2

11/18/2009 3:59:15 PM

quagmire you're a big enough ignoramus to think I'm actually engaging you in a debate here. You think there's some stake to "winning" and "losing" here.

You're not even ready to begin playing. Do you want me to refer you to a reading list? I'm not going to retype the careful thoughts and arguments on the subject from the last century.

11/18/2009 3:59:16 PM

^ nah, don't bother...you accomplish much more by calling me names and saying i just don't understand than actually arguing my statements with valid statements of your own...i mean, hah, i can't believe some of those foolish people that actually BACK UP their viewpoints when they can just call people names, you know???



anyway, my work day is done, so i'm heading home...i won't be back to argue for a while, so make sure you crazy kids come up with something fun for me to read tomorrow at work, okay? i need some more name-calling and half-assed rebuttal attempts to break the monotony

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 4:00:45 PM

You're "backing up" your view point with a bunch of foolish dribble that not even a college freshman should believe. Of course you wouldn't know this since you've read nothing on the subject (clearly, based on the blatantly stupid shit you've been saying).

11/18/2009 4:01:53 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Here's some very basic shit. Try to understand the difference between the big bang theory, and the theory of creation (hint, only one of them fits the definition).

11/18/2009 4:08:40 PM

lmao

11/18/2009 4:14:46 PM

While God is an obnoxious ass about everything remotely involving religious people, quagmire managed to step in this thread and make himself into an even bigger and more obnoxious ass. That's quite an accomplishment.

11/18/2009 4:19:13 PM

Religion deserves maximum ridicule.

There, I said it.

11/18/2009 4:19:41 PM

11/18/2009 4:25:48 PM

Quote :

"Religion deserves maximum ridicule. There, I said it."

If I may throw my opinions in your face for a moment, your problem is as follows:
You try to treat the symptom, not the disease. The disease is group identification... the natural tendency of people to gather in groups and then use that sense of community and general agreement to feed the idea that what they think must be right, despite evidence to the contrary.

Religion is just a symptom of it, though it does happen to be one of the bigger ones. Nationalism/patriotism, party identification, social class, and any number of other things are just as fucking stupid and detrimental to society (again, though, on a somewhat smaller scale... except perhaps for nationalism, that one is pretty widespread).

I don't even take issue with the fact that you assert yourself as supremely right all the damn time... it's more the fact that you're railing pointlessly against something that isn't even the source of the problem. ...Though other people do seem to have a problem with the bit about asserting how right you are.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 4:31:18 PM

Good point, but it's not just a group identification problem. It's also a fear of death/non-existence problem.

11/18/2009 4:35:46 PM

Yeah but why can't people just "gather in groups and then use that sense of community and general agreement to feed the idea that what they think must be right" in favor of logic and reason?

11/18/2009 4:35:47 PM

damn it some one pick one of these up for me. I'd like to have a copy of Origin of the Species for my home library.

11/18/2009 4:38:50 PM

^^pretty sure they do

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM. Reason : *]

11/18/2009 4:38:54 PM

^^ You don't want this copy.

11/18/2009 4:39:13 PM

^x4
The use of logic and reason implies thinking for one's own self.

Group-thought is, practically by definition, taking what others think and agreeing with them with little attempt at objective analysis.

Also, when what you suggest has been attempted, you end up with a lot of the stereotypical high school atheists who don't know jack shit about reason and just shit on religion to make themselves feel more intellectual.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ^^^,^^,^]

Quote :

"You don't want this copy."

heh... a friend of mine picked a bunch of them up anyway and was trying to think of "some vaguely artistic way to dispose of the introductions"

Kind of like how AOL trial CDs can be used as frisbees and cat toys.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 4:40:59 PM

Quote :

"damn it some one pick one of these up for me. I'd like to have a copy of Origin of the Species for my home library."

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009

If you really need a hard-copy either print it yourself or buy it for 5 bucks from Amazon.

11/18/2009 5:03:16 PM

people are so afraid to expose themselves to other ideals

no wonder you folks cant argue effectively

best to arm yourselves with knowledge from all sides than to run your mouths about a topic you lack complete knowledge/understanding in

im not afraid to have my viewpoint changed by debate or literature, im glad there are dissenting opinions everywhere as well as affirmative opinions (AND FACTS)

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM. Reason : h]

11/18/2009 5:15:16 PM

Agreed, Chris.

