Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote: Originally Posted by b50m:
quote:   Originally Posted by David L.:

I think it is pretty much accepted that beauty contestants are ditz heads so this doesn't surprise me.

That is a fact!

Not necessarily true!  I have seen some very intelligent women -- who were extremely beautiful.   So, I guess we can conclude that beauty and brains are not necessarily connected.  Believe it or not, sometimes God does put an unusual wrapping around an amazing mind. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

quote:
Originally Posted by O No!:

Bill, no one is saying beautiful women can't be intelligent. But women who put themselves on display by entering beauty contests are usually so wrapped up in how they look that they don't have the time or interest in higher learning.

Hi O,

 

As I said, beauty and brains are not mutually exclusive.  As proof of that statement, I offer this web link:

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/be...-babes-with-high-iqs

 

Check out these ladies!  None too shabby in the brains department -- and none too shabby in the looks department.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Amazing the irony.  I can remember when Miss California was reviled for her personal convictions yet today it's WooHoo!   Here we go again making judgments based upon people's beliefs regarding the theories of how all life became or got here and the thought, of some, is that disbelief in evolution or failure to accept it is a disqualification of anything they want to do, in what ever arena or endeavor they might choose to pursue.  Well you are not alone for that's exactly why you don't have opposing theories taught or put forth.  Fears of losing their jobs or ability to support their families.  Just as some Southern Baptist (Atheist) Preachers refuse to follow their real convictions you have some people who will not dispute evolution for fear of ostracizing. 

 

You folks that are so entrenched into belief that Darwin had it right I have a question for you.  I am not looking for a youtube video or what someone else taught or a short statement that it's indis****ble fact for I don't buy that it is and to me it isn't.  My question or line of questioning is basically this.

 

Darwin came up with his theory while out watching monkeys or out thinking to himself and put all these things together under the banner of origin of the species or natural selection.  I'm not saying Darwin was dumb or not a thinking person but rather look at all the thinking and intelligent people before him yet it took Darwin to come up with this theory?  I'm sure other thinking scientist, philosophers, etc spent time, long times, thinking about where life came from and many of these were atheist or non-religious people.  Why is it that Darwin had it right and was the first one to hit upon this?  Could it be that most these other thinking people and intelligent people knew the theory was so ridiculous that they dismissed it right out?  

 

I dare say most of the people here that are so adamant about evolution, that just know it's indis****ble, came to their beliefs by being convinced by some professor who followed Darwin's theory and line of thinking and by timely elimination of advocates of counter theories they became the only taught theory.  I propose that evolution is not the only theory taught because it's factual but it's the only theory taught because its advocates have been totally successful in absolutely squelching opposing advocates of counter theories.  When you totally control the forum and set the agenda then it's easy to manufacture some semblance of legitimacy.  

 

I still say Evolution is empty as a theory as how all life got here and falls apart under the most discretionary thinking and investigation.  Not only are there missing links and missing evidence from fossil records/evidence but the complete lack of any current and living incremental-transitionary species.  Still I know there are many that totally buy into and believe in evolution so explain to us why Darwin was the first thinking scientist to come along with the answers if it's so indis****ble and evident as the only way all life species became?

It is difficult to answer a question that is based on as much incorrect information as you. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. It is incontrovertible fact. The way that you state you question demonstrates that you know very little about Darwin. Perhaps you would be a more credible skeptic if you knew what you are talking about. You should come back after you have read some books on Evolutionary Biology. Only then can we have a serious discussion. I suspect, however that serious discussion is not your goal.

gbrk,
I think that's simply the worst question I've ever heard asked about any subject.

So according to you, since no one before Newton thought about, could encapsulate or formulate fully predictive and accurate mathematical models regarding the physical forces in effect on large bodies, the theory (yes, THEORY) of gravity is bunk... brilliant logic. I suppose the same goes for Copernicus, Pasteur, Bohr, Einstein, etc. I guess they should all rightly be rejected by religious know-nothings, simply because if heliocentricism or some other "discovery" were actually true and real, we would have always known about it. Good lord.

You're right about one thing though, "Evolution is empty as a theory as how all life got here". lol - If you were a curious and minimally informed person you would know why it is a true but embarrassing statement to make.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

gbrk,
I think that's simply the worst question I've ever heard asked about any subject.

So according to you, since no one before Newton thought about, could encapsulate or formulate fully predictive and accurate mathematical models regarding the physical forces in effect on large bodies, the theory (yes, THEORY) of gravity is bunk... brilliant logic. I suppose the same goes for Copernicus, Pasteur, Bohr, Einstein, etc. I guess they should all rightly be rejected by religious know-nothings, simply because if heliocentricism or some other "discovery" were actually true and real, we would have always known about it. Good lord.

