See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Creationists: can they be scientists? You bet!
Source:
Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part9.asp
Published: Feb 11, 2006
Author: Pam S. Sheppard
Post Date: 2006-02-11 17:02:42 by A K A Stone
Keywords: Creationists:, scientists?, they
Views: 1728
Comments: 382
As an astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle (author of chapters 5, 6, and 10 of War of the Worldviews) knows that a belief in molecules-to-man evolution is not needed to understand how planets orbit the sun or how telescopes operate. While some evolutionists are spreading the false idea that creationists can’t be real scientists, Lisle is busy doing real science. In fact, he (along with hundreds of other scientists) knows that science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Dr. David Menton, cell biologist and popular AiG speaker and writer, has often said that although it is widely believed, “evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.” As Lisle points out in this chapter, even the rise of technology is not due to a belief in evolution. He writes, “Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible.” So, why are there such differences between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists if both groups have the same evidence? Lisle addresses these differing conclusions by explaining that each group starts with different assumptions when interpreting evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Lisle writes that both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists generally agree on these models. For instance, they agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, etc. On the other hand, historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. We don’t have access to the past. As Lisle points out, we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from fossils and rocks, but we cannot directly test our conclusions because past events cannot be repeated. With evolutionists and creationists having such different views of history, is it any wonder that each group arrives at such varying interpretations? Biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point while evolutionists reject this recorded history and have made up their own pseudo-history from which to interpret evidence, Lisle explains. The fact that there are scientists who believe in biblical creation is nothing new. In this chapter, Lisle discusses several “real” scientists who believe in the Genesis account of creation, including Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, and computed the nature of planetary orbits, among other things. Today, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, as recorded in Scripture. As Lisle points out, his Ph.D. research (which was completed at a secular university) was not hindered by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true. In fact, it’s just the reverse, he writes. “It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation and experimentation,” Lisle explains. Lisle concludes the chapter by posing the question, “Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver?” “If our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true,” says Lisle.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Stone, This is curious and circular reasoning. You presuppose that your theory is true to support that your theory is in fact true. This argument is illogical.
hi Feynman Lives!, welcome to 4.
Level 4? Please explain... Should I have brought my hip boots?
4 as in short for Freedom4um.
Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!) :)
Evolution uses circular reasoning. Science doesn't contradict the Bible.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
Stone, The bible is a mythological book, it is not factual. Science CLEARLY shows where, for example, there is not enough hydrogen and oxygen on the planet to flood it to the point were all living things die. Along that line, what about ducks, geese, turtles, and the other things that could float or swim? Noah did not take two blue whales on "the ark" so how did they survive "god's wrath?" And what, exactly, IS a "Bad Duck" or a "Bad Giraffe" and why did it deserve to die in the first place? There are many examples of scientific impossibilities in the bible, but I won't try to start a fight with you about it. Evolution does not use circular reasoning, sir. It is not circular reasoning when you look 50,000 years in the past and see the genetic links between something that existed back then, and trace it's roots to common day species.
In addition to this, I would urge to you take a look at the Mormon view of Anthropology. They have a very good explanation for where the American Indians came from.
Are you aware that the mountains rose and seas sand after the flood. I didn't think so
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
No. The ark was for land animals. He didn't take any fish or squid either.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
You can't show any links. They are missing. That is the problem with evilution. Where did the matter come from. It is obvious from just looking at nature that we are created beings. I'm sorry that you can't see that. How very sad.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
Stone, Yes, I am familiar with plate techtonics. But your assertion is innane. The creation of mountains takes thousands of years and does not bear out your assertion. Homo Sapiens have not been on the planet long enough to support your claim of massive land movement. Also, the earth itself would not support the dramatic movement of the plates as you assert, it would tear the planet itself apart. Sorry to disappoint you, but the Global Flood just didn't happen. It is a great story and many religions have a similar story in their mythology in the same fashion that christian mythology has one.
Did Noah take germs and virus' into the ark? I've always wondered about this.
freeloaders, I'll bet there were more than 2 apiece.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
Did the world flood with salt water or fresh? If it was salt then Noah would have had to take all the fresh water fish. They can't live in salt water. If it was fresh, which seems a safe guess given the rain, then Noah really would have had to take all the whales and Dolphins. They can't live in fresh water. The ark would have had to be as big as Sea World. How big was it?
Stone, Do you realize how foolish your statement is Let's just take a look at what the bible tells us and see if it holds water... "And God said unto Noah, . . . Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. " (Gen. 6:13-16) A cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, generally 18-inches. Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been between 17½ -21½ inches long. This means that the ark would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high if the 18 inch cubit was used. If a larger cubit was used it would have been proportionately longer. The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today's ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800's when metal ships were first constructed. Dimension of the Ark: 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. If the cubit used is 18" then conversion gives us the following dimensions: 450 ft x 75 ft x 45 ft Deck Area of the Ark: 450 ft x 75 ft x 3 decks = 101,250 ft2 Volume of the Ark: 450 ft x 75 ft x 45 ft = 1,518,750 ft3 So, you are looking at a ship roughly HALF the size of the Queen Mary. NOT a big craft by any standards. There are millions of species of animals on this planet, and a good chunk of them live on the land. According to the bible, Noah basically took anything that lived on land or had wings. That means Noah was required to bring along two of each species of mammal, reptile, bird, amphibian, and insect. The insect group alone has millions of species, and combined with the other animals that Noah had to bring, the number of species is astronomical. Take that number and double it, and you will have the number of animals that Noah had on his ark (doubling it because there are two of each species). Trying to breed back to life all of the species that Noah didn't take with him with a few animals from each family is ridiculous. It's impossible. It's impractical. Noah had to take all of the species with him. Claiming that the bible means a larger group of taxonomy when it says kind is only done to explain away the problem proposed by the size of the ark. But the animals are not the biggest problem for the size of the ark. It's their food that's the real problem. Noah and his animal friends were on the ark for about a year (although it only rained for forty days, it took the rest of the year for the water to dry up). That means that Noah had to have brought along enough food to sustain each creature for a year. The amount of food needed to sustain the animals would, I imagine, take up more than twice the amount of space as the animals themselves. Suppose that the average human eats one pound a day. I'm pretty sure it's more that, but for simplicity, let's say it's a pound a day. That means that in one year, a human would eat 365 pounds of food. That's more than twice the weight of the average person. If you have three meals a day, then that means that for each person, there would be 1,095 meals on the ark. Now imagine all of the food that would be required to feed all these animals for an entire year. It's a huge amount of weight, and it would take up an unthinkable amount of room on the ark. There is absolutely no way that Noah could have fit all of the animals and their food for a year on the ark. Heck, there are over 350,000 species of BEETLE alone. How did Noah know when he had them all? Also, if he took TWO of every animal... then you would not be able to have all the different genetic combinations within the species. you can't take two dogs and two wolves and make all the species of dogs and wolves we see today. You simply can't do it. It's genetically impossible. The genes for all of the traits of every kind of dog species are not in one dog, nor are all of the genes for all of the traits of every kind of wolf species in one wolf. To get all of the different genes that are present in each species of dog (and that are required to breed the dog into existence), you need many dogs. You can't have the genes for green eyes, blue eyes and brown eyes all in one person, can you? You can't have the genes for short and floppy ears, long and floppy ears, and long and hard ears all in one dog, can you? Of course you can't. You need many people to carry all of the genes for eye color or hair color or skin color. You need many dogs to carry all of the genes for ear structure or hair color. One person cannot have blonde, brown, black and red hair all at the same time. You would need two people for that. (I say two instead of four because each person actually has two genes for each trait such as eye color or hair color, it's just that only one shows up [unless both are mutually dominant or recessive, let's not get into that]. One person would carry blonde and black, another would carry brown and red.) IF that is not enough... then remember that you have to take into account the space required for ONE YEAR of WATER for everyone on board - and the issue of WASTE DISPOSAL is just laughable for all these species considering that you have fewer than a DOZEN people to pilot the ship and take care of these animals. We've been given the size of the ark, and we've been told what animals Noah brought along with him, and they just don't coincide. It is yet another fatal flaw of the bible, pointed out by simple analysis. Sorry, Stone, but you need to know these things if you are going to be a grown up.
If the world FLOODED, then it would have been COMPLETELY undrinkable water. There would be NO fresh water anywhere but on the ark. NO WHERE on the planet. And they were at sea over a YEAR. It is simply NOT possible.
I can show you links a-plenty going back MILLIONS of years. Simple example: Specimens of a species called Australopithecus afarensis appear in deposits dating 3–4 million years ago. One of the most complete skeletons of this species is a young female dubbed "Lucy". Lucy differed from her primate forebears by walking upright. We know this because of the way in which her legs were attached to her hip girdle and the fact that her backbone was attached to the base of the skull rather than at its back as it is in four- legged mammals. There is direct genetic evidence that tracks our evolution from Australopithecus afarensis to Homo Sapien - a relatively new species on this planet.
:) Jerk - you are certainly not a RF. He prolly would have got the connection between freedom4um and welcome to 4, ya think?
Tom, I never claimed to be Richard Feynman, especially because he died in 1988. I am simply a fan of his work and how he lived his life. I have noticed that the people on this site are very big on name calling when it comes to people who disagree with them, how ironic.
O for G=d's sake.
I didn't disagree with you, you were just being a jerk, very simple.
So you AGREE with me AND you call me names? How am I being a jerk?
"It's an Inside Job" christine posted on 2006-02-12 15:12:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #3. To: christine (#2) Level 4? Please explain... Should I have brought my hip boots? Feynman Lives! posted on 2006-02-12 15:19:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #4. To: Feynman Lives! (#3) 4 as in short for Freedom4um. "It's an Inside Job" christine posted on 2006-02-12 15:30:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #5. To: christine (#4) Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!) :) Feynman Lives! posted on 2006-02-12 15:35:12 ET If you can't figure it out... Maybe you need to consider how you come across to others, the decoder ring statement and the "most useful" statement is fifth grade pompousness. But I will put aside all of this and let it go - maybe you are not the troll "Richard" that got canned for being a disruptor a week or so ago (tho you really sound exactly alike). If so, I do apologize.
Maybe you need to consider how you come across to others, the decoder ring statement and the "most useful" statement is fifth grade pompousness. But I will put aside all of this and let it go - maybe you are not the troll "Richard" that got canned for being a disruptor a week or so ago (tho you really sound exactly alike). If so, I do apologize. Tom, Clearly you read the worst into EVERYTHING. I was being PLAYFUL with Christine. "Level 4" sounded like a secret access, so I was keeping in her playful vein. Who the hell is Richard, and what did he do to your family? I happen to be a fan of RICHARD FEYNMAN, do you have a hatred for all things Richard? (for the record, MY name is Monty - I hope you don't hate that name as well) Why are you taking all of this mis-directed anger out on ME? I didn't do anything to you and you are being King of the Assholes to me. Go talk to a counsellor. I was looking for a site that had access to many global newspapers, and your site came up (it rocks if you like to read international newspapers). I found your chatboard to be intruiging, and thought I would join in the fray. Now, I will accept your apology if you stop trying to antagonize me.
Monty? It's been awhile :P
Zipporah, How the heck did you do that picture? ROFLMAO! (uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel)
(uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel) it's Monty Rock .. whacko from the 70s!
LOL! He does, he really does! Good call.
#2. To: Feynman Lives! (#1)
#3. To: christine (#2)
#4. To: Feynman Lives! (#3)
#5. To: christine (#4)
#6. To: Feynman Lives! (#1)
This argument is illogical.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#9. To: Feynman Lives! (#7)
Science CLEARLY shows where, for example, there is not enough hydrogen and oxygen on the planet to flood it to the point were all living things die.
#10. To: Feynman Lives! (#7)
Noah did not take two blue whales on "the ark
#11. To: Feynman Lives! (#7)
Evolution does not use circular reasoning, sir. It is not circular reasoning when you look 50,000 years in the past and see the genetic links between something that existed back then, and trace it's roots to common day species.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#9)
Are you aware that the mountains rose and seas sand after the flood. I didn't think so
#13. To: A K A Stone (#10)
No. The ark was for land animals. He didn't take any fish or squid either.
#14. To: ... (#13)
Did Noah take germs and virus' into the ark? I've always wondered about this.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#10)
No. The ark was for land animals. He didn't take any fish or squid either.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#10)
The ark was for land animals
#17. To: ... (#15)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#11)
You can't show any links. They are missing.
