Members RoboPimp Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Seriously, you were much funnier when you just showed up and tossed in a one line zinger. When you troll like this it devalues all your good {censored} You've gone from a .750 slugging average to a .325 in this thread alone. Still respectable, but another self confirmed genius here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushfan Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 another self confirmed genius here see, that was a half assed attempt. I know you can do better than that. Avg down another 10 pts... You used to be about quality over quantity, wtf?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 see, that was a half assed attempt. I know you can do better than that. Avg down another 10 pts...somehow your scorecard doesn't hold much value for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 see, that was a half assed attempt. I know you can do better than that. Avg down another 10 pts...You used to be about quality over quantity, wtf?? again, your self-confirmed opinions on what is quality is not something that concerns me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members goodhonk Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 {censored} your science and {censored} your religion and {censored} your gear and {censored} your beliefs and {censored} this post in this {censored}ing thread tupac lives you forgot the hip gangster wannabes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dgc480 Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 First of all, the original article is sooo misinformed it makes me laugh. I have a degree in geology, so I think I for one can talk about this subject, having studies earth's history from it's creation 4.6 billion years ago, not 6,000 years ago... We have found life which has been carbon dated to 3.5 billion years ago. They are cyanobacteria found in structures called stromatolites, found in 3.5 billion year old rocks in Strelly Pool Australia. In addition, we have been able to form organic compounds and long chain polymers from simple inorganic compounds found in the Early Earth atmosphere, using only electricity and heat (Miller-Urey Experiment) These organic compounds are the building blocks of life. Sure, not proof for how life sparked, but proof that it would be very possible to create life out of simple inorganic compounds. I'd like to see anything close to proof for creationism. Evolution does occur today, and has been tested. There have been experiments on contained populations of fish which lasted over 50 years, and at the end (and throughout), natural selection caused the population to evolve in a linear trend towards certain favorable traits and characteristics. This evolution was seen in real time, and in real morphological features. Fact, not fiction. Is that better than a picture comparing a monkey and a human, or a beachball and a planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members django5 Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 I always wanted to ask a god-botherer, why do men have nipples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members goodhonk Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 First of all, the original article is sooo misinformed it makes me laugh. I have a degree in geology, so I think I for one can talk about this subject, having studies earth's history from it's creation 4.6 billion years ago, not 6,000 years ago... We have found life which has been carbon dated to 3.5 billion years ago. They are cyanobacteria found in structures called stromatolites, found in 3.5 billion year old rocks in Strelly Pool Australia. In addition, we have been able to form organic compounds and long chain polymers from simple inorganic compounds found in the Early Earth atmosphere, using only electricity and heat (Miller-Urey Experiment) These organic compounds are the building blocks of life. Sure, not proof for how life sparked, but proof that it would be very possible to create life out of simple inorganic compounds. I'd like to see anything close to proof for creationism. Evolution does occur today, and has been tested. There have been experiments on contained populations of fish which lasted over 50 years, and at the end (and throughout), natural selection caused the population to evolve in a linear trend towards certain favorable traits and characteristics. This evolution was seen in real time, and in real morphological features. Fact, not fiction. Is that better than a picture comparing a monkey and a human, or a beachball and a planet? 50 years of controlled experimentation turned fish into fish? good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members goodhonk Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 I always wanted to ask a god-botherer, why do men have nipples? good point, why didn't evolution get rid of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cleverbastid Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 This thread is retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 First of all, the original article is sooo misinformed it makes me laugh. I have a degree in geology, so I think I for one can talk about this subject, having studies earth's history from it's creation 4.6 billion years ago, not 6,000 years ago...We have found life which has been carbon dated to 3.5 billion years ago. They are cyanobacteria found in structures called stromatolites, found in 3.5 billion year old rocks in Strelly Pool Australia. Just to be nitpicky, as a fellow geologist here, not carbon dated, probably K-Ar dated. 3.5 billion year old stromatolites would be just a wee bit too old to still have any decaying carbon-14 left in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 good point, why didn't evolution get rid of them? you can milk anything with nipples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members duncan Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 IN BEFORE THE LOCK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frankiej Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 you can milk anything with nipples even cats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 good point, why didn't evolution get rid of them? maybe it didn't have a need to, or it just hasn't gotten to them yet. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that any species is an endpoint or perfect, in fact that would contradict the very purpose of it. And it would be very arrogant of humans to think that they are perfect (which is typical of humans, granted). Men probably have nipples because early in our devlopment males and females are the same. We also have remnants of tails and gills early in development. Why would we have those if not for being vestiges of our evolutionary anscestry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members duncan Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 even cats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members goodhonk Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 IN BEFORE THE LOCK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 you can milk anything with nipplessometimes you can milk things that don't have nipples, this thread for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rdm Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 you can milk anything with nipples Hey Robo....why don't you milk me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rdm Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 tupac lives Hell yeah he does....and here in Vegas too. He was over the other night and we recorded some phat beats at mah crib. I did the guitar work with mah POD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sixstringmuse Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 So in which part of the bible does Jesus tell the disciples that science is the devil exactly...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members p8283 Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 why is it so hard to accept science? http://www.examiner.com/x-4291-Baltimore-Christian-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m5d19-Another-missing-link-or-another-red-herringWhy bother asking this question? The evangelical types have something SERIOUSLY wrong with them and can't be reasoned with. Would you initiate an argument with a Stepford Wife? I'm with you otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members django5 Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 you can milk anything with nipples Can you milk me Ted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ben_allison Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 :lol: Sorry dude. Read the article. Natural selection is a fact, not a theory like evolution. Just because one group of researchers says that they think everyone has been using wrong math, doesn't make it any less true. Oh I know what the article is saying. My point is that science is a bit of a revisionist history. This was one small example of some thing (a single study) that can have sweeping changes for the theory; not that the theory is garbage. Quite significant implications given the amount of complexity and dependency within science as a whole. One small equation and a series of physical laws become essentially meaningless. The point is foundational: the certainty of science stands upon uncertainty. It's simply the way things are. I love science too, we just need to be careful what we hold dearly... new information could mean your world view becomes outdated... and then what do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.