You're right about one thing though, "Evolution is empty as a theory as how all life got here". lol - If you were a curious and minimally informed person you would know why it is a true but embarrassing statement to make.

Sorry, but you are incorrect, also. gbrk was wrong about EVERYTHING.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

gbrk,
I think that's simply the worst question I've ever heard asked about any subject.

So according to you, since no one before Newton thought about, could encapsulate or formulate fully predictive and accurate mathematical models regarding the physical forces in effect on large bodies, the theory (yes, THEORY) of gravity is bunk... brilliant logic. I suppose the same goes for Copernicus, Pasteur, Bohr, Einstein, etc. I guess they should all rightly be rejected by religious know-nothings, simply because if heliocentricism or some other "discovery" were actually true and real, we would have always known about it. Good lord.

You're right about one thing though, "Evolution is empty as a theory as how all life got here". lol - If you were a curious and minimally informed person you would know why it is a true but embarrassing statement to make.

 

Your perception that I was referring to every theory or discovery out there is wrong.  I was specifically referring to evolution as a theory of how all life became what it is.  As for many theories or "laws" as we have them they came through specific gifted humans who excelled in various areas and had abilities that many of us could only hope for.  I was just saying that I have little doubt that Darwin was the first or only one to contemplate the origins of life or living beings and that if he got it right then why other minds, before, didn't conceive of such if it was so incontrovertible.  

 

The reason, I propose, they didn't was that the evidence was not there, all along, just as it's not there now to support such conclusions.  I can see where you could take what I said as being applied to other discoveries, disciplines, or thoughts but that was not my intent of it, I assure you.  There is much more ample, convincing and non-dis****ble evidence for Newton's theories or Einsteins laws but evolution is one theory that I totally believe is lacking and insufficiently backed by history or present day events and observations.  

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
It is difficult to answer a question that is based on as much incorrect information as you. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. It is incontrovertible fact. The way that you state you question demonstrates that you know very little about Darwin. Perhaps you would be a more credible skeptic if you knew what you are talking about. You should come back after you have read some books on Evolutionary Biology. Only then can we have a serious discussion. I suspect, however that serious discussion is not your goal.

Well Jimi, since you have so said .. enlighten the rest of the forum members as to the correct information.  If it is incontrovertible fact then what personal conclusions and experiments have you personally done to reveal this as fact?  What contributions have you personally made in front line research to discover the missing links and what are they?   YOU say evolution has nothing to do with belief  and that it is fact so since there is no belief, on your part, what it is that you have personally done to verify this?    

 

Obviously you didn't study from books or other scientist or professors or even from Darwin as to accept what they said as fact would be BELIEF for you or FAITH that another person is correct in their findings which again is equivalent to BELIEF.  You would then have to personally have your own findings and research sufficient enough to propose the FACT in that others would believe your statement so where is YOUR evidence?

 

Otherwise you are revealed as just a mere heckler in the forum here for one, nefarious, purpose.  I propose if there is any FACT involved then the fact that you are only here as a mere heckler is it and your abilities rarely qualify you for that task.

 

Last you suggest I need to know more about Darwin or Evolutionary Biology to qualify for a credible skeptic.  I respectfully suggest you take your own suggestion and apply it to Religion in general.  You make many dogmatic statements about Christianity, Christ, the Bible, and believers yet know nothing about what you are commenting on nor do you indicate you have the least care or concern to study the Bible or the religions you decry.  Your only motive is a dishonest one and to cast dispersions about those who feel or believe differently than you and that speaks more about who you are than any position you have ever taken on any of the subjects.  Your own post serve to disqualify you from any reasonable and rational discussion about religion.  You are no more than a heckler to a comic.  If I am wrong then provide your evidence to the contrary.  If you are correct about it not being a "belief" or accepted on faith then demonstrate for us all the personal research and evidence you have compiled otherwise realize your own inadequacies and guard your statements more carefully.  

Originally Posted by gbrk:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
It is difficult to answer a question that is based on as much incorrect information as you. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. It is incontrovertible fact. The way that you state you question demonstrates that you know very little about Darwin. Perhaps you would be a more credible skeptic if you knew what you are talking about. You should come back after you have read some books on Evolutionary Biology. Only then can we have a serious discussion. I suspect, however that serious discussion is not your goal.

Well Jimi, since you have so said .. enlighten the rest of the forum members as to the correct information.  If it is incontrovertible fact then what personal conclusions and experiments have you personally done to reveal this as fact?  What contributions have you personally made in front line research to discover the missing links and what are they?   YOU say evolution has nothing to do with belief  and that it is fact so since there is no belief, on your part, what it is that you have personally done to verify this?    

