually writing about something you are passionate about.

This is the boy who cried wolf problem.

What I just posted about evolution was obviously not a "ridiculous" post. Now you guys are taking it too far.
Click to expand...
We simply asked if you were serious or not. If you deliberately misrepresent yourself, we have nothing to go on. You could be a tattooed lesbian guitarist for all we know.

But now it is definitely time for me to go to bed.
 

DeletedUser

"...tattooed lesbian guitarist..."

I for one have a penchant for the above...
 

DeletedUser

Virginia said:
Can we all agree on this viewpoint?
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Evolution can be observed, you see natural selection with pets, with a more resistent influenza virus and so forth.
If we had a flood/Volcano eruption /great fire/[insert any disaster here] wiping out the middle population of a ring species, we'd see speciation itself. And that such disasters are able to wipe out entire populations has been observed before. It most likely even did happen, but nobody cares for 99,9999% of all species in first place, so nobody observed it.

Why would a creator create imperfect beings? I can assure you, any animal would be way better off with additional chloroplasts in its cells to do photosynthesis by itself.
Another example is the wheel, one of man's oldest inventions to save energy...apparently the creator didn't think of it or do you know any animals with wheels instead of legs or wings?
Why would a creator invent eyes, with the light-recepting cells between the brain and those cells that transport the information to the brain. As that means not only a longer path (and thereby taking more time to transport the information) but also that the light has to get through a couple of cell layers and have its intensity and resolution decreased before it actually is able to be detected?
Of course this is no proof that there is no creator, however it makes one wonder if he's really that smart and good at creating.
 

DeletedUser

Is there somethin' wrong with guitars?


singing.jpg

*Circus Music*
Dunt dunt dunna dunna dunt dunt dunna!
Dunt dunt dunna dunna dunt dunt dunna!
DUNT dunna dunt! DUNT dunna dunt!
Dunt dunt dunna dunna dunt dunt dunna!
Dunt dunt dunna dunna dunt dunt dunna!
DUNT dunna dunt! DUNT dunnan dunt!

THERE WILL BE MORE CLOWN PICTURES IF YOU DON'T ALL GET ALONG!
 

DeletedUser

If we had a flood/Volcano eruption /great fire/[insert any disaster here] wiping out the middle population of a ring species, we'd see speciation itself.
Click to expand...

What is WRONG with you?! Speciation is not evolution! I can't believe this.
 

DeletedUser

Darwin is sinning less than Jesus in that picture, because he has short hair.
 

DeletedUser

Justin Michael said:
What is WRONG with you?! Speciation is not evolution! I can't believe this.
Click to expand...

Speciation is part of evolution.

Remember the title of Darwin's book, where he described evolution? "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" So tell me this isn't about speciation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I've got several aces up my sleeve against Creationism, but I'm not going to play them until Justin's ready to listen.

There are two really good ones that I've thought of.
 

DeletedUser

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, this time.

That was an ironic post. And it was very clearly ironic.
 

DeletedUser

I believe in morality. But that gives a lot more freedom than sin.

Only things which actually harm people are bad. And belief has nothing to do with it.

There's a lot more to it, but that can come some other time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top