#19. To: Feynman Lives!, christine (#5)
Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!)
#20. To: tom007 (#19)
Jerk - you are certainly not a RF. He prolly would have got the connection between freedom4um and welcome to 4, ya think?
#21. To: Feynman Lives! (#20)
I never claimed to be Richard Feynman, especially because he died in 1988. I
#22. To: Feynman Lives! (#20)
I have noticed that the people on this site are very big on name calling when it comes to people who disagree with them, how ironic.
#23. To: tom007 (#22)
I didn't disagree with you, you were just being a jerk, very simple.
#24. To: Feynman Lives! (#23)
hi Feynman Lives!, welcome to 4.
#25. To: tom007 (#24)
If you can't figure it out...
#26. To: Feynman Lives! (#25)
Monty
#27. To: Zipporah (#26)
#28. To: Feynman Lives! (#27)
How the heck did you do that picture? ROFLMAO!
#29. To: Feynman Lives! (#27)
uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#30. To: Elliott Jackalope (#29)
It creeps me out that this photo is NOT some kind of photoshop creation... this guy was a real person? Well, he certainly had a good self image! LOL
#31. To: Feynman Lives! (#30)
There is only explanation possible, or needed. "Hey, it was the 70's". Anyone who was there will quickly nod and smile a sad, wry smile of understanding.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: Feynman Lives! (#30)
We should all, I think, respect the thought and work of Richard Feynman, arguably one of the finest mathematical minds of the 20th century, a specialist in, teacher of and contributor to quantum mechanics. He was also humble. He said that anyone who maintained they understood quantum mechanics hadn’t studied it enough, or words to that effect. The flood “myth” is found among virtually all the peoples of the world and should thus not be discounted. (Myth is in quotes as some use it these days as a synonym for “lie”, a very bad habit, because myth can convey more truth than supposed fact.) A tsunami of cataclysmic proportions would fill the bill. And Evolution does not come close to being established scientific theory. It is failed hypothesis at the very best. Basically, Evolution has never been seen to occur, in the lab or in nature, despite decades of effort in the lab (fruit flies). Mutation has, however, been shown to be uniformly destructive of genetic information, hardly a fact that favors evolution. And on and on … I respectfully suggest that you need to again review the facts and evidence before you conclude that Evolution is not full of holes. We inhabit a universe that is eloquently and beautifully mathematical, and beyond all rational expectation. It is “governed” by the mathematical laws of physics. There is no “reason” why this should be so, but it is. Do these laws just happen to be? Did they appear out of nowhere? Or is it consistent to think these laws were “written” by a Creator far deeper and more able than our capacity to comprehend? I think that it is. Welcome to 4um.
#33. To: tom007 (#24)
Aric2000 is back on LP this morning - after about being away for about a year.
#34. To: Feynman Lives! (#18)
don't have much time. Prove they are 3 or 4 million years old. Radio carbon dating dated fresh rocks from mt st helens ant millions of years. Keep worshipping the white shirts.
dating 3–4 million years ago.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#35. To: Phaedrus (#32)
Phaedrus, I never stated that the scientific theory of evolution has answered 100% of the questions in the universe. Evolution is also one of the most misunderstood and controversial concepts in the eyes of the general public. This situation is unfortunate, because the controversy surrounding evolution is unnecessary. Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations. By definition, science is unable to confirm or deny the existence or work of a Creator; such questions are beyond the realm of science. As a scientific concept, evolution therefore can make no reference to a Creator. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion need not conflict. Numerous lines of evidence show that life has changed through time. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for this change. Individuals change throughout their lifetimes; they grow, receive injuries, color their hair, or pierce their eyebrows. These changes are not evolutionary, because they cannot be inherited by the next generation. The changes are lost when the individual possessing them dies. Individuals do not evolve, only populations evolve. Species evolve over successive generations as their local populations interbreed and change. The biological definition of a species embodies this concept: a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed. This point is very important: species always consist of changing and interbreeding populations. There never was a irst ‘saber-toothed cat,’ ‘first mastodon,’ or ‘first dinosaur.’ Instead, there was a first population of interbreeding individuals that we call ‘saber-toothed cats,’ or ‘mastodons,’ or ‘dinosaurs.’ At any given time in the past, members of populations of a species were capable of interbreeding. In Darwin’s time, the nature of inheritance and the cause of variation were very poorly understood. The scientific understanding of heredity began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1860s in Brno, Czech Republic. This understanding accelerated throughout the 20th century and now includes knowledge of chromosomes, genes, and DNA with its double helix. Evolution could not occur without genetic variation. The ultimate source of variation can now be understood as changes or mutations in the sequence of the building blocks of the genetic material carried on the chromosomes in eggs and sperm. I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies that show how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: -Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli. -Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas. -Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas. -Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast. -Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. Here are the basics for what is required for evolution: 1. All organisms produce far more offspring than can survive to adulthood and reproduce. This means that many of those offspring will die without reproduction. 2. Organisms vary in many ways, and much of that variation is heritable - that is, variations that exist in the parents are passed on to the offspring. 3. Some of those heritable, variable traits affect an organism's fitness - its ability to survive to reproductive maturity. 4.(This is the kicker.) Those traits that increase an organism's fitness will tend to be passed on to the organism's offspring and to subsequent generations. However, there IS evidence in nature that shows the evolution of many species over millions of years, man included. You need only look back in the last century and see how man is evolving. We have managed to find ways to significanlty increase our population, are taller, live longer, and infant mortality rates have dropped dramatically. I appreciate your reverence for the good Dr. Feynman, a man who thought that the entire concept of religion was ridiculous.
Evolution has never been seen to occur, in the lab or in nature, despite decades of effort in the lab (fruit flies).
#36. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Stone, I am curious, just how old do you think the earth is?
#37. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#35)
The problem with evolution is not that theory exists - I have no problem with a theory existing, including this one. What I have a problem with is that the existence of this theory has become a quasi-religious belief in the scientific community that precludes all other possibilities. Evolution has in practice, ceased being a theory and has become a DOGMA. I would like to see evolution, in the true scientific spirit, turned back into a THEORY. Then we could consider other THEORIES along side it.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Stone, It is hysterical that a guy who clings to religion is quoting Thomas Jefferson, a man who was insistent that religion play NO PART in the formation of this nation.
#39. To: mehitable (#37)
Mehitable, I don't understand why evolution would concern you so much. However, if you can show me another valid scientific theory that could be taught along side of it, I would be happy to look at it. Before you get started, remember, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is religion dressed up as science. But if you can show me another valid scientific theory, I would be interested in hearing about it.
#40. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#39)
Just by saying that Intelligent Design IS NOT a scientific theory, you are framing the debate by excluding anything that contradicts your point of view. That's not how debate works. I'm not a scientist myself and personally - I don't care how life came to be on earth or whether it exists anywhere else, so I'm the wrong person to ask. I'll leave it to someone else to debate anyone scientific theories that exist out there. One thing that I may simply throw out to you is that evolution for many decades (it may have changed somewhat recently) postulated incredibly slow changes in organisms. Well, that's part of the scientific religioius dogma - what if these mutations occurred spontaneously and represented ENORMOUS changes from one form of life to another? I think there's much we don't know and we should keep open minds. Blandly accepting the THEORY of evolution as dogma, which I believe you do, stops us from considering other possibilities or variations of possibilities. It stops thought.
#41. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#39)
It is not "evolution" that concerns me. It is dogma that replaces thought and debate with intellectual sclerosis. I don't want to simply be told what to believe just because some group of scientists consider this idea preferable to all others because it seems to preclude a "God". That is THEIR bias. Whether life evolved somehow through microrganisms (although that still does not explain what the ultimate origin of even those minutes things would be) or through some form of Intelligent Design, or was created by a gigantic Fudge Covered Marshmallow, does not concern me. I deal with what is here now.
I don't understand why evolution would concern you so much.
#42. To: mehitable (#40)
Mehitable, First off, you just stated one of the principles of what evolution IS. Mutations that occur spontaneously and represent changes from one life form to another over time. Well done! Now, getting to your other point. By stating accuraltely that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory I am merely properly categorizing it, not framing the debate. Intelligent Design does not contradict my point of view. It is not even in the scope of the topic. You can't bring tomatoes to a lecture on meat and say that they are framing the debate by excluding your tomatoes as potentially being meat. Like I said, bring me a valid, supportable theory and I will look at it openly.
One thing that I may simply throw out to you is that evolution for many decades (it may have changed somewhat recently) postulated incredibly slow changes in organisms. Well, that's part of the scientific religioius dogma - what if these mutations occurred spontaneously and represented ENORMOUS changes from one form of life to another?
#43. To: mehitable (#41)
I deal with what is here now. Then why are you even the slightest bit concerned with this topic? The theory of evolution is not telling you what to belive any more than the theory of gravity is. Or don't you believe in the theory of gravity either?
It is not "evolution" that concerns me.
#44. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#43)
I just answered that in my previous post to you. Obviously you have difficulty either comprehending or communicating, and I think you are merely being argumentative towards anyone who remotely challenges the sanctity of your "theory". As for the theory of gravity, I can see the effects of gravity directly - personally. I do, however, possess enough flexiblity of mind to conceive that there may be conditions or circumstances that affect or even nullify the theory of gravity. If you have done any study of mysticism you would be aware of such assertions. My personal belief is that all theories are fine until something comes up to disaprove them - and when that happens those adherents of "theories" ignore the fact and cling to the idea. I would advise you also to read up on the findings of Charles Fort.
#45. To: Zipporah (#28)
ZIPPPPPPPP - I LOVE MONTY ROCK!!!! wasn't it Monty Rock the 3rd???? I used to watch him on the Merv Griffin show back in the Stone Age. (or was that the Stoned Age)????? He was....kewwwl.
#46. To: mehitable (#44)
Mehitable, I am not trying be deliberately argumentative, I am trying to have a discussion that does not waver off into some fairey land where magical things can happen. You say that you can see evidence of the theory or gravity. Good. Well, I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies that show how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: All of these are DIRECT evidence that evolution DOES occur. Thus, the theory is being proved before your very eyes. Again, not being deliberately argumentative, just unafraid to deal with facts instead of mythology. And I appreciate your candor in this discussion.
I think you are merely being argumentative towards anyone who remotely challenges the sanctity of your "theory". As for the theory of gravity, I can see the effects of gravity directly - personally. My personal belief is that all theories are fine until something comes up to disaprove them
-Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
-Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
-Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas.
-Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast.
-Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
-Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
-Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
#47. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#46)
Once upon a time, people explained lightening and thunder and echoes and tons of other things that we now have some "scientific" basis for, in terms of magic. That was the limit of their understanding and it made sense to them. In fact, for generations, they could not perceive it could be anything other than whatever their society considered "true". Perhaps those things that you consider science now, are lacking in some element of magic, and those things that you now consider "magic" have simply not passed beyond the frontiers of science? I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things to occur in patterns. In being so occupied, you miss both the exceptional thing and the possibility of other, less material, dimensions that interact with ours. Again, I urge you to go forth and read Charles Fort, that you may be acquainted with the exceptional. You'll understand my point after you've done some reading.
I am not trying be deliberately argumentative, I am trying to have a discussion that does not waver off into some fairey land where magical things can happen.
#48. To: All (#47)
This should read: I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things that occur in patterns.
I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things to occur in patterns.vv
#49. To: Feynman Lives! (#35)
that's a very well reasoned argument, imo, and i think to deny evolution is to deny reality. it seems that folks want to make it much more complicated than it is. i also agree that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
#50. To: mehitable (#47)
Mehitable, You err in your estimation of my background. I am VERY familiar with Fort's work, and I would say that he was essentially a satirist hugely skeptical of human beings'--especially scientists'--claims to ultimate knowledge. He is funny to read, articualte and very interesting. So, now that I have passed your reading test, AND I still hold the same view point... what is your position?
I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things to occur in patterns. In being so occupied, you miss both the exceptional thing and the possibility of other, less material, dimensions that interact with ours.
#51. To: christine (#49)
Thanks Christine, I agree that religion and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
#52. To: Feynman Lives! (#50)
My position is that you didn't understand Charles Fort's work.
#53. To: mehitable (#52)
Fort is considered by many as the father of modern paranormalism, not only because of his interest in strange phenomena, but because of his "modern" attitude towards religion, 19th century spiritualism, and scientific dogma. As a writer Fort was highly stylistic, blending passion and poetry, and his books are littered with quotes full of humor and insight. My favorite quote of his is "If there is a universal mind, must it be sane?" I understand his work just fine, Mehitable...
