calfoxwc Posted September 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Everything is "hilarious" to the woodypeckerhead, since he doesn't have the growth as a human being to discuss issues intelligently. Sad. I suppose "Love" doesn't exist, because it isn't scientifically proven, and you can't SEE it. Liberals tend to believe that theories that fit their narrative are fact. If the theories don't fit their narrative, why, those theories are completely "hilarious". What a pitiful way to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 You're an idiot Cal. You post like you are saying these wise truths, but you're just the village idiot. Tell me Cal, do you believe in creationism? Love, I'm guessing, is some combination of chemicals, hormones, etc. I'm sure there's plenty if science behind it. There are plenty of things you can't see that actually exist. Wtf are you talking about. My "narrative" revolves around things that are proven, or have a lot of science backing them. You know, facts, data, etc. Not just "liberals are bad, rrrraarrr" "Its in that magic book I was told to follow when in was little... brraaarrr" "I was saved by a magic donkey.... porrraaarrrr" So, Cal, do you think God may everything in 6 days and that the Earth is 6000 years old? Do you really just spit in the face of decades of scientific advancement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 If apes evolved into men, why are their still apes? Articles Send This If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.Download If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes? PDF This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it. First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered. Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same. A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require. Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized. We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed. Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better. *Dr. John D. Morris is the President of the Institute for Creation Research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Well you do that a lot, especially with Heck. I figured I'd just end it now Of course in his case he understands what I'm talking about and only feigns ignorance to prolong an argument. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Of course in his case he understands what I'm talking about and only feigns ignorance to prolong an argument. WSS Whatever you need to tell yourself man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 So, DieHard, I just want this on record. Do you believe in creationism over evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Are you an attorney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Are you going to answer or not? Your reluctance to makes me think that deep down you know how Retarded you sound so you are hesitating posting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 woodypeckerhead - it's time to admit you are a loser on this board. All you can muster is personal insults, and stupid questions so you can ignore any attempt to explain anything to you. It's time to STFU, and go away. You are the stinky butt of this board. You have no stories, no experiences, no courage, no belief system, ...all you have in life is bitching in the negative to get attention. You may never grow up. It's very sad, except you have only yourself to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Yes woodypeckerhead, I believe in God and creationism. And I hope your attitude in real life is different then on here, because you sound like a little punk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 woodypeckerhead - it's time to admit you are a loser on this board. All you can muster is personal insults, and stupid questions so you can ignore any attempt to explain anything to you. It's time to STFU, and go away. You are the stinky butt of this board. You have no stories, no experiences, no courage, no belief system, ...all you have in life is bitching in the negative to get attention. You may never grow up. It's very sad, except you have only yourself to blame. ... my god... are you even a real person? You can't be a real person. You have to be a character Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 Yes woodypeckerhead, I believe in God and creationism. And I hope your attitude in real life is different then on here, because you sound like a little punk. To each his own. That sure does explain a lot though. If your fall back answer and explanation is "god did it" then how am I ever going to seriously debate you about anything? Any logical point I make backed with facts and science will mean nothing to you because it goes against your "beliefs". It would be like trying to argue with a brick wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 More and more horrific. She died of multiple injuries. I wish these thugs would be sent to gitmo, and waterboarded 24/7 til they die. This is a sign of bad things to come, with other of the same things happening now. http://theconservati...s-99-years-old/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 So, DieHard, I just want this on record. Do you believe in creationism over evolution? Do you believe "science" is creating things, or finally understanding/interpreting natural absolutes? (Hopefully you would'nt suggest that a cellphone/computer/TV was "created" but the necessary laws/absolutes/materials were finally understood/interpreted/manipulated to produce each item) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 Do you believe "science" is creating things, or finally understanding/interpreting natural absolutes? (Hopefully you would'nt suggest that a cellphone/computer/TV was "created" but the necessary laws/absolutes/materials were finally understood/interpreted/manipulated to produce each item) I could see it as a little of both, but I sort of understand what you are saying. The fact that we know "science" didn't create electricity, we just understand it enough to help make a TV. We did create the idea of a TV and the actual physical TV though. A TV could have technically always been without us understanding anything. I get what you are saying. But what point are you trying to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 More and more horrific. She died of multiple injuries. I wish these thugs would be sent to gitmo, and waterboarded 24/7 til they die. This is a sign of bad things to come, with other of the same things happening now. http://theconservati...s-99-years-old/ But they won't. And There will be no march nor televised protest. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 But what point are you trying to make? I think there a lot of "probably's" in the scientific community that get more of a free pass than equivalent "probably's" found in religion/spirituality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 I think there a lot of "probably's" in the scientific community that get more of a free pass than equivalent "probably's" found in religion/spirituality. Its not the same level is of scrutiny. A theory doesn't just come from whatever the hell someone wants. There is a ton of research, peer reviews, etc behind it. Not just "God did this. Why? Because that's all I can think of and this old book says so." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Understood. Obviously I'm more slanted towards the medical field. But when cancer disappears before rads/chemo a patient saying "God did this" gets an eyebrow raise, whereas "Well there's a scientific explanation behind this, I just dont know it (yet), but that's all I can think of" gets a whole lot of high fives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 You're an idiot Cal. You post like you are saying these wise truths, but you're just the village idiot. Tell me Cal, do you believe in creationism? Love, I'm guessing, is some combination of chemicals, hormones, etc. I'm sure there's plenty if science behind it. There are plenty of things you can't see that actually exist. Wtf are you talking about. My "narrative" revolves around things that are proven, or have a lot of science backing them. You know, facts, data, etc. Not just "liberals are bad, rrrraarrr" "Its in that magic book I was told to follow when in was little... brraaarrr" "I was saved by a magic donkey.... porrraaarrrr" So, Cal, do you think God may everything in 6 days and that the Earth is 6000 years old? Do you really just spit in the face of decades of scientific advancement? So, wait, you think some lab rats can just spray chemicals and hormones in someone's face and replicate love? You think they could make you love something with a love potion like someone loves a child they created? If that's what you believe...then...You...are...a...fucking...Retard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 So, wait, you think some lab rats can just spray chemicals and hormones in someone's face and replicate love? You think they could make you love something with a love potion like someone loves a child they created? If that's what you believe...then...You...are...a...fucking...Retard... Did I say that? No. But it isn't some magical gift from god that is only in our soul or spirit or whatever. It's all reactions in our brain, how we think, releases of different chemicals and hormones, etc. Look, I'm no expert, but there clearly is a scientific component behind any emotion and why it occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Scientists just now discovered what was in pee. Science doesn't know all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Scientists just now discovered what was in pee. Science doesn't know all. That's basically what science is - our most educated understanding of the universe to date. Of course there are things it doesn't know/can't explain. I missed most of this (and basically clicked on this thread to mark it read) but Woody's certainly right about 'love' being essentially a series of chemical reactions within the brain. You associate happy memories to someone, you think of them in a positive light. You attach loads of happy memories, like a parent/child relationship, you have love. More or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Scientists don't know shit about love. They just discovered what is in urine, do you understand? They've been able to run tests on urine since the invention of the beaker. To think scientists can distill something intangible like love into a series of chemical reactions is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 I missed most of this (and basically clicked on this thread to mark it read) but Woody's certainly right about 'love' being essentially a series of chemical reactions within the brain. This is the exact bullshit free pass that "science" gets when we don't know dick about a particular topic that I was talking about earlier. "...Woody's certainly right.." Fuck me. No he's not fucking right. He's making a guess (however educated it may be). It probably lies somewhere within our neurological system because we know a little about the brain and some of its pathways. It's no different than me saying "rain is a gift from God" because we know a little about gravity and rain happens to come from the sky. But because I attribute its origin to something I have no idea about that may or may not have a white beard, there is doubt about my assumption vs. Woody's. The logical fallacy makes my head throb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 And despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm not yelling/upset with you gftChris - your post just allowed me to respond to make a point. I just want those of you who mock religion/spirituality and project your belief in Science Almighty, that as you make your arguments and reason all the way to a point where you have to conclude, "Well, because science, that's why.." - picture "Science" floating on a cloud with a white beard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Science H. Logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 But sitting there and saying "Why does it rain? Idk. God must do it" is a cop out. You aren't learning anything or trying to learn anything about the process. You are chalking it up to god and calling it a day. No advancement would be made like that. Science runs multiple tests, collects data, has peer reviews, etc. It is the scientific method. If you try to credit the rain to god and someone asks you why all you can say is "just because" If you try to credit the rain to a scientific phenomenon and someone asks why you can show them all the research you've done, the experiments, and then recreate your findings. I may not know all the details behind how love works scientifically, or whatever else we may talk about. That's not me just saying "science" and calling it a day. The info is out there, people are working on it, I just don't personally know. Just saying "God did it" though is a week response. You have no proof other than that you don't know the answer. They aren't even close to the same thing really One has no backing behind it, it is just an idea created by people that don't know the answer and wanted it filled the easiest way possible. The other was arrived at after research, experiments, etc. It follows the scientific .method and other patters we see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Not "week". That's seven days. Weak. As in, the content of your posts is weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.