Now remind me where the merit is in any creationist argument?

11/18/2009 5:16:10 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Quagmire, look about half way down the page. all kinds of OBSERVABLE evidence for the big bang. Cosmic radiation is one of the smoking guns still observable today.

11/18/2009 5:29:21 PM

There's a difference between dissenting viewpoints and outright nonsense.

If someone has a valid theory on the creation of life or the universe that's backed by evidence, I'd gladly read it.

11/18/2009 5:30:01 PM

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/11/youre_gonna_burn_in_hell_dino.php

11/18/2009 5:45:51 PM

T-Rex did not eat fish!

11/18/2009 5:49:56 PM

Maybe the fish jumped out of the pond in an attempt to evolve legs.

11/18/2009 5:51:18 PM

Quote :

" so...what now? i think i understand that no matter how you look at it, neither a theory nor a hypothesis are FACTUAL because they are unproven (princeton says "not yet verified")...which means that while they might do an EXCELLENT job of defining or explaining something, they cannot be trusted to be completely and unarguably correct"

gravity... not proven to exist!

11/18/2009 6:00:53 PM

I refuse to believe that Jah is not the creator

11/18/2009 6:07:41 PM

It says right next to your name something about Jake, not Jah.

11/18/2009 6:08:29 PM

>.<

11/18/2009 6:16:50 PM

The creator of the world wouldn't constantly throw interceptions, though.

11/18/2009 6:18:39 PM

"the defense shall inherit the ball; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of interceptions"

11/18/2009 6:33:39 PM

yeah, just like the creator of the world wouldn't need a mulligan.

11/18/2009 6:37:23 PM

Quote :

"Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this... In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this... retard frog-squirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!"

11/18/2009 6:42:50 PM

I subscribe to the Big Bang theory

I subscribe to evolution on a smaller scale (e.g. humans from apes sure, apes from mollusks nope)

but I'm not convinced of life starting from lightning strikes and primordial soup.

11/18/2009 7:00:03 PM

Quote :

"gravity... not proven to exist!"

don't know much about 'gravity' do you?

11/18/2009 7:32:27 PM

scientists don't generally use the word "prove"

11/18/2009 7:59:29 PM

Quote :

"i'm still waiting for someone to come out and say that the big bang theory is NOT actually a theory,"

so I guess you have equal faith in the "THEORY" of gravity? You prob think the idea that it is really magic pixies that hold us down is equally valid.

if you dont "believe" in the big bang and evolution, you might as well just throw all science out the window. most of it is equally proven, or unproven? (i put "believe" in quote b/c i hate when people discuss science as whether or not they "believe" in it, like religion)

11/18/2009 9:14:26 PM

Quote :

"if you dont "believe" in the big bang and evolution, you might as well just throw all science out the window"

I'd like to know what makes the big bang such a fundamental scientific fact that everyone should just automatically accept it. A lot of the anti-religion crowd in here seems to be arguing that b/c its published in a book, that means it is the most rock solid theory on earth. The truth is, its just the best most agreed on theory anyone has at this point and they have to put something in the book. And comparing big bang to fucking gravity is the most retarded thing I've heard of. One has a lot more evidence to support it than the other.

11/18/2009 10:22:46 PM

Do people actually read the intro of books? I rarely do

11/18/2009 10:27:32 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to know what makes the big bang such a fundamental scientific fact that everyone should just automatically accept it."

No one is doing that. People are just saying that current evidence shows it to be the most likely theory.

Quote :

"A lot of the anti-religion crowd in here seems to be arguing that b/c its published in a book, that means it is the most rock solid theory on earth."

That's how things get published in a book. Like I said earlier, do you think they just choose one theory at random or do they pick the one with the most peer-reviewed evidence behind it?

Quote :

"The truth is, its just the best most agreed on theory anyone has at this point and they have to put something in the book."

Sure, how else would they have a textbook? If we cut out everything that was "just the best most agreed upon theory anyone has at this point," you'd just have the cover of the book with blank pages inside.

Quote :

"And comparing big bang to fucking gravity is the most retarded thing I've heard of. One has a lot more evidence to support it than the other."