#54. To: Feynman Lives! (#35)
Whenever I run into someone such as yourself that attempts to bowl me over with lots of volume in the debate over Evolution, I find it worthwhile to parse their post. You are being so honored. Your post is in italics. I never stated that the scientific theory of evolution has answered 100% of the questions in the universe. Nor did I characterize your position as such. Evolution is also one of the most misunderstood and controversial concepts in the eyes of the general public. So you assert. I don’t think so. This situation is unfortunate, because the controversy surrounding evolution is unnecessary. No, it’s not; i.e. the controversy is absolutely necessary. Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Does it? Maybe. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations. By definition, science is unable to confirm or deny the existence or work of a Creator; such questions are beyond the realm of science. As a scientific concept, evolution therefore can make no reference to a Creator. To be clear, my quarrel with Evolution is that its hypotheses are unsupported, are in fact contradicted, by the evidence. It does not stem from my knowledge of (not belief in) a Creator. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. So what? I would say they’re misled and, again, my position does not rely on the authority of the Bible or any Christian denomination. Science and religion need not conflict. Evolution and Christianity are in inherent conflict to the extent that Evolution is Materialist, which is by definition Atheist. Numerous lines of evidence show that life has changed through time. “Change” is extremely vague and is not adequate to show the evolution of one species into another. And what is the mechanism of change? Where is the evidence that ANY specific species has evolved into another. Among million (s) of species, where are the transitional forms? Science explains, it doesn’t speculate. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for this change. WHAT change and WHAT explanation? Individuals change throughout their lifetimes; they grow, receive injuries, color their hair, or pierce their eyebrows. These changes are not evolutionary, because they cannot be inherited by the next generation. The changes are lost when the individual possessing them dies. Individuals do not evolve, only populations evolve. If it’s not evolution, why discuss it? Species evolve over successive generations as their local populations interbreed and change. You are asserting it. You have not shown it. The biological definition of a species embodies this concept: a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed. This point is very important: species always consist of changing and interbreeding populations. There never was a [f] irst ‘saber-toothed cat,’ ‘first mastodon,’ or ‘first dinosaur.’ Instead, there was a first population of interbreeding individuals that we call ‘saber- toothed cats,’ or ‘mastodons,’ or ‘dinosaurs.’ A “first population”? So, did you will them into being? That is not science, that’s supposition. At any given time in the past, members of populations of a species were capable of interbreeding. In Darwin’s time, the nature of inheritance and the cause of variation were very poorly understood. The scientific understanding of heredity began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1860s in Brno, Czech Republic. This understanding accelerated throughout the 20th century and now includes knowledge of chromosomes, genes, and DNA with its double helix. Evolution could not occur without genetic variation. Well, OK, but so what? The ultimate source of variation can now be understood as changes or mutations in the sequence of the building blocks of the genetic material carried on the chromosomes in eggs and sperm. Ah, the crux of the matter -- it is a fact that mutation has not been shown to result in new species. That is pure conjecture on your part, speculation. The evidence is that mutations are destructive of genetic information, not creative. I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies thatsshow how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: -Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli. -Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas. -Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas. -Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast. -Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. It is well-known that species exhibit genetic variation within sometime broad boundaries (dogs) while maintaining their species integrity. It has NEVER been shown that one species evolves into another, either in nature or in the lab. The operative word is shown And so on … You have not established anything but that Evolution succeeds in explaining nothing.
#55. To: Phaedrus (#54)
"So what? I would say they’re misled and, again, my position does not rely on the authority of the Bible or any Christian denomination." So, you disagree with Christine? Interesting.
Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution.
#56. To: Feynman Lives! (#55)
Interesting. Try to stay with the debate instead of changing the subject, unless of course you are aware that you're losing it.
So, you disagree with Christine?
#57. To: Feynman Lives! (#53)
Apparently you don't. What Fort did was collect VAST amounts of data of extremely unusual or bizarre anomalies, such as rains of unusual substances or creatures, that did not fit into what was then (and now) thought of as scientifically possible. Science usually focuses on (or accepts) only phenomena that occur (or re-occur) in a regular pattern, thus anomalies usually remain scientific orphans, although they may be perfectly valid phenomena. They just don't fit into observable patterns. Sometimes a phenomena may be a one time event or something that happens every 50,000 years - but it's still valid. Fort was not a satirist although he frequently had a wry tone. To call him a satirist is to belittle his work, and to imply that he did not believe in what he was doing and was creating a work of fiction. He was ultimately a collector of inconvenient facts that developers of "theories" ignore as the actual "facts" don't fit into their theories. He didn't know what the explanations of these pheneomona were (just as I don't), nor did he pretend to. What he knew was that the existence of these phenomena were either derided, just as you've done, or ignored, BECAUSE they didn't fit into current ideas, theories or methods of scientists. Fort was not a satirist - he was just anti-DOGMA - a condition that can afflict science as easily as religion.
#58. To: Phaedrus, all (#54)
This assertion is correct. It has never - unless someone can show me now - been shown that one species evolves into another. What evolutionists proffer as proof of evolution consists of changes - however dramatic - within ONE species. A dog is a dog is a dog. A flower is a flower is a flower. I don't think dogs will ever mutate into flowers or vice versa. To the best my knowledge it has NEVER been shown that one species has ever evolved into another. So how did everything come into being - through what mechanism? Something I believe God created, but exactly how? I have no idea and neither does any one else.
It is well-known that species exhibit genetic variation within sometime broad boundaries (dogs) while maintaining their species integrity. It has NEVER been shown that one species evolves into another, either in nature or in the lab.
#59. To: mehitable (#58)
Do you think dogs, wolves, foxes, and hyenas all descended from a common ancestor?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#60. To: Feynman Lives! (#55)
Now, you see, you have engaged in lengthy sophistry but you have not addressed any of the requests for evidence or substative objections I've raised to the so-called theory of Evolution as science.
#61. To: mehitable (#58)
You will not EVER get a solid, straight, supportable answer to this question from an Evolutionist.
... through what mechanism?
#62. To: Dakmar (#59)
Possibly - but do they all have a common ancestor with a squid? I don't know? Is evolution on-going? I see no evidence of it, nor has anyone ever presented any evidence that it is on-going - but maybe evolution itself was an anomaly. I don't know. But that's my whole point. NO ONE KNOWS. Evolution is a theory with a lot of big holes in it. Just like other theories that might be out there. And as long as they can be coherently explained, they should all be considered. People can review, interpret, or accept them as they will.
#63. To: Phaedrus (#54)
"You are asserting it. You have not shown it." "it is a fact that mutation has not been shown to result in new species." I showed you were evolution HAS occured in the lab. From one species into a completely NEW species. You choose not to acknowledge it. Hey, that is your choice, but it does not discount that it has been demonstrated. Sure being able to show evolution in a lab is not as impressive to those who don't understand science, but it DOES show evolution in action. It seems that you wont be satisfied until you personally witness something incredibly complex, like a dog, evolve into a winged monkey. It is fine to be skeptical, but to discount that which is in front of you because you don't want to believe it... well, that is just ignorance.
Species evolve over successive generations as their local populations interbreed and change.
#64. To: mehitable (#58)
Ok... so what created god? God can't create himself.
Something I believe God created, but exactly how?
#65. To: Phaedrus (#61)
Oh, believe me, I know. I've been ring around the roses with evolutionists dozens of times and their reasoning is always circular. "Well...it JUST IS. Where ELSE could anything come from??????? Don't you see how that flower developed a 6th PETAL - that's evolution"...blah blah. They don't understand the mechanism, it has large, glaring holes in it - which is fine with me. I just don't want to see it presented as the last and final word, which is exactly how its advocates DO present it. It is Scientific Dogma and that stops thought and debate.
#66. To: Feynman Lives! (#64)
I don't know. And that actually is the...CORRECT answer. You don't know either. No one KNOWS.
#67. To: Dakmar (#59)
Actually, yes... dogs and wolves did decend from a common ancestor. Good point.
Do you think dogs, wolves, foxes, and hyenas all descended from a common ancestor?
#68. To: mehitable (#66)
Yep. But you can't then say that you have any evidence that god actually exists, where as you CAN say that there is evidence to support evolution.
I don't know. And that actually is the...CORRECT answer.
#69. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#63)
The problem is obviously how you define the word "species". Some plant changing color or growing another petal doesn't really equate "species" in the real world. That's the kind of evolutionary proof that I see scientists pushing - some change, however dramatic in one species that obviously does not change it into another species. It's still a plant. Until you can show those missing links, you don't have a demonstrable mechanism.
I showed you were evolution HAS occured in the lab. From one species into a completely NEW species.
#70. To: mehitable (#65)
Mehitable, You just pointed out how evolution works and then you denied it. Interesting... And you said that I stopped debate... LOL
Don't you see how that flower developed a 6th PETAL - that's evolution
#71. To: mehitable (#62)
Go back far enough and they do. But simply having a common ancestor at all would be proof of evolution. I'm of the opinion that evolution as it now stands may not hold all the answers, but it seems more likely to be correct than any other theory out there.
Possibly - but do they all have a common ancestor with a squid? I don't know? Is evolution on-going? I see no evidence of it, nor has anyone ever presented any evidence that it is on-going - but maybe evolution itself was an anomaly. I don't know.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#72. To: Feynman Lives! (#63)
I don't buy it. Show us all again, slowly and clearly, and explain what is meant by "species". Thank you.
I showed you were evolution HAS occured in the lab. From one species into a completely NEW species. You choose not to acknowledge it. Hey, that is your choice, but it does not discount that it has been demonstrated.
#73. To: mehitable (#69)
Again, you show proof of evolution and then say that it does not count. Quite humorous... It shows how little you understand about the topic.
Some plant changing color or growing another petal doesn't really equate "species" in the real world.
#74. To: Dakmar (#71)
That's fine - my objection is not inherently to the theory of evolution. As I said initially, I don't really care how we got here. My objection is to the imposition of a dogma which shuts down all other possibilities or modes of thought. This dogmatic manner of thinking is as common in science as it is in other realms of life, including religion, but it's particularly onerous in science as science purports to be objective and dispassionate and lacking in "belief" systems. I have found that's simply not true. Look at the debate over global warming, just to give another example.
#75. To: Feynman Lives! (#63)
Would you kindly get off this offensive "don't understand science"? I'm not quite yet prepared to allow you to occupy your own self-created position of authority.
Sure being able to show evolution in a lab is not as impressive to those who don't understand science, but it DOES show evolution in action.
#76. To: mehitable (#62)
I have presented you with AMPLE evidence of evolution, you just choose to ignore it. Evolution is a continual process. Dogs from wolves and there is plenty of proof of that to show you, but you poo- poo it saying that it is just a "plant that grew an extra petal." So, if you choose to ignore the facts, then why are we bothering trying to explain things to you?
Is evolution on-going? I see no evidence of it, nor has anyone ever presented any evidence that it is on-going - but maybe evolution itself was an anomaly. I don't know.
#77. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#73)
I think we are arguing semantics here. Obviously your little change in a plant is technically an evolution -meaning CHANGE - in the plant. A development. However, it does not demonstrate how that plant became an animal. Or how anything else became something completely different from what it is. We have not found any missing links. A dog is a dog is a dog. A plant is a plant is a plant. A brontosaurus is a bronto is a bronto - or maybe lizard might be more correct. Just because you cannot imagine any other mechanism for the creation of current species on earth other than everything evolving from some "lower" form of life, does not mean that another mechanism does not or did not exist. You still have not explained the mechanism for developing unique species such as dogs, camelias and brontosauruses because you DON"T KNOW IT. At least I am honest enough to say I don't know.
#78. To: mehitable (#69)
That's exactly where I expect him to go, to definitions.
The problem is obviously how you define the word "species".
#79. To: mehitable (#74)
I don't see scientists burning down churches and locking up those with whom they disagree, so I'm not concerned with what they believe. There is an orthodoxy in any field of study, but a good scientist tries to keep above the fray. Most bad science - and I almost said all, but there are a few real jackasses out there - is politically motivated. Almost all organised religion is politically motivated, so it comes down you a question of "who are you going to trust?" for me.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#80. To: Feynman Lives! (#68)
You are so wrong.
But you can't then say that you have any evidence that god actually exists, where as you CAN say that there is evidence to support evolution.
