When are you planning on starting?
Can you translate this "sentence" into English?
Almost, I think. You are challenging my religion too but I don't have that reaction and I think it's because I have faith in my religion. I believe in science and the scientific method and am quite sure that the theory of evolution is extremely solid and factual. As I said, I have faith because I have experience. I have lived a life in which I have witnessed human progress and am willing to transfer the faith produced by my own eyes over onto areas where no human was alive to witness on the basis of the belief that how things work now is how they worked before anybody came on the scene.
So what I believe is that it's isn't that you challenge a religion per se but that you are a direct threat to the good they believe and in which they have no real faith. They must have control because you cause them to feel that something evil is hunting them. I just think it's not hunting them but haunting them, that what they fear is memory, the damage that can be done to an innocent open mind by lies. If you believe in any lies they bought into but consciously reject, you will be a monster in their eyes. This is the damage that is done by repression of what we feel. We create what we fear so we can feel it. Repression is hate and good people need justification to express it. Welcome to Monsterville.
The wonderful thing about fear is that you don't have to have it yourself to be affected by it.
Certainly not a single issue voter, I don't understand how you'd get that.
Look through the thread on Germany, plenty of users posting opinions that they support government regulation of speech and ideas. They essentially want the Thought Police. This is not a liberal viewpoint,I'm not sure what it is but the "liberals" have certainly passed me by....
I literally didn't advise you to quell it. I said answer it with something better than what you're doing.Their speech does frighten me as it's advocating taking away freedoms, but I absolutely support every one of their rights to hold that opinion and voice it. Just because I see the opinion being said as worrisome doesn't mean it should be quelled.
I literally didn't advise you to quell it. I said answer it with something better than what you're doing.
I literally didn't advise you to quell it. I said answer it with something better than what you're doing.
I didn't say you did, I said the posters in the other thread supported governments to quell the speech. It seems like I'm replying to people picking apart semantics, purposefully "misunderstanding", and silly stuff instead of actual conversation.
Okay, so I'm asking, what's your best argument for your ideal amount of free speech?I didn't say you did, I said the posters in the other thread supported governments to quell the speech. It seems like I'm replying to people picking apart semantics, purposefully "misunderstanding", and silly stuff instead of actual conversation.
Okay, so I'm asking, what's your best argument for your ideal amount of free speech?
Read through the other thread, I've said it plenty in there.
That's the thread where you want enough to protect your race realist buddies.
Putting you on ignore, I have no idea why I haven't done so sooner. You contribute nothing to these forums except constantly trolling about race.
One small but important correction: his protestations aren't ignorant, they are dishonest. He is knowingly and willfully rejecting the truth. That's why all of the many attempts to "educate" him in this thread are futile. He's chosen to be immune to knowledge and evidence.But it does work. Your ignorant protestations notwithstanding.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_16
One small but important correction: his protestations aren't ignorant, they are dishonest. He is knowingly and willfully rejecting the truth. That's why all of the many attempts to "educate" him in this thread are futile. He's chosen to be immune to knowledge and evidence.
If I am being dishonest then I am doing so unwillingly, I literally think that the examples given could never be reasonably extrapolated out to create the things mutation and selection is supposed to have created. I don't think any reasonable person should.One small but important correction: his protestations aren't ignorant, they are dishonest. He is knowingly and willfully rejecting the truth. That's why all of the many attempts to "educate" him in this thread are futile. He's chosen to be immune to knowledge and evidence.
If I am being dishonest then I am doing so unwillingly, I literally think that the examples given could never be reasonably extrapolated out to create the things mutation and selection is supposed to have created. I don't think any reasonable person should.
"It's all we've got." is not a ringing endorsement for its truth. Bottom line, you think random genetic copying errors and selection created massively complex living things. It is absurd and you are dumber for accepting it.It's all we've got until some reasonable alternative is offered. Not that you intend to do so, obviously.
Evolution is an observable process. Just because our understanding is incomplete doesn't mean it's erroneous.
You disparage reason with that last bit.If I am being dishonest then I am doing so unwillingly, I literally think that the examples given could never be reasonably extrapolated out to create the things mutation and selection is supposed to have created. I don't think any reasonable person should.
"It's all we've got." is not a ringing endorsement for its truth. Bottom line, you think random genetic copying errors and selection created massively complex living things. It is absurd and you are dumber for accepting it.
It is mathematically certain, and you are dishonest for denying it."It's all we've got." is not a ringing endorsement for its truth. Bottom line, you think random genetic copying errors and selection created massively complex living things. It is absurd and you are dumber for accepting it.
If I am being dishonest then I am doing so unwillingly, I literally think that the examples given could never be reasonably extrapolated out to create the things mutation and selection is supposed to have created. I don't think any reasonable person should.
Then prove it mathematically.It is mathematically certain, and you are dishonest for denying it.
To their credit, pathological liars are often pretty good at baiting honest people to prove them wrong.
"life evolves" is meaningless. It hasn't been shown to do what your theory requires of it.Buckshot has done a good job of it.
His mathematical assertions simply don't matter. No matter how improbable it may be, life exists & life evolves. No greater explanation is required.
"life evolves" is meaningless. It hasn't been shown to do what your theory requires of it.
I haven't made any mathematical assertions about evolution Bowfinger did.
I didn't say that.You have asserted that life as we know it is mathematically impossible allowing only for what we can observe, that life does, indeed, evolve.
Rather than saying the theory is incomplete you intimate that other forces must be at work to explain that observable reality even as you refuse to even speculate as to what they might be.