 

Obviously you didn't study from books or other scientist or professors or even from Darwin as to accept what they said as fact would be BELIEF for you or FAITH that another person is correct in their findings which again is equivalent to BELIEF.  You would then have to personally have your own findings and research sufficient enough to propose the FACT in that others would believe your statement so where is YOUR evidence?

 

Otherwise you are revealed as just a mere heckler in the forum here for one, nefarious, purpose.  I propose if there is any FACT involved then the fact that you are only here as a mere heckler is it and your abilities rarely qualify you for that task.

 

Last you suggest I need to know more about Darwin or Evolutionary Biology to qualify for a credible skeptic.  I respectfully suggest you take your own suggestion and apply it to Religion in general.  You make many dogmatic statements about Christianity, Christ, the Bible, and believers yet know nothing about what you are commenting on nor do you indicate you have the least care or concern to study the Bible or the religions you decry.  Your only motive is a dishonest one and to cast dispersions about those who feel or believe differently than you and that speaks more about who you are than any position you have ever taken on any of the subjects.  Your own post serve to disqualify you from any reasonable and rational discussion about religion.  You are no more than a heckler to a comic.  If I am wrong then provide your evidence to the contrary.  If you are correct about it not being a "belief" or accepted on faith then demonstrate for us all the personal research and evidence you have compiled otherwise realize your own inadequacies and guard your statements more carefully.  

Science has proved evolution by natural selection. I have no need to "prove" it to you. If you choose to reject science in favor of faith in your imaginary friend, that is your problem. I have no problem with religious people. I do have a problem with stupid people. Unfortunately, the two are usually the same.

FV,
You need to educate yourself on the definition of the word "theory" as it relates to science (not it's common use) and then realize how it applies specifically to the study of biology before understanding why there are no proofs or laws in biology as there are commonly in math or chemistry. In biology, the category of "scientific theory" is as good as it gets. The theory of evolution is factual and based on empirical evidence. There is no competition to accurately and demonstrably explain the biological phenomenon. There are no other competing scientific theories regarding the evolution of life on Earth. Long ago there were, but they were discarded as new evidence and proof came to light.

Originally Posted by gbrk:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
It is difficult to answer a question that is based on as much incorrect information as you. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. It is incontrovertible fact. The way that you state you question demonstrates that you know very little about Darwin. Perhaps you would be a more credible skeptic if you knew what you are talking about. You should come back after you have read some books on Evolutionary Biology. Only then can we have a serious discussion. I suspect, however that serious discussion is not your goal.

Well Jimi, since you have so said .. enlighten the rest of the forum members as to the correct information.  If it is incontrovertible fact then what personal conclusions and experiments have you personally done to reveal this as fact?  What contributions have you personally made in front line research to discover the missing links and what are they?   YOU say evolution has nothing to do with belief  and that it is fact so since there is no belief, on your part, what it is that you have personally done to verify this?    

 

Obviously you didn't study from books or other scientist or professors or even from Darwin as to accept what they said as fact would be BELIEF for you or FAITH that another person is correct in their findings which again is equivalent to BELIEF.  You would then have to personally have your own findings and research sufficient enough to propose the FACT in that others would believe your statement so where is YOUR evidence?

 

Otherwise you are revealed as just a mere heckler in the forum here for one, nefarious, purpose.  I propose if there is any FACT involved then the fact that you are only here as a mere heckler is it and your abilities rarely qualify you for that task.

 

Last you suggest I need to know more about Darwin or Evolutionary Biology to qualify for a credible skeptic.  I respectfully suggest you take your own suggestion and apply it to Religion in general.  You make many dogmatic statements about Christianity, Christ, the Bible, and believers yet know nothing about what you are commenting on nor do you indicate you have the least care or concern to study the Bible or the religions you decry.  Your only motive is a dishonest one and to cast dispersions about those who feel or believe differently than you and that speaks more about who you are than any position you have ever taken on any of the subjects.  Your own post serve to disqualify you from any reasonable and rational discussion about religion.  You are no more than a heckler to a comic.  If I am wrong then provide your evidence to the contrary.  If you are correct about it not being a "belief" or accepted on faith then demonstrate for us all the personal research and evidence you have compiled otherwise realize your own inadequacies and guard your statements more carefully.  

 

 

 

I wouldn't put too much "faith" in jimi "delivering" on this one, or any other.

Originally Posted by Blind Melon Chit'lin:
<omitted/skipped for brevity> 

 

 

I wouldn't put too much "faith" in jimi "delivering" on this one, or any other.

 

 

I don't want to get caught making too many direct, negative, comments about Jimi other than to use his own words in responding to him (which is usually sufficient to get any desired point across) but as the saying goes;  Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and again.

 

Now for the folks at PETA, if we have any abord the forum, have I just slandered hogs in that, overt,  comparison/analogy?  If so I beg forgiveness in advance and I'll try to be more considerate next time.  For a few of our fellow forum members who don't read these post that's called levity.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

FV,
You need to educate yourself on the definition of the word "theory" as it relates to science (not it's common use) and then realize how it applies specifically to the study of biology before understanding why there are no proofs or laws in biology as there are commonly in math or chemistry. In biology, the category of "scientific theory" is as good as it gets. The theory of evolution is factual and based on empirical evidence. There is no competition to accurately and demonstrably explain the biological phenomenon. There are no other competing scientific theories regarding the evolution of life on Earth. Long ago there were, but they were discarded as new evidence and proof came to light.

 

 

 

You need to educate yourself with the internet word "Google". It can be a useful tool when making such statements.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

FV,
You need to educate yourself on the definition of the word "theory" as it relates to science (not it's common use) and then realize how it applies specifically to the study of biology before understanding why there are no proofs or laws in biology as there are commonly in math or chemistry. In biology, the category of "scientific theory" is as good as it gets. The theory of evolution is factual and based on empirical evidence. There is no competition to accurately and demonstrably explain the biological phenomenon. There are no other competing scientific theories regarding the evolution of life on Earth. Long ago there were, but they were discarded as new evidence and proof came to light.

Empirical? Really? So evolution has been duplicated in the laboratory?

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Empirical? Really? So evolution has been duplicated in the laboratory?

Yes. The flu shot you will receive this fall is based on thoroughly understood aspects of one part of evolution - random mutation (other parts being natural selection).

Speciation has been observed many times.  The problem is that for us to be able to "witness" profound changes in spans of time that we can afford, it has to be done with organisms that breed rapidly. That's been done with bacteria, flies, cabbage (and many other plants) and thousands of other living things.

But, no, we have not seen a pig grow wings.  That would require many millions of years of conditions conducive to growing wings and is observable only through the lens of deep history.  Humans just don't have the capacity to imagine the length of time involved in very small changes over millions of years resulting in separate-but-related species that, again after many millions of years (a blink f the eye) evolve to look completely different from their distant relatives. 

We humans don't look anything like a pine tree but we are related through an unbroken line of mishaps and fortuitous events over time-spans that we simply cannot fathom. That is what all the evidences suggests to any rational mind. 

 

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
And evolution has been observed by whom? (Not referring to microevolution conducted by animal breeders, but the birth of an entirely new species.)

Also, empirical evidence should ideally come from a study conducted under strict protocols and be able to be duplicated under those same set of circumstances.

I think this experiemnt is just amazing: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...hift-in-the-lab.html


Foxes and dogs are wholly separate species.  They cannot interbreed at all and are almost as distinct as dogs and cats.  This amazing experiment is an amazing display of what artificial selection can do:

>>
Originally Posted by Blind Melon Chit'lin:
Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

FV,
You need to educate yourself on the definition of the word "theory" as it relates to science (not it's common use) and then realize how it applies specifically to the study of biology before understanding why there are no proofs or laws in biology as there are commonly in math or chemistry. In biology, the category of "scientific theory" is as good as it gets. The theory of evolution is factual and based on empirical evidence. There is no competition to accurately and demonstrably explain the biological phenomenon. There are no other competing scientific theories regarding the evolution of life on Earth. Long ago there were, but they were discarded as new evidence and proof came to light.

You need to educate yourself with the internet word "Google". It can be a useful tool when making such statements.

Terrific, please enlighten us by citing the competing scientific theories regarding the evolution of life by using the google.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

gbrk,
I think that's simply the worst question I've ever heard asked about any subject.

So according to you, since no one before Newton thought about, could encapsulate or formulate fully predictive and accurate mathematical models regarding the physical forces in effect on large bodies, the theory (yes, THEORY) of gravity is bunk... brilliant logic. I suppose the same goes for Copernicus, Pasteur, Bohr, Einstein, etc. I guess they should all rightly be rejected by religious know-nothings, simply because if heliocentricism or some other "discovery" were actually true and real, we would have always known about it. Good lord.

You're right about one thing though, "Evolution is empty as a theory as how all life got here". lol - If you were a curious and minimally informed person you would know why it is a true but embarrassing statement to make.

Sorry, but you are incorrect, also. gbrk was wrong about EVERYTHING.

Then I urge you to explain how evolutionary theory describes "how all life got here"...

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×