#81. To: Feynman Lives! (#76)
It is obvious that a dog is merely a form of wolf that has been bred for various characteristics for generations. Now tell me how that wolf evolved from a velociraptor or some such creature, and you have something. There is no great disimilarity between a dog and a wolfe. We can all see this. You are expanding development from an obviously related animal into a theory that postulates development from obviously UNRELATED animals without any proof of this. There are no missing links. This dog/wolf argument of yours is meaningless. Where did the wolf come from? Or the prototype of the wolf? or the creature before that? What is the mechanism? You DON'T KNOW THAT. NO ONE DOES.
Dogs from wolves
#82. To: Feynman Lives! (#64)
How could you, a mere human being, possibly know?
Ok... so what created god? God can't create himself.
#83. To: All (#81)
More simply - if mankind developed from some lower order primate in a not too distant past, why do we see no evidence of other lower order primates evolving into some higher order resembling man? Did this process simply stop? Do you think it was a one time thing, or is it on-going?
#84. To: mehitable (#83)
We do - they were called Neanderthals.
More simply - if mankind developed from some lower order primate in a not too distant past, why do we see no evidence of other lower order primates evolving into some higher order resembling man?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#85. To: Dakmar, all (#84)
Actually that's not the point I was making. The point I was making is why have we - in 5000 years of observation (I do not consider our ancestors totally moronic even without the observations of Feyniman Lives) - not seen any evolution of lower order primates such as chimps, baboons, gorillas - whatever - into a different or higher order. As far as I know, something that was a chimp 50k or 500k years ago is still a chimp today. So has this process stopped? Was it a one time thing? Apparently it is not on-going or we would still be observing it today.
#86. To: Feynman Lives! (#76)
What snide arrogance. Let me see your badge.
... why are we bothering trying to explain things to you?
#87. To: mehitable (#77)
An just because you can, and it deals with an imagnary friend, does not mean that it DOES. EVOLUTION - ANY change in a population's allele frequencies over time. The mechanism for change in development of unique species has already been explained. Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment. 1. All organisms produce far more offspring than can survive to adulthood and reproduce. This means that many of those offspring will die without reproduction. Now, I am glad that you are honest enough to say that you don't know, because it is clear that you do not.
Just because you cannot imagine any other mechanism for the creation of current species on earth other than everything evolving from some "lower" form of life, does not mean that another mechanism does not or did not exist.
2. Organisms vary in many ways, and much of that variation is heritable - that is, variations that exist in the parents are passed on to the offspring.
3. Some of those heritable, variable traits affect an organism's fitness - its ability to survive to reproductive maturity.
4. Those traits that increase an organism's fitness will tend to be passed on to the organism's offspring and to subsequent generations.
#88. To: Phaedrus (#82)
And how could you, a mere human being, possibly know otherwise?
How could you, a mere human being, possibly know?
#89. To: Phaedrus (#80)
You are so wrong. Please, Phaedrus, Show me FACTS that support your belief in your imaginary friend. Not circumstantial evidence or whistful theories, actual FACTS.
But you can't then say that you have any evidence that god actually exists, where as you CAN say that there is evidence to support evolution.
#90. To: Phaedrus (#86)
I see that one trait that hasn't evolved among evolutionists is humility, lol.
#91. To: Feynman Lives! (#89)
Are you an atheist?
Show me FACTS that support your belief in your imaginary friend.
#92. To: mehitable (#83)
Mehitable, Mankind has evolved over MILLIONS of years, not "the not too distant past." Our evolution from Australiopithicus to Homo Sapien is well documented. That takes you back about 4 million years. Sorry that science has not nailed down ALL the facts yet... but there is AMPLE evidence to show that we EVOLVED into Homo Sapiens. This process is ongoing, and will not ever stop, one day we will evolve OUT of Homo Sapiens into the next order of primate.
More simply - if mankind developed from some lower order primate in a not too distant past, why do we see no evidence of other lower order primates evolving into some higher order resembling man? Did this process simply stop? Do you think it was a one time thing, or is it on-going?
#93. To: mehitable (#91)
That has nothing to do with my question to Phaedrus.
Are you an atheist?
#94. To: mehitable (#85)
5,000 years isn't enough time for major changes, but if you go back 500,000 years you'll see a lot of change. Gorillas din't evolve into humans because we have different environments, the same reason humans have feet for walking instead of grasping branches.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#95. To: Dakmar (#94)
In 5000 years, if evolution were an on-going process, we should have seen some change SOME WHERE in lower order primates. That is the whole point of an ON-GOING process - that it IS on-going which means examples crop up every now and then and branch off. I am not aware of anything like that observable in any of the lower order primates which would argue against the postulation that evolution is or must be "on-going". You are asking me to accept something that is not only not observable, but which in fact HAS NOT been observed. That is called "faith", not science. That is why evolution is ultimately a belief system. I think the bottom line point of evolution is to provide those who have no belief in a God, with some explanation of how things came into being. That is why evolutionists defend even the least defensible parts of their theory (such as non-evolving lower primates) with such zeal. It is because it is their replacement for religion. I don't care whether they believe in God, it doesn't matter. I just don't like to see an obvious philosophical belief system being put forth as scientific "fact".
5,000 years isn't enough time for major changes, but if you go back 500,000 years you'll see a lot of change. Gorillas din't evolve into humans because we have different environments, the same reason humans have feet for walking instead of grasping branches.
#96. To: Feynman Lives! (#92)
I'm not so sure about the last part. Survival of the fittest no longer plays a role in homo sapiens, so regression or stagnation are distinct possibilities. (That was meant to be vaguely humorous).
This process is ongoing, and will not ever stop, one day we will evolve OUT of Homo Sapiens into the next order of primate.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#97. To: Feynman Lives! (#89)
No No No FL. We are discussing EVOLUTION. You are attempting to change the subject. Start a new thread and we'll discuss the reality of God.
Show me FACTS that support your belief in your imaginary friend.
#98. To: Feynman Lives! (#93)
It's a simple yes, or no question, and as you can see from my response to Dakmar below, I think it is highly relevant.
#99. To: Feynman Lives! (#92)
And we are to believe this because you say so.
This process is ongoing, and will not ever stop, one day we will evolve OUT of Homo Sapiens into the next order of primate.
#100. To: mehitable (#95)
Have you observed the Earth rotating and orbitting the Sun? Some things cannot be observed in and of themselves, we simply have to go with the most logical explanation sometimes.
I am not aware of anything like that observable in any of the lower order primates which would argue against the postulation that evolution is or must be "on-going". You are asking me to accept something that is not only not observable, but which in fact HAS NOT been observed.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#101. To: Feynman Lives! (#93)
Really?
That has nothing to do with my question to Phaedrus.
#102. To: mehitable (#95)
Well, then,if you are looking for SMALL changes... sure. Observe THIS: Our species lives longer, is taller, healthier, has stronger bone structure, and bigger brain cases than we did 5000 years ago. So, there ya go. Short term evolution in the flesh for ya, Mehitable. Or are you going to deny that these documentable things are true? They are examples of the evolution of our species.
In 5000 years, if evolution were an on-going process, we should have seen some change SOME WHERE in lower order primates
You are asking me to accept something that is not only not observable, but which in fact HAS NOT been observed.
#103. To: Phaedrus (#99)
No, you can presuppose this because you can see evidence of it in our ancestry.
And we are to believe this because you say so.
#104. To: Dakmar (#100)
But those things actually HAVE been observed in and of themselves, both here on earth and in our explorations in space....unlike the evolution of lower order primates.
Have you observed the Earth rotating and orbitting the Sun? Some things cannot be observed in and of themselves, we simply have to go with the most logical explanation sometimes.
#105. To: Phaedrus (#97)
YOU were the one who introduced the myth of god into the conversation, I was simply responding to your comment.
Phaedrus: How could you, a mere human being, possibly know?
My Response: And how could you, a mere human being, possibly know otherwise?
#106. To: Feynman Lives! (#102)
So, there ya go. Short term evolution in the flesh for ya, Mehitable. Or are you going to deny that these documentable things are true? They are examples of the evolution of our species. Examples of evolution? Golly, I thought these had to do with nutrition and sanitation. And where are the new species? Pretty lame, FL.
Our species lives longer, is taller, healthier, has stronger bone structure, and bigger brain cases than we did 5000 years ago.
#107. To: mehitable (#104)
No one has observed the earth rotating around the sun, Mehitable. We have scientific evidence to support that it does, but no one has actually WITNESSED it. Sorry.
But those things actually HAVE been observed in and of themselves, both here on earth and in our explorations in space....unlike the evolution of lower order primates
#108. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#102)
LOL, those are the same inconsequential types of changes that I was referring to earlier with the colors of flowers or numbers of petals. So does the Wonder Bread generation of the past 25 years - taller, stronger, etc, reflect an evolutionary change in your terms? And why am I not seeing any evolution amongst the lower order primates? As far as I can tell, there has been no change in chimps, baboons, gorillas, etc, in thousands of years - tens, or hundreds of thousands. Certainly nothing we have observed since we became aware of these species and nothing observable now. Does evolution not affect them? Perhaps they were by-passed for some reason? The truth is that evolution is your particularly atheistic creation myth. I just want that to be acknowledged, just as the Christians and other peoples have their creation myths. You have no more evidence for yours than they do for theirs. Yours is equally circumstantial and based on the limits of what you can "imagine".
#109. To: Phaedrus (#106)
Evolution takes millions of years to form a new species. She wanted evidence of short term evolution. I gave it to her. Also, expansion of the brian case is not a result of sanitation and nutrition.
Examples of evolution? Golly, I thought these had to do with nutrition and sanitation. And where are the new species? Pretty lame, FL.
#110. To: Feynman Lives! (#105)
"Myth of god"? Oh, my, aren't we arrogant. And Atheist. And THAT drives your conviction. And your narrative. I've clearly stated above that my objections to Evolution are based solely on the LACK OF EVIDENCE. But you don't want to discuss it.
YOU were the one who introduced the myth of god into the conversation, I was simply responding to your comment.
#111. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#107)
Now you are being absurd. We have incalculable amounts of data in various fields that prove that this happens. we can actually send rockets to other plants or solar systems based on these observations. NONE of that is true of evolution. The two things do not equate AT ALL.
#112. To: Feynman Lives! (#109)
You don't KNOW this. Yet you state it. Back it up.
Evolution takes millions of years to form a new species.
#113. To: Feynman Lives! (#109)
You have neither established that there has been any change in brain case (there is a WIDE variety among humans) OR that that has ANYTHING to do with Evolution. Where is the new species?
Also, expansion of the brian case is not a result of sanitation and nutrition.
#114. To: mehitable (#108)
Mehitable. The easy answer is because you are not looking. The more complex answer, and the one you wont like, is that it IS occurring in primates, turtles, fish, and every other species on the planet. But again, along the lines that you will swiftly discount because you don't want to see them. Evolution to a new species can take MILLIONS of years, not 5000 or 50,000 years. Sorry you are so impatient. Expansion of the brain case of a species is a REMARKABLE development in evolution, Mehitable. Just because you do not have the requisite understanding does not discount its importance.
And why am I not seeing any evolution amongst the lower order primates?
#115. To: mehitable (#108)
Species strive mightily to remain unchanged, over millions of years.
#116. To: Phaedrus (#113)
Evolution does not necessarily result in a new species, Phaedrus. Again, because you CLEARLY are not grasping the concept: "evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time " ANY change in the population's allele frequencies. Not ONE, but the POPULATION. You can go back as recently as to the time of the Egyptians and see how the brain case of humans have expanded. THAT, my friend, is DIRECT evidence that our species is evolving. The new species is a long time in coming, much like Homo Sapiens took millions of years to evolve from Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis.
You have neither established that there has been any change in brain case (there is a WIDE variety among humans) OR that that has ANYTHING to do with Evolution. Where is the new species?
#117. To: Phaedrus (#115)
A laughably false statement. Please show me where you got that one...
Species strive mightily to remain unchanged, over millions of years.
#118. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#114)
Again, it is obvious that the one trait evolutionists have not evolved is humility. To simply make tiresome assertions over and over again does not prove your point. There IS no evidence that lower order primates such as I have noted have been evolving into any other species in all the time that mankind has been observing them, nor is there any evidence of it today. If evolution were an on-going process, this would not be true. I understand the need of athiests, just like other people, to invent a creation myth, which is what evolution is, of course, but I am tired of having it shoved down the throats of the rest of us who don't necessarily accept such theories without proof. To me, your belief system has the same relevance and depth of reasoning as that of a medieval monk who devoted years to determining how many angels could dance on the heads of pins. No doubt he could explain his ideas as logically and rationally as you do and with every bit as much fervor - to the same avail. You have no observable proof of one species evolving into another. Certainly not on any on-going basis. The lower order primates are proof of this and your foolish assertions that increasing size among humans (generally due to better nutrition and medicine) constitutes "evolution" just renders both you and the theory, laughable. Believe in what you will, just don't try to cloak your creation myth in the cloak of science. I, for one, don't buy it. Unfortunately, I will have to leave this argument now.
