Since you apparently keep reading it, perhaps you should have asked why that is so. It's not like anyone is forcing you to read this...is there?
Since you apparently keep reading it, perhaps you should have asked why that is so. It's not like anyone is forcing you to read this...is there?Originally posted by: Jahee
Why won't this thread go away!
According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
An open mind doesn't mean that a person has to be oblivious to the facts that are available. Open mindedness means that a person is capable of connecting these facts in fashions that is not so obvious. It also helps to be able to convey this train of thought to others in a fashion that might promote their understanding.Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:
"Christianity is the only true religion."
perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....
Open mindedness, as you have pictured it, would mean requiring a lobotomy.
They may not call it the missing link for nothing, certainly there is some historical use of the term, but that doesn't mean it's really missing. See above in my point about 398 billion fossils not being needed. Lucy and hobbits (homo florienesis or however it is spelled) aren't good enough?
Main Entry: hob·bit
Pronunciation: 'hä-b&t
Function: noun
Etymology: coined by J.R.R. Tolkien
: a member of a fictitious peaceful and genial race of small humanlike creatures that dwell underground
What is rational about making assumptions and unfounded accusations?Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
An open mind doesn't mean that a person has to be oblivious to the facts that are available. Open mindedness means that a person is capable of connecting these facts in fashions that is not so obvious. It also helps to be able to convey this train of thought to others in a fashion that might promote their understanding.Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:
"Christianity is the only true religion."
perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....
Open mindedness, as you have pictured it, would mean requiring a lobotomy.
Right, so your'e still saying that the only facts that are acceptable are those that can be found within the bible. You fail at rationality.
I'm guessing that if you break penal code 265-17a established in your county upon the year of your conversion (It states that you, Seekermeister, are forbidden to breed), your brood would be home-schooled? I'm guessing you were, too.
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:
"Christianity is the only true religion."
perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....
Maybe this thread, but I don't know what page, probably somewhere in the teens... Text
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:
"Christianity is the only true religion."
perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....
This is why I just ignore his posts. They're worthless. Kind of like DVK916 is when it comes to atheist arguments. They came to their conclusions beforehand, so evidence and arguments are meaningless to them. There's nothing left to discuss.
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:
"Christianity is the only true religion."
perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....
This is why I just ignore his posts. They're worthless. Kind of like DVK916 is when it comes to atheist arguments. They came to their conclusions beforehand, so evidence and arguments are meaningless to them. There's nothing left to discuss.
You're clearly a better person than I. I have a hard time letting such idiocy go unadressed. It's especially bad during a slow work day....
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
torpid,
They may not call it the missing link for nothing, certainly there is some historical use of the term, but that doesn't mean it's really missing. See above in my point about 398 billion fossils not being needed. Lucy and hobbits (homo florienesis or however it is spelled) aren't good enough?
Perhaps you can explain what fiction or hoaxes have to do with this subject?
Main Entry: hob·bit
Pronunciation: 'hä-b&t
Function: noun
Etymology: coined by J.R.R. Tolkien
: a member of a fictitious peaceful and genial race of small humanlike creatures that dwell underground
I will leave the hoaxes links for you, because Lucy is prominent among them.
Where did I say a word about the moon landing or the holocaust? I assume that you are just throwing them in for "good" measure to distract from what I did say. Since you are unwilling to Google for Lucy hoaxes, I won't bother you with any links, but perhaps you might enlighten me as to your news reference to hobbits?Uh huh. Yeah, Lucy, the moon landing, the holocaust, all those are hoaxes. As for the hobbit definition, I'll leave it to you to stew in your own ignorance. Apparently you haven't been reading the news for the last 10 years or so.
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I can throw links around too. here is a good one - it addresses every creationist claim out there.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?
No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?
Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, although I mirror your sentiment, I'd hesitate to group in buddhism and taosim with christianity. Christianity and other theisitic religions at their core claim absolute, exclusive truth, which puts it completely at odds with formal science, or any discovery that comes in conflict with what was already written.
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, although I mirror your sentiment, I'd hesitate to group in buddhism and taosim with christianity. Christianity and other theisitic religions at their core claim absolute, exclusive truth, which puts it completely at odds with formal science, or any discovery that comes in conflict with what was already written.
How did you come upon discovering what these religions were at their core? In my view they are nothing more than what the people who worship them believe at their core. I've met numerous "theists" who are far from your description of what is at the "core". I would just like to know if they have lost their way, weren't aware of the core, or what.
Your tapdancing is so transparent only you would believe it to be convincing. You cannot reject out-of-hand the perfect response to your challenge merely because I didn't reinvent the wheel right in front of you. The answers are there, provided in handy reference with illustrations and everything, but apparently you are not interested in finding them. That was my point.Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,
Perhaps you can refer me to where I asked anyone for links? You have not met any of my challenges, therefore, no pretense is necessary.Everyone should note that even when Seekermeister's challenges are met, he will continue to pretend that they were not so that he can justify his wanton ignorance to himself and continue spouting his obviously nonsensical claims.
I did find this link about the "Hobbit":Originally posted by: torpid
If you google lucy hoax there's only some rubbish about a knee joint being reported at a different location, thus constituting a logical fallacy by attempting to call the discoverer a liar, as if that disproves anything. Perhaps you are referring to piltdown which is completely unrelated.
The hobbits were either a group of genetically abnormal (tiny brained? Forgot the term) homo sapiens or an unusually long-lived species of near man descended from earlier species. In either case around 10-15,000 years old or so unless I'm remembering incorrectly. So you have lucy, 3 million or so years, and the hobbit dudes, 10,000 years. Maybe you think there's a huge gap there but there are in fact numerous fossils of homo erectus and neanderthals too.
Your point is very dull, because as I have pointed out previously, to other posters, I do not need links to articles about something that I already understand. When I ask for an explanation from somebody, it is often for the purpose of seeing what they understand. When I really want a link, I'll ask for it, like I did with torpid's hobbits. If you don't like the way that I "dance", then start playing another tune.Originally posted by: Garth
Your tapdancing is so transparent only you would believe it to be convincing. You cannot reject out-of-hand the perfect response to your challenge merely because I didn't reinvent the wheel right in front of you. The answers are there, provided in handy reference with illustrations and everything, but apparently you are not interested in finding them. That was my point.Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,
Perhaps you can refer me to where I asked anyone for links? You have not met any of my challenges, therefore, no pretense is necessary.Everyone should note that even when Seekermeister's challenges are met, he will continue to pretend that they were not so that he can justify his wanton ignorance to himself and continue spouting his obviously nonsensical claims.
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I did find this link about the "Hobbit":Originally posted by: torpid
If you google lucy hoax there's only some rubbish about a knee joint being reported at a different location, thus constituting a logical fallacy by attempting to call the discoverer a liar, as if that disproves anything. Perhaps you are referring to piltdown which is completely unrelated.
The hobbits were either a group of genetically abnormal (tiny brained? Forgot the term) homo sapiens or an unusually long-lived species of near man descended from earlier species. In either case around 10-15,000 years old or so unless I'm remembering incorrectly. So you have lucy, 3 million or so years, and the hobbit dudes, 10,000 years. Maybe you think there's a huge gap there but there are in fact numerous fossils of homo erectus and neanderthals too.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm
But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
... but perhaps you might enlighten me as to your news reference to hobbits?
Originally posted by: torpid
...
The hobbits were either a group of genetically abnormal (tiny brained? Forgot the term) homo sapiens or an unusually long-lived species of near man descended from earlier species. In either case around 10-15,000 years old or so unless I'm remembering incorrectly. So you have lucy, 3 million or so years, and the hobbit dudes, 10,000 years. Maybe you think there's a huge gap there but there are in fact numerous fossils of homo erectus and neanderthals too.
"Hobbits" Were Pygmy Ancestors, Not New Species, Study SaysOriginally posted by: Seekermeister
I did find this link about the "Hobbit":
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm
But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?
No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?