They're both theories supported by evidence that are believed by a consensus of scientists to be the most likely explanation for certain naturally occurring phenomena.

11/18/2009 11:05:54 PM

Textbooks 50 years ago were wildly different than they are today.
Textbooks 100 years ago were wildly different than they were 50 years ago.
Textbooks 500 years ago were wildly different than they were 100 years ago.
And on and on.

I can assure you that textbooks 50 years from now will be vastly different than they are today and not just in such a way as to build on existing "knowledge". Your use of the textbook as evidence to support your own beliefs is no different than those who use the bible as evidence to support their beliefs.

I don't think we can really even imagine what science will have discovered 500 years from now, but I accept that science will find flaws in many of the things we accept today.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 11:29 PM. Reason : l]

11/18/2009 11:28:24 PM

hahahaha...this thread is classic...gronke has done nothing but prove how much of a moron he really is and always has been.

11/18/2009 11:38:49 PM

Quote :

"Your use of the textbook as evidence to support your own beliefs is no different than those who use the bible as evidence to support their beliefs."

lol

11/18/2009 11:48:19 PM

11/18/2009 11:51:44 PM

Quote :

"hahahaha...this thread is classic...gronke has done nothing but prove how much of a moron he really is and always has been."

Rebut or get the fuck out.

Quote :

"Your use of the textbook as evidence to support your own beliefs is no different than those who use the bible as evidence to support their beliefs."

You don't understand how science works, do you? How do you even function in the world?

11/19/2009 12:34:54 AM

Quote :

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. -Albert Einstein "

I'm not saying the theories you are defending are wrong.
Just that you haven't personally brought forth a shred of credible evidence.
Statements such as "Open an Astronomy textbook" hold no more weight than "Open the bible."
You may be speaking the truth, but you're still losing the argument.
Maybe you should open a debate textbook or something.

11/19/2009 1:12:16 AM

what is this, I don't even

Look, I understand that you're trying to make a point. But the big bang and evolution are two, very different things. You're referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

While you're doing research, for once, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_molecule

Look how much we have learned, changed, and discarded over the past 300 years in our understanding of molecules.

We still don't have a unifying theory of classical physics and quantum mechanics. There is a lot that we don't know yet. It's entirely possible that we may never figure it out.

Putting your hands over your ears and repeating what was beaten into you as a child can only hold out for so long. Eventually you will come to understand that believing that an invisible being spoke to create all matter is just as crazy as thinking lightning was created by the gods bowling.

There is a certain point in your head where you follow logic and reason until your upbringing puts up a roadblock. You'll get further and further down the path the more you research and think critically.

300 years from now, scientists will laugh at our theories as much as will laugh at pre-Francesco Redi-science.

It took me 20 years to realize that man created God. Reading this book is a great place to start thinking critically.

edit: As for the textbooks vs. bible debate, there is a fundamental difference between religion and sciences in that regard. What we "know" to be true in the natural sciences is changing with the research that we do. We unify, branch and compartmentalize to move forward with our understanding. In religion, we fragment, refute, and adapt.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 1:56 AM. Reason : f]

11/19/2009 1:28:59 AM

Quote :

"We still don't have a unifying theory of classical physics and quantum mechanics. There is a lot that we don't know yet. It's entirely possible that we may never figure it out."

higgs boson ftw

11/19/2009 6:22:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm not saying the theories you are defending are wrong. Just that you haven't personally brought forth a shred of credible evidence. Statements such as "Open an Astronomy textbook" hold no more weight than "Open the bible.""

To quote McDanger from the top of the page:

Quote :

"Do you want me to refer you to a reading list? I'm not going to retype the careful thoughts and arguments on the subject from the last century."

This is shit that, at a bare minimum, should have been taught in high-school. I can't even fucking believe I have to explain the concepts to people in fucking college, especially when there's shit like Wikipedia which completely explains everything including citations for further research. Or, you know, go to a goddamn museum.

11/19/2009 8:31:19 AM

TWW's First Law of Debate: The more of a dick you are about the position you are arguing for, the less capable you are of defending it.

11/19/2009 9:09:21 AM

I GUESS I'M THE OUTLIER

11/19/2009 9:12:40 AM