#119. To: mehitable (#118)
mehitable, I have shown you proof of evolution and you chose to ignore it. Here: http://anthro.palomar .edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm Perhaps you can learn from this site that shows you how primates have evolved in the past 60,000,000 years. Note that I did not say 6000 years. 60 MILLION years. You keep asking for observable evidence. I showed you how in a lab setting they were able to give you observable evidence, but you laughed those facts off. SO... go learn for yourself.
There IS no evidence that lower order primates such as I have noted have been evolving into any other species in all the time that mankind has been observing them, nor is there any evidence of it today. If evolution were an on-going process, this would not be true.
#120. To: Feynman Lives! (#117)
(you) A laughably false statement. Coelacanth - and you are such an idiot.
Species strive mightily to remain unchanged, over millions of years
#121. To: Phaedrus (#120)
What of them? The coelacanth has remained relatively unchanged for 500,000 years. Sharks have also remained relatively unchanged for roughly 800,000 years. This is not because they STRIVE to remain unchanged. It is because they have not had to adapt to their environment in any significant way. No species STRIVES to remain unchanged, they would force themselves into extinction if they did so. If a species does not adapt and evolve, it disappears. Your statement is still moronic, phaedrus.
#122. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#119)
Okay, my final comments on this topic. You have made assertions and allegations and inferences about events taking place in an extremely distant past. These are based - just like a caveman's might be - on what you can "imagine" having taken place. Your level of imagination is obviously more sophisticated than his. However...and this is the critical point....you have shown NOTHING that indicates that evolution is an on-going process. If it were on-going, we would not have to look at remote fossils and make assumptions and inferences about what they were or how they were connected - we could SEE the process happening today. We could see, in the past several thousand years of primate history, SOME primates somewhere evolving into something else - unless evolution is NOT on-going. If it is not on-going, then what might trigger it? And here is the problem with scientific dogma: my even raising the possibility that evolution is not an on-going process (to whatever extent it exists at all) would be seen as extremely disturbing to evolutionists because I am challenging something that is an article of FAITH to them. Science should be about FACTS....not FAITH. Faith is the proper reserve of religion. When someone asks me to accept something that is not observable, we have gone beyond facts, or even beyond theories, and have landed in the land of FAITH. Again - I don't object to athiests having a creation myth - just don't try to call it scientific FACT and force it upon the rest of us.
#123. To: Feynman Lives! (#116)
"evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time " Really? Then what good is the "theory"? "Any change" has no meaning because it includes absolutely everything. Real science explains.
Evolution does not necessarily result in a new species, Phaedrus.
#124. To: Feynman Lives! (#121)
Well, yes they do, FL. Fruit flies in the laboratory were selectively bred into monsters. When then left to their own reproductive devices, they reverted to normal over successive generations. I would call that STRIVING to remain unchanged.
No species STRIVES to remain unchanged ...
#125. To: mehitable (#122)
No, Mehitable, These inferences are based upon the fossil evidence that we have found. You CAN see it happening today. I SHOWED it to you. Bigger Braincase is the easiest example. However you choose to ignore the facts. I can't help it if you ignore the facts, they still remain FACTS. What triggers it? Again... Back to the basics: evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time Genetic mutations trigger it. If those mutations are beneficial, they are passed on to the next generation and potentially exposed to new genetic mutations. This is why Asians have more eyeskin and people in africa have more melanin. Both are examples of EVOLUTION. You want this to happen between commercial breaks while you watch your soap operas, but it takes a little longer than that. Oh, and I never said I was an atheist, you are the one who improperly asserted this. This IS about FACTS, not FAITH.
You have made assertions and allegations and inferences about events taking place in an extremely distant past. These are based - just like a caveman's might be - on what you can "imagine" having taken place.
#126. To: Phaedrus (#124)
Then you did not understand the mechanism in place. When left to their own devices they bred out the genetic mutations that were not beneficial to the survival of their species. They did not STRIVE to remain unchanged. They, in fact, were STRIVING to CHANGE. Oh, and I have read this study, they did not "revert back to ther original form" they simply bred out the oversized mutation. They never got "back to their orignal form." They were forever changed. Read the report again. They STROVE TO CHANGE.
Well, yes they do, FL. Fruit flies in the laboratory were selectively bred into monsters. When then left to their own reproductive devices, they reverted to normal over successive generations. I would call that STRIVING to remain unchanged.
#127. To: Feynman Lives! (#121)
Later, FL -- for the record, you lost the debate.
#128. To: Phaedrus (#123)
Science does explain it. Genetic mutations cause the change. To change the allele of a POPULATION is a remarkable thing. To have ONE genetic mutation is commonplace, it occurs with every breeding. To have that mutation survive and be passed on is a process of natural selection. Science explains this quite nicely.
Really? Then what good is the "theory"? "Any change" has no meaning because it includes absolutely everything. Real science explains.
#129. To: Phaedrus (#127)
ROFLMAO! Phaedrus, you did not win the debate by a long shot. All you did was keep changing your story and denying the facts. Nice try, and thanks for playing.
Later, FL -- for the record, you lost the debate.
#130. To: Phaedrus (#124)
So a population can be changed by both natural and and artifical selection yet a population cannot change or be changed? That's a tough sell.
Fruit flies in the laboratory were selectively bred into monsters. When then left to their own reproductive devices, they reverted to normal over successive generations.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#131. To: Dakmar (#130)
True, Dakmar. He PROVES evolution with that statement, and then uses it to try to DISPROVE evolution? An unusual debate tactic... LOL
#132. To: Feynman Lives! (#129)
what good is a story if you don't embellish? seriously, you've never embellished a story you told? and as far as facts go, people shouldn't be such sticklers for facts. I think it is a hang-up myself.
All you did was keep changing your story and denying the facts.
#133. To: Red Jones (#132)
LOL Red... Nice one.
#134. To: Dakmar (#130)
Selective breeding can push a species to its limit (there ARE actual limits -- dogs have wide ones). This was done with fruit flies. Some were selectively bred with extra legs etc. Most died prematurely and were unable to reproduce. Those that remained and were allowed to continue to reproduce without interference reverted to normal over successive generations. Not so difficult to understand. Fruit flies were, however, never anything but fruit flies.
So a population can be changed by both natural and and artifical selection yet a population cannot change or be changed? That's a tough sell.
#135. To: Feynman Lives! (#129)
When Evolutionists lose, they accuse the winner of cheating. Been there, done that.
All you did was keep changing your story and denying the facts.
#136. To: Phaedrus (#134)
Phaedrus, What was done with fruit flies was to show that it is possible to force evolutionary changes. What was also shown was that if those forced changes are not beneficial to the species, that ACTUAL EVOLUTION will take care of the problem. You have PROVED MY POINT. Nicely played. Again, Phaedrus, Evolution normally does not result in a brand new species. You need to learn to read AND comprehend. I know you don't want to hear that fact, but it remains a fact nonetheless.
Selective breeding can push a species to its limit (there ARE actual limits -- dogs have wide ones). This was done with fruit flies. Some were selectively bred with extra legs etc. Most died prematurely and were unable to reproduce. Those that remained and were allowed to continue to reproduce without interference reverted to normal over successive generations. Not so difficult to understand. Fruit flies were, however, never anything but fruit flies.
#137. To: Phaedrus (#135)
Show me again where I lost. You asked for proof of evolution, I SHOWED YOU PROOF, FACTUAL PROOF. I asked you for proof of your imaginary friend, you show me NOTHING, because you have NOTHING. Game, set and match to me.
When Evolutionists lose, they accuse the winner of cheating. Been there, done that
#138. To: Feynman Lives! (#137)
The thread speaks for itself. You have only sophistry.
Show me again where I lost.
#139. To: Phaedrus (#134)
By reverting to a state suited to their environment it was proven that natural selection does occur. Environments do change, you know, or is it a given fact with you that the brontosauri all joined a suicide cult?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#140. To: Phaedrus (#138)
A typical response from your kind, Phaedrus. You have NO facts to support your imaginary friends, so you consequently are forced to deny the facts that are presented by your opposition. Try to address the topic at hand instead of constantly bobbing and weaving, hoping we don't notice that you have nothing. You are wearing the emperor's new clothes...
Show me again where I lost. "The thread speaks for itself. You have only sophistry."
#141. To: Dakmar (#139)
I believe that every fossil of the brontosaurus was found wearing purple tennis shoes and covered in a satin drape, Dakmar... LOL!
is it a given fact with you that the brontosauri all joined a suicide cult?
#142. To: mehitable, Feynham Lives!, Dakmar, Phaedrus, All (#77)
That's a good point, mehitable, because when I say evolve I mean advance, progress, mature....and a better word for religion is creation....this is the reason I don't see the belief in creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive but, rather, cohesive.
I think we are arguing semantics here.
#143. To: christine (#142)
I would agree with you, Christine. A belief in one does not preclude the other.
#144. To: All (#143)
Hey, how do you get those little quotes in all your threads?
#145. To: christine, mehitable (#142)
I agree with mehitable on this in that I don't care too much one way or the other, but I'm terrified of the type of people who want to build prisons for anyone who thinks the Earth is more that 6000 years old and denies the notion that Noah used to scoop up baby dinosaurs and wheel them onto the ark in a baby carriage. Well, not terrified, but getting there.
this is the reason I don't see the belief in creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive but, rather, cohesive
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#146. To: Feynman Lives! (#144)
Go to set-up and there you can include a tagline.. which can be a jpg ..
#147. To: Dakmar (#145)
LOL!! Dak you DO have a way with words .. !
denies the notion that Noah used to scoop up baby dinosaurs and wheel them onto the ark in a baby carriage
#148. To: Zipporah (#146)
KEWL... Thanks, Zipporah.
#149. To: Feynman Lives! (#144)
Click on "setup" at the very top or bottom of each page, there's a place for "tagline". It's best if you make it a smaller font: [font size="-1"]message[/font]only replace the square brackets with less than/greater than signs, my doing so would have made an HTML instruction, thus obliterating any useful information.
Hey, how do you get those little quotes in all your threads?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#150. To: Dakmar (#149)
Maybe you shouldve told him to use font size 15?
#151. To: Feynman Lives! (#148)
or a song link, like mine.
Go to set-up and there you can include a tagline.. which can be a jpg ..
#152. To: Zipporah (#150)
Like the boss used to say, "We could, but it would be wrong".
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#153. To: Dakmar (#139)
That's not what happened. They reverted to their normal form, had nothing to do with the environment. And "natural selection" is a misleading phrase. The passive environment does not select, it just is.
By reverting to a state suited to their environment it was proven that natural selection does occur.
#154. To: Dakmar (#152)
I got a denial .. I guess I'm not worthy to see the boss.. :P
#155. To: Phaedrus (#153)
No, they had become "monsters", as you put it. They were born that way, so that was normal for those individuals.
They reverted to their normal form,
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#156. To: Feynman Lives! (#140)
Anyone who reads the thread will see that you are mischaracterizing, making it up. You're the one in denial.
You have NO facts to support your imaginary friends, so you consequently are forced to deny the facts that are presented by your opposition.
#157. To: Phaedrus (#153)
Phaedrus, You are simply NOT looking at the facts. Re-read the report, or ACTUALLY read it if you have not. They were EVOLVED into giant fruit flies, and that size increase did not suit the survival of their species, so they CONTINUED to evolve back to a smaller size. They did not, I repeat: DID NOT, revert back to what you misguidedly call "their normal form" at all. They simply grew smaller. Genetically, they had continued to evolve and were MARKEDLY different from their predecessors.
That's not what happened. They reverted to their normal form, had nothing to do with the environment. And "natural selection" is a misleading phrase. The passive environment does not select, it just is.
[Font Size = 1] "There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#158. To: Dakmar (#155)
You're playing word games, in which I'm not much interested.
No, they had become "monsters", as you put it. They were born that way, so that was normal for those individuals.
#159. To: Zipporah (#154)
I've been getting that a lot lately, weird, I usually just try again and stuff works. Oh well, it was nothing Earth shattering at any rate.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#160. To: Feynman Lives! (#157)
Yadda Yadda, just nonsense and shouting.
You are simply NOT looking at the facts. Re-read the ...
#161. To: Phaedrus (#158)
That's all you've been doing.
You're playing word games, in which I'm not much interested.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#162. To: Phaedrus (#160)
Phaedrus, Have you even READ the studys that you are talking about, cuz I have. Once again, you use PROOF of evolution to deny that evolution takes place. It is humorous.
Yadda Yadda, just nonsense and shouting.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#163. To: Dakmar (#161)
Well, not so, Dakmar, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time repeating myself.
That's all you've been doing.
#164. To: Phaedrus (#163)
Phaedrus, You continue to deny scientific evidence that YOU yourself provide.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#165. To: Phaedrus (#163)
Was the entire (captive) population bred into monsterism? (it seems so, btw) If so, wouldn't that be "normal" for that population? It's not like they looked at magazines telling them what to look for in a mate. Natural selection, my friend.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#166. To: Feynman Lives! (#162)
You are being purposefully dense AND you are playing word games. What nonsense. Do you think that by going on and on mischaracterizing you do anything but embarrass yourself? Well, life's too short to tolerate sophists. That's what Darwinism has, the sophists.
Once again, you use PROOF of evolution to deny that evolution takes place.
#167. To: Dakmar (#165)
Excellent, Dakmar. Think I'll go look at magazines myself.
It's not like they looked at magazines telling them what to look for in a mate. Natural selection, my friend.
#168. To: Phaedrus, Feynman Lives! (#166)
You do this every time you are cornered Phaedrus. You might even be using the same verbage for all I know or care, but I'm in no mood to slog through your old posts.
You are being purposefully dense AND you are playing word games. What nonsense. Do you think that by going on and on mischaracterizing you do anything but embarrass yourself? Well, life's too short to tolerate sophists. That's what Darwinism has, the sophists.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#169. To: Phaedrus (#166)
Phaedrus, You make a LOT of allegations, yet you back it up with NO supporting facts. Please show me how I am mischaracterizing anything being stated here. You have been told precisely what evolution is. You have been shown that there is INDEED proof that evolution takes place. YOU YOURSELF have shown evidence in fruit flies that evolution takes place. (granted, you would have been better served to actually have READ the studys before you quoted them) Where is the wordplay? Where is the mischaracterization? Do tell, Phaedrus.
You are being purposefully dense AND you are playing word games. What nonsense
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#170. To: Feynman Lives! (#169)
No evolution took place. They are still fruit flies.
YOU YOURSELF have shown evidence in fruit flies that evolution takes place.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#171. To: Phaedrus (#167)
If anyone is going to be accussed of sophistry it's going to be me, damnit.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#172. To: A K A Stone (#170)
Substantive points just get ignored.
#173. To: A K A Stone (#170)
Some of them were incapable of producing offspring with others in the group, so it sounds like a few had drifted off the campground. Ever heard of mules?
No evolution took place. They are still fruit flies.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#174. To: Dakmar (#171)
OK, well, but I resemble that remark.
If anyone is going to be accussed of sophistry it's going to be me, damnit.
#175. To: All (#170)
A K A Stone, Your commentary would be helpful IF you knew what Evolution meant. Evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time CLEARLY the fruit flies allele were changed in the initial evolution to become giant fruit flies. And, subsequently, it is CLEAR that the large fruit flies evolved once more as they bred that trait out of their species. A K A Stone - evolution does not necessarily mean that you will have a completely unique species as a result. Nice try, and thanks for playing.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#176. To: Dakmar (#173)
They don't reproduce.
Ever heard of mules?
#177. To: Dakmar (#173)
Dakmar, Mules can't exist, because they prove that species interbreed!!!! Shhhhhhhhh!
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#178. To: Feynman Lives! (#175)
Is this the very BEST you can do?
Nice try, and thanks for playing.
#179. To: Phaedrus (#172)
Phaedrus, PLEASE... I am waiting for you to present a SUBSTANTIVE point.
Substantive points just get ignored.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#180. To: Phaedrus (#176)
I know, but are they horses or donkeys? Maybe a genetic dead-end reached when two creatures sharing a common ancestor combine DNA?
They don't reproduce.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#181. To: Phaedrus (#178)
Phaedrus, You have been proved wrong on every possible front in this conversation. So, I figgered I would have a little fun as your constant blathering is amusing. You yourself have presented facts that disprove your own point... that was not very bright of you, but hey... I have gathered that is the status quo for you.
Is this the very BEST you can do?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#182. To: Feynman Lives! (#179)
See, you rewrite, ignore and purposely misinterpret. That's not honest, FL, it's sophistry.
I am waiting for you to present a SUBSTANTIVE point.
#183. To: Phaedrus (#182)
How did I rewrite, ignore or purposely misinterpret? You have YET to provide substantive points to support YOUR case. By contrast, you HAVE provided MANY substantive points to support MINE. ROFL...
See, you rewrite, ignore and purposely misinterpret. That's not honest, FL, it's sophistry.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#184. To: Dakmar (#180)
They're mules and since they don't reproduce it's by definition a dead end, besides which aren't we supposed to be throwing verbal spitballs?
I know, but are they horses or donkeys? Maybe a genetic dead-end reached when two creatures sharing a common ancestor combine DNA?
#185. To: Feynman Lives! (#177)
Or try anyway. Friend of mine has a half German Shepard/half wolf doggy with pups. Didn't we all agree that dogs are dogs and not wolves, because that would mean some evolution took place?
Mules can't exist, because they prove that species interbreed!!!!
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#186. To: Feynman Lives! (#183)
Is that the very BEST you can do?
ROFL...
#187. To: Dakmar (#185)
Yes, there is direct evidence that dogs evolved from wolves. But again... SHHHHHHHHHHH! Ix-nay on the Uth-Tray!
Or try anyway. Friend of mine has a half German Shepard/half wolf doggy with pups. Didn't we all agree that dogs are dogs and not wolves, because that would mean some evolution took place?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#188. To: Feynman Lives! (#175)
They are still fruit flies fool. That is natural variation in species.
CLEARLY the fruit flies allele were changed in the initial evolution to become giant fruit flies.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#189. To: Feynman Lives! (#183)
By contrast, you HAVE provided MANY substantive points to support MINE. See what I mean about gross and radical mischaracterization?
You have YET to provide substantive points to support YOUR case.
#190. To: Phaedrus (#186)
Phaedrus, YOU are the one engaging in sophistry, my friend. You don't have anything of value to contribute to the debate, so you simply resort to 5th grade retorts. Most impressive. I suppose next you will go with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach?
Is that the very BEST you can do?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#191. To: Phaedrus (#189)
See what I mean about gross and radical mischaracterization? Phaedrus, That was not a gross and radical mischaracterization, it was a statement of FACT. You have provided AMPLE evidence that supports MY position and no substantive evidence to support yours. That is a fact, not a gross nor radical mischaracterization.
You have YET to provide substantive points to support YOUR case. By contrast, you HAVE provided MANY substantive points to support MINE.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#192. To: Feynman Lives! (#187)
Dogs are like kind. God created them. Just variation in species. Nothing new. If we came from monkeys. Does that mean it would be ok to have sex with them? Do monkeys turn you on?
Yes, there is direct evidence that dogs evolved from wolves.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#193. To: Feynman Lives! (#191)
Richard. You can wallow in the thought that your ancestors sprang up from some primordial soup, or once swung unshaven from a tree, as for me I’ll chose the Garden of Eden route. That thought makes me comfy :)
#194. To: A K A Stone (#192)
A K A Stone, Sorry, but once again you are mistaken. Dogs and wolves are completely different species, they are not "Variations in species." The rest of your post is just nonsense... (much like most of what I have seen you post)
Dogs are like kind. God created them. Just variation in species. Nothing new. If we came from monkeys. Does that mean it would be ok to have sex with them? Do monkeys turn you on?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#195. To: Jethro Tull (#193)
Jethro, Actually, the name's Monty, even though I am a huge fan of Dr. Richard Feynman. Hey, you are free to believe whatever you will about how you came to be, I am quite fine with that. Glad it makes you feel comfy.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#196. To: Feynman Lives! (#194)
Okay let them throw this in for sport.. what about genetic racial differences?
#197. To: Zipporah (#196)
LOL... this should be interesting....
Okay let them throw this in for sport.. what about genetic racial differences?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#198. To: Feynman Lives! (#195)
hehehehehehehe (g)
Monty
#199. To: Feynman Lives! (#197)
Arent we just one big family.. all part of the human race?
#200. To: Jethro Tull (#198)
Yes, I already saw the picture of Monty Rock, Zip posted it awhile ago.
hehehehehehehe (g)
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#201. To: Zipporah (#199)
LOL... I think we are losin' dat race...
Arent we just one big family.. all part of the human race?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#202. To: Jethro Tull (#198)
As long as it's not Monty as in Full.. or Monty Rock .. :P 
#203. To: Feynman Lives! (#201)
True!.. Okay then explain the racial differences.. are they due to evolution or are the differences just nonexistent?
LOL... I think we are losin' dat race...
#204. To: Zipporah (#202)
I think a full Monty is in order. Guys...????
#205. To: Zipporah (#203)
Zip, They are examples of evolution, yes. Remember, evolution does not necessarily mean you will have a completely new species. Like with dogs, for example, you get new BREEDS first, not species. Same goes with humans, you get new RACES first. That is what we have now. It is a long process.
True!.. Okay then explain the racial differences.. are they due to evolution or are the differences just nonexistent?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#206. To: Jethro Tull (#204)
Averts his eyes... (think happy thougts, it will be over soon...) LOL
I think a full Monty is in order. Guys...????
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#207. To: Feynman Lives! (#205)
That is what we have now. It is a long process. First? On that I dont know if I agree.. do you believe that there are differences that are measurable ?
They are examples of evolution, yes. Remember, evolution does not necessarily mean you will have a completely new species. Like with dogs, for example, you get new BREEDS first, not species. Same goes with humans, you get new RACES first.
#208. To: Jethro Tull (#204)
I dunno JT.. this could get ugly :P
I think a full Monty is in order. Guys...????
#209. To: Zipporah, Feynman Lives! (#207)
That's adaptation. The definition of evolution is entirely different.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#210. To: robin (#209)
You think ??
That's adaptation. The definition of evolution is entirely different.
#211. To: Zipporah (#207)
Zip, Sure... that is easy. The differences in the races is all you need to look at. The longer eyelids of the asians, the darker skin of the africans, these are easy examples of evolution as the different races passed on different genetic mutations across their populations.
First? On that I dont know if I agree.. do you believe that there are differences that are measurable ?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#212. To: robin (#209)
Robin, Adaptation IS evolution. What is YOUR definition of evolution?
That's adaptation. The definition of evolution is entirely different.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#213. To: Feynman Lives! (#211)
Sure... that is easy. The differences in the races is all you need to look at. The longer eyelids of the asians, the darker skin of the africans, these are easy examples of evolution as the different races passed on different genetic mutations across their populations. Mutations .. or something else? Some say there are no differences..
Zip,
#214. To: Zipporah (#213)
Zip, Evolution IS mutation of a given species.
Mutations .. or something else? Some say there are no differences..
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#215. To: Jethro Tull (#193)
Adam and Eve?
#216. To: Feynman Lives! (#214)
Evolution IS mutation of a given species. I'm not disputing that.. That would be saying that genes were mutated.. rather than family groups that migrated to different areas and reproduced .. groups that had certain genetic traits.. some reproducing and reinforcing so to speak, recessive genes others 'reinforcing' dominate genes.
Zip,
#217. To: Feynman Lives! (#214)
But how do you account for homosexuality in the evolutionary scheme? It seems that something that has such a huge reproductive hit should breed out of the poplation within a few hundred generations.
#218. To: Zipporah (#216)
Which is precisely what happens with evolution, Zip.
I'm not disputing that.. That would be saying that genes were mutated.. rather than family groups that migrated to different areas and reproduced .. groups that had certain genetic traits.. some reproducing and reinforcing so to speak, recessive genes others 'reinforcing' dominate genes.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#219. To: christine (#215)
Can I reconsider my position? I recognize this couple as former neighbors.
#220. To: Feynman Lives! (#218)
Well not exactly.. but depends of course on what one means when they use the term.. Genetic differences based on mutuations or differences based upon recessives and dominate genes which were in the DNA without mutating.
Which is precisely what happens with evolution, Zip.
#221. To: Trace21231 (#217)
#222. To: Trace21231 (#217)
Homosexuality is natural, Trace. It has been documented in nearly every mammallian species. Most mammals that engage in homosexual behavior also engage in hetrosexual behavior, so the species is not impacted nearly as seriously as you might think. It's just sex. Man is not the only mammal to have sex for pleasure.
But how do you account for homosexuality in the evolutionary scheme? It seems that something that has such a huge reproductive hit should breed out of the poplation within a few hundred generations.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#223. To: Jethro Tull (#193)
I think I'm going through a crisis of faith that started when I was about two. I hope it's not also a mid-life crisis, that doesn't bode well at with my being +40 anyway. I sometimes wish I believed in some sort of all-powerful deity, it would make wrasslin with humanity much easier, but I just dont. It wasn't a conscious decision, I didn't sit down and think "do I want to believe in God?", writye down a list of pros and cons all Brady-bunch style, read books I didn't want to read, none of that. It just doesn't make sense that a power-hungry, all controlling type deity would create such a nasty race as us humans. I cant reconcile the two, sorry. I hate that vapid Hollyweird types have stumbled upon the phrase "I'm not religious, but I am spritual", because that truly desrcribes where I'm at. There is a life force, shared by all of us, even chipmunks. Be good and you'll feel love, and being good doesn't require a bunch of stupid rules about which bracelet to wear during the fucking eclipse or anything, dig? Try to help, I think that's my religion, just try to help, to make things better. Try to help and make things better and always buy Dakmar brand snack cakes. See, that's where I screw up every time, back to the drawingboard...
Richard. You can wallow in the thought that your ancestors sprang up from some primordial soup, or once swung unshaven from a tree, as for me I’ll chose the Garden of Eden route. That thought makes me comfy :)
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#224. To: Jethro Tull (#219)
you can reposition your consider. :P
#225. To: Feynman Lives! (#222)
OK.
Homosexuality is natural, Trace.
#226. To: Zipporah (#220)
Evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time Pretty simple, isn't it? It's hard to believe all the fuss that's been caused over such a simple concept.
Well not exactly.. but depends of course on what one means when they use the term.. Genetic differences based on mutuations or differences based upon recessives and dominate genes which were in the DNA without mutating.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#227. To: Dakmar (#223)
And since we're on the topic.. 
#228. To: Dakmar (#227)
http://www.qaiser.net/88/resource/001%20TDS%20man-turtle.jpg
#229. To: Zipporah (#227)
Where do these Box Turtle freaks come from and how can we make them join our band on electric bass?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#230. To: Dakmar (#229)
Maybe this what Bush was talking about when he mentioned human-animal hybrids??!
Where do these Box Turtle freaks come from and how can we make them join our band on electric bass?
#231. To: Zipporah (#230)
Now you meanie liberal, Bush is against human-animal hybrids.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#232. To: Feynman Lives! (#222)
It has been documented in nearly every mammallian species. Most mammals that engage in homosexual behavior also engage in hetrosexual behavior, so the species is not impacted nearly as seriously as you might think. RE animals .. it basically has to do with dominance. I'd say not natural.. deviant behavior...in humans that is.
Homosexuality is natural, Trace.
#233. To: Dakmar (#223)
I hear you snack cake man. No problem, all folk should be as good and kind as you are… I'm not very religious, but in reading this thread, mehitable scored some solid points. To his credit, Monty (yeah sure) (g) also presented a strong case. My bottom line is simple. I'm not comfortable living on this rock believing that, when the ride is over, I take the dirt nap. Fineto, do not pass go. I need more. So, perhaps my thoughts on where we came from and where we might end are no more than the rants of an AARP member plus 6, but as I said, I'm comfy :)
#234. To: Dakmar (#231)
Hey ..Bush had better be talking to Cornyn.. seems he's for it..
Now you meanie liberal, Bush is against human-animal hybrids.
#235. To: christine (#224)
Gulp....sure.......:P
you can reposition your consider. :P
#236. To: Trace21231 (#225)
I think he wants to buy you a cup of coffee. Be careful.
#237. To: Jethro Tull (#233)
I'm completely ok with you feeling that way, I just get kinda pissy when I'm called a communist by someome with an agenda or a room temperature IQ supporting that agenda. We're all agents, sure, but "leave me hell alone", the political philosphy which drew me to this site, isn't really much of an agenda, is it? Sort of an anti-agenda, really.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#238. To: Zipporah (#232)
I'd say not natural.. deviant behavior...in humans that is. Zip, You would be incorrect. Homosexual behavior is completely natural in humans. It is documented as far back as you want to go in human history. Homosexuality is natural. You don't have to LIKE it, you don't have to AGREE with it, but you can't DENY it.
RE animals .. it basically has to do with dominance.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#239. To: Feynman Lives! (#238)
Homosexuality is natural. You don't have to LIKE it, you don't have to AGREE with it, but you can't DENY it. Deviance has been documented? BFD
Homosexual behavior is completely natural in humans. It is documented as far back as you want to go in human history.
#240. To: Jethro Tull (#233)
Jethro, No one is asserting that when you die that the "ride is over." That never entered into this discussion. You can have your belief system if it pleases you, not a problem.
My bottom line is simple. I'm not comfortable living on this rock believing that, when the ride is over, I take the dirt nap. Fineto, do not pass go. I need more
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#241. To: Feynman Lives! (#238)
Would horses have sex with donkeys if men didn't intervene?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#242. To: Feynman Lives! (#238)
By that definition murdering your own brother is natural too.
It is documented as far back as you want to go in human history.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#243. To: Feynman Lives! (#240)
Jethro was waxing philosophical with me, lighten up.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#244. To: Dakmar (#241)
Do you mean mules or donkeys?
Would horses have sex with donkeys if men didn't intervene?
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#245. To: Dakmar (#241)
Would horses have sex with donkeys if men didn't intervene?
#246. To: Zipporah (#239)
Zip. YOU are the one calling it deviance. It is natural behavior, not deviant. Your personal social beliefs call it deviant, not nature, but that does not make the action deviant.
Deviance has been documented? BFD
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#247. To: robin (#242)
Sometimes brothers need murderin.
By that definition murdering your own brother is natural too.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#248. To: Feynman Lives! (#194)
Dogs can interbreed and producd offsprint. So they are like kind. Even if you are to dimwitted to understand that. People and monkeys can't. They are separate. I like your cute routine of acting like you are polite. What's your old screen name? Retread
Dogs and wolves are completely different species, they are not "Variations in species."
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#249. To: Zipporah (#245)
What have you done with Fiona, you monster?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#250. To: robin (#242)
LOL... I if you are attempting to introduce into evidence that Cain and Abel actually existed... ROFLMAO! Sorry Robin, but you just are being silly.
By that definition murdering your own brother is natural too.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#251. To: Feynman Lives! (#250)
Okay, pick any 2 names you like. At some point in history, one murdered the other.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#252. To: Feynman Lives! (#238)
Then naturally you've experienced it. And are not ashamed of it huh.
Homosexuality is natural.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#253. To: Dakmar (#249)
What have you done with Fiona, you monster?
#254. To: A K A Stone (#248)
A K A Stone. I don't have an old screen name and I am not ACTING polite. I am used to dealing with people like you, so it is easy to be polite. You like to name call and point to things that make no sense. Dogs and wolves are not the same SPECIES. (oh, and the word your giant brain was searching for was OFFSPRING) Sure they can interbreed, but then again, so can lions and tigers, but they too are DIFFERENT SPECIES. Best of luck on your next try.
Dogs can interbreed and producd offsprint. So they are like kind. Even if you are to dimwitted to understand that. People and monkeys can't. They are separate. I like your cute routine of acting like you are polite. What's your old screen name? Retread
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#255. To: Feynman Lives! (#246)
Your personal social beliefs call it deviant, not nature, but that does not make the action deviant. We'll have to write this off to semantics. Deviant means deviating from the group/soceital norm to me, as the term is meaningless in species with less structured society, in which deviant pretty much equates with defective. Since we're on the subject I think homosexuality is a neurosis which is present in many high-order animals. Mostly mammals my instincts tell me, but who can forget the sea-gull study.
It is natural behavior, not deviant.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#256. To: Feynman Lives! (#254)
as soon as you refute something I'll get back to you. OK
Best of luck on your next try.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#257. To: A K A Stone (#248)
What about Great Danes and Chihuahuas? I don't think they can interbreed. Not unless the chihuahua stands on a chair. And that shouldn't count when we are talking about the natural world.
Dogs can interbreed and producd offsprint. So they are like kind.
#258. To: All (#255)
I didn't mean insects, don't nobody try to spin that like I've never heard of ants.
less structured society,
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#259. To: robin (#251)
Robin, Still a silly argument. Fratericide is not an aspect of sexuality, homosexuality is. Fratracide is not commonplace in EVERY society and across nearly EVERY mammallian species known to man, homosexuality is. You are not comparing apples and apples, Robin, you are comparing apples and school busses. It just does not work.
Okay, pick any 2 names you like. At some point in history, one murdered the other.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#260. To: ... (#257)
... You are incorrect. Great Danes and Chihuahuas CAN interbreed, and they HAVE been bred. German Shepherds have been bred with Dauchsunds. All dogs can breed with all other dogs.
What about Great Danes and Chihuahuas? I don't think they can interbreed. Not unless the chihuahua stands on a chair. And that shouldn't count when we are talking about the natural world.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#261. To: Feynman Lives!, AKA stone (#254)
Polite hummm? It was a keyboard error, and your response is telling. You seem to be a secular Humanist. And that's fine by me I just want to know if G-d can make a carpet so big, he cannot vacuum it.
oh, and the word your giant brain was searching for was OFFSPRING)
#262. To: Feynman Lives! (#246)
YOU are the one calling it deviance. It is natural behavior, not deviant. Your personal social beliefs call it deviant, not nature, but that does not make the action deviant. Has nothing to do with my social beliefs.. it was catagorized as deviant behavior til the 70s by psychiatrists .. and the decision to change it was not based on science but on political pressure.
Zip.
#263. To: Dakmar (#258)
What is your favorite stripe on the flag? Or are you some commie who doesn't have one?
#264. To: ... (#263)
Why are you making fun of America?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#265. To: Feynman Lives! (#260)
Yes, and the chihuahua probably stood on a chair. As I said, standing on a chair doesn't count when we are talking about the Wild Kingdom. Just ask Marlin Perkins.
Great Danes and Chihuahuas CAN interbreed, and they HAVE been bred.
#266. To: Zipporah (#262)
Zip, The decision to put it IN the books as deviant behavior was also based NOT on science, but on political pressure. Social morals do not change what is or is not natural in a given species. Homosexuality is natural.
Has nothing to do with my social beliefs.. it was catagorized as deviant behavior til the 70s by psychiatrists .. and the decision to change it was not based on science but on political pressure.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#267. To: ... (#265)
... No, they were bred naturally. Where he heck is a chihuahua gonna find a chair and how are they gonna get up on it in the first place. So... wrong again.
Yes, and the chihuahua probably stood on a chair. As I said, standing on a chair doesn't count when we are talking about the Wild Kingdom. Just ask Marlin Perkins.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#268. To: Feynman Lives! (#266)
homosexuality isn't only unnatural. Its sick and disgusting. The natural consequences of homos is no offspring. A dead diseased end.
Homosexuality is natural.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#269. To: Dakmar (#258)
You haven't heard of that nest of homosexual ants??? GACK - the dirt, the borrows, six legs and the twichy anttenas! Sisters tell no tales. And then there are the dung beetles... gosh what they are into is just wierd.
to spin that like I've never heard of ants.
#270. To: Feynman Lives! (#259)
Just using your logic that because homosexuality has history that makes it natural. You might try different logic, that's my advice. For example, I wonder if pedaphiles use this "logic" an an excuse.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#271. To: Dakmar (#264)
I plan to direct it outward to the foreigners once I perfect my technique.
Why are you making fun of America?
#272. To: ... (#265)
Canines may be dopes when it comes to machine tools, but most I've encountered could figure out enough to stand on a rock or fallen tree. Not that we get many chihuahuas cruising for great danes this time of year.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#273. To: A K A Stone (#268)
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson Heard 'bout the homosexual necrophiliac?? He kept running into dead ends.
The natural consequences of homos is no offspring. A dead diseased end.
#274. To: Dakmar (#258)
I didn't mean insects, don't nobody try to spin that like I've never heard of ants. less structured society,
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#275. To: A K A Stone (#268)
A K A Stone, I understand that you are a religious zealot and have no room for science in your life. That is ok. If you want to deny the FACT that homosexuality is completely natural, you are welcome to. See, you forget that man, and other species, have sex for FUN. (well, clearly YOU don't) Remember, you religous types put people to death 500 years ago for DARING to postulate that the earth revolved around the SUN! So, join ranks with your fellow brilliant minds if you must, A K A Stone.
homosexuality isn't only unnatural. Its sick and disgusting. The natural consequences of homos is no offspring. A dead diseased end.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#276. To: Feynman Lives! (#267)
How did they do that? And why didn't the Chihuahua explode?
No, they were bred naturally
#277. To: Zipporah (#262)
And if they told you to join a cult would you do that too?
Has nothing to do with my social beliefs.. it was catagorized as deviant behavior til the 70s by psychiatrists ..
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#278. To: ... (#271)
I plan to direct it outward to the foreigners once I perfect my technique. Always best to practice at home first.
Why are you making fun of America?
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#279. To: Feynman Lives! (#275)
The Bible says the earth is round fool. It was the "scientific" minds that thought it was flat. Christopher Columbus based his hypothesis on reading the Bible. I pity you fool.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#280. To: ... (#271)
I plan to direct it outward to the foreigners once I perfect my technique. ROFLMAO! now THAT was funny! Well done!
Why are you making fun of America?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#281. To: A K A Stone (#279)
The bible also tells me I can kill my son if he talks back to me. It tells me I can sell my daughter into slavery. It tells me to KILL people who touch the skin of a dead pig (so much for the football season next year). You think THOSE are good ideas? Oh, and Columbus was not the one who said that the earth revolves around the sun, brainiac.
The Bible says the earth is round fool. It was the "scientific" minds that thought it was flat. Christopher Columbus based his hypothesis on reading the Bible. I pity you fool.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#282. To: Dakmar (#277)
It depends on the cult and who was asking.
And if they told you to join a cult would you do that too?
#283. To: Dakmar (#277)
Depends on the rules.. if it means no makeup or hair products forget it..
And if they told you to join a cult would you do that too?
#284. To: ... (#276)
And why didn't the Chihuahua explode? Silly.. the chihuahua wasn't the 'recipient'..
How did they do that?
#285. To: ... (#276)
LOL Because fortunately mammals have a lovely system in place that stops us from growing a life inside us that our uterus can not hold. Yet another evolutionary gem that keeps the mammallian species alive! You either get a pretty big Chihuahua/cross or a very small Dane/cross.
And why didn't the Chihuahua explode?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#286. To: Feynman Lives! (#266)
Social morals do not change what is or is not natural in a given species. Homosexuality is natural. Whose speaking of books?? And you're wrong I might add..
The decision to put it IN the books as deviant behavior was also based NOT on science, but on political pressure.
#287. To: Zipporah (#284)
OK. So we're back to standing on a chair. As I said before, it's not possible in the natural world.
Silly.. the chihuahua wasn't the 'recipient'..
#288. To: Zipporah (#283)
Zip, You are darn tootin! No hair products, then count ME out!
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#289. To: Dakmar (#277)
I am carving a Native American Totem Pole featuring the great loons of the internet. Can you get me a photo of Badeye squating on his haunches nude with a stuffed eagle on his head?
#290. To: ... (#287)
Actually I saw a very small dog breed a German Shepard.. and the male was on about the 3rd step of a porch and the female was on the ground.. Where there's a will there's a way ..
#291. To: ... (#287)
As I said before, it's not possible in the natural world. ... You are wrong... It IS possible in the NATURAL WORLD for those two dogs to breed.
OK. So we're back to standing on a chair.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#292. To: ..., Nostalgia (#289)
No, but I know someone who can.
Can you get me a photo of Badeye squating on his haunches nude with a stuffed eagle on his head?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#293. To: Zipporah (#290)
Where there's a will, there are 600 relatives claiming they are the sole heir!
Where there's a will there's a way ..
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#294. To: Feynman Lives! (#291)
Where is this place?
NATURAL WORLD
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#295. To: Zipporah (#286)
Zip, Please show me where I am wrong, without pointing to social morality as your guide.
Whose speaking of books?? And you're wrong I might add..
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#296. To: robin (#294)
NATURAL WORLD Where is this place? It's in Omaha. Marlin Perkins used to have a show about it called Wild Kingdom.
#297. To: ... (#296)
It's in Omaha. Marlin Perkins used to have a show about it called Wild Kingdom. ROFLMAO! "While Jim wrestles the crocodile out of the swamp, I am gonna sit here and tell you about insurance!" I bet that show eneded because Jim finally got fed up and shot Marlin.
Where is this place?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#298. To: ... (#296)
That was a very wholesome show, better than Walt Disney's program. This place he's talking about isn't anywhere near Omaha.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#299. To: A K A Stone (#279)
I have looked into this a little. Prior to the collapse of Rome, c. 426, for a long time most, if not nearly all educated folks knew, or rather believed the earth was round. The Greeks c. 430 BC ( and very likely much before)used spherical geometry to establish emperical measurements that they saw to be correct. Erestophones (sp) calculated the circumference of the earth to a few % of the accepted value today, in a very neat geo proof. In the European dark ages, the catastrophe that ensued pretty much wiped out the thousands of years of knowledge that the west had accumulated. They were too busy burying the dead and trying to sow some seeds to live. From these meager beginnings, most in Europe thought the earth was flat, but even then some educated, or observant folks realized it was a sphere. Note that it really didn't matter if you thought the world was flat or round untill Europe begain to try to break the Islamic/Mongol monopoly on the Silk Route Trade, by establishing a sea route to the east. Then the knolwedge of the true shape of the globe made the difference between loosers and winners. I do not think, in Lisbon in 1400, there was one accomplished navigator who did not assume the earth was a globe. As navigators, they saw the proof in the night skies on every voyage to Africa.
It was the "scientific" minds that thought it was flat. Christopher Columbus based his hypothesis on reading the Bible. I pity you fool.
#300. To: ... (#296)
I loved that show. "And now Jim is going to snatch the eggs from the giant buzzard nest while I play harmonica..."
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#301. To: robin (#298)
Marlin used to make Jim wrestle the alligator while he sat in a lawn chair and bullshitted at the camera.
That was a very wholesome show, better than Walt Disney's program.
#302. To: Feynman Lives! (#297)
Okay, that was funny too. :)
"While Jim wrestles the crocodile out of the swamp, I am gonna sit here and tell you about insurance!"
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#303. To: Dakmar (#300)
Whales only do it once a year, but you can get a whale of a screwing anytime from Mutual of Omaha.
#304. To: Feynman Lives! (#297)
I bet that show ended because Jim finally got fed up and shot Marlin. Which state is Cheney from? I thought it was Wyoming.
"While Jim wrestles the crocodile out of the swamp, I am gonna sit here and tell you about insurance!"
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#305. To: robin (#304)
Didn't he come from the future?
Which state is Cheney from? I thought it was Wyoming.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#306. To: Zipporah (#290)
I was at someone's house recently and they had a gigantic doberman that was almost as big as a great dane. it weighed 150 lbs. and they also had a miniature doberman, 30 lbs. and they also had a medium sized doberman, 65 lbs. they said the big one (who was a male) and the little one were the parents of the medium sized one.
#307. To: Feynman Lives! (#295)
Please show me where I am wrong, without pointing to social morality as your guide. Just as there are compulsions let's say an adult is a pedaphile.. they cannot be reformed because their issues are psychological .. or someone having complusions in regard to exhibitionism or fetishism, sexual masochism or frotteurism.. all deviant behaviors.. all psychological.
Zip,
#308. To: robin (#304)
A state of dishonesty?
Which state is Cheney from?
#309. To: ... (#301)
I don't think I ever noticed which did what. Not quite fair though was it. I do remember their voices, really bland and relaxed and soporific.
Marlin used to make Jim wrestle the alligator while he sat in a lawn chair and bullshitted at the camera.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#310. To: Red Jones (#306)
Gigantic, average and miniature dobermans arn't that rare. I knew a guy who had a positve and a negative doberman. That was unusual.
#311. To: ... (#308)
A state of dishonesty? totally and that's just for starters
Which state is Cheney from?
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
#312. To: Red Jones (#306)
Not surprising.. I used to breed dogs and show them. Some think that if you want a medium sized dog you breed a large to a small somehow thinking it's like blending hot and cold water.. you get lukewarm.. It has to do with genes.. somewhere there were genes for that size dog.. If I had a large dog I'd breed it with the size I was trying to achieve.. some would be large others the correct size.
I was at someone's house recently and they had a gigantic doberman that was almost as big as a great dane. it weighed 150 lbs. and they also had a miniature doberman, 30 lbs. and they also had a medium sized doberman, 65 lbs. they said the big one (who was a male) and the little one were the parents of the medium sized one.
#313. To: Zipporah (#312)
Speaking of dogs, here's how you remember the metric system: Decadant Hector killed meg's gigantic terrier.
#314. To: ... (#313)
Decadant Hector killed meg's gigantic terrier. LOL!
Speaking of dogs, here's how you remember the metric system:
#315. To: Zipporah (#307)
Pedophelia, and your other sexual behaviors are radically different from homosexuality. They don't exist across all mammalian species, homosexuality does. Nice try, and I see where you are coming from, but it just does not fly.
Just as there are compulsions let's say an adult is a pedaphile.. they cannot be reformed because their issues are psychological .. or someone having complusions in regard to exhibitionism or fetishism, sexual masochism or frotteurism.. all deviant behaviors.. all psychological.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#316. To: A K A Stone, Zipporah, Red Jones, Feynman Lives! (#279)
Only a flaming faggot would say something like this.
homosexuality is completely natural
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#317. To: Feynman Lives! (#315)
They don't exist across all mammalian species, homosexuality does. Nice try, and I see where you are coming from, but it just does not fly. Oh really prove it.. how they dont cross mammlian species.. People are not the same as animals I might add.. And as I said before.. homosexuality in animals basically has to do with dominance.. not the same in humans now is it?
Pedophelia, and your other sexual behaviors are radically different from homosexuality.
#318. To: BTP Holdings (#316)
Only a bigoted, narrow minded, uneducated homophobe would say something like this.
Only a flaming faggot would say something like this.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#319. To: Zipporah (#317)
People ARE animals, Zip. Also, humans are not the only species to have sex for fun.
People are not the same as animals
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#320. To: Feynman Lives! (#305)
Figures. I hate those fuckers.
Didn't he come from the future?
#321. To: Feynman Lives! (#319)
Also, humans are not the only species to have sex for fun. Then their 'homosexual' behavior can't be compared to human sexual behavior.
People ARE animals, Zip.
#322. To: BTP Holdings (#316)
Only a flaming faggot would say something like this. Well, he's advanced some pretty good arguments for this position. Be sure to read them before jumping to a snap conclusion.
homosexuality is completely natural
#323. To: Trace21231, BTP Holdings (#322)
I am going to Africa to apply for a nice missionary position with the natives.
Well, he's advanced some pretty good arguments for this position.
#324. To: Feynman Lives! (#315)
They don't exist across all mammalian species,... I have seen cats that rape, and even kill kittens. All the other cats hate those creepy, evil baby-raper kitties. Decent toms will kill a cat like that.
Pedophelia, and your other sexual behaviors are radically different from homosexuality.
#325. To: Feynman Lives!, BTP (#318)
Let F-man learn ya right, BTP.
uneducated
#326. To: Trace21231 (#322)
You can waste your time on this, not me.
Be sure to read them before jumping to a snap conclusion.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#327. To: Feynman Lives! (#315)
They don't exist across all mammalian species, homosexuality does. I saw an adult cat try to have sex with a kitten. that's pedophilia. You don't know what you're talking about. Homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon. that is why some cultures historically have it and some don't. In japan 500 years ago the sammurai were mostly bi-sexual. They were not genetically different, they were culturally indoctrinated to be different. in black africa they don't even know what homosexuality is, until very recent times it didn't exist over there. the same is true for other cultures of people around the world as well. In greece 2500 years ago or so there was one of their city-states that encouraged homosexuality among the ruling elite. The men among that elite would have sex with boys until they were about 30 and then they'd get married. this was due to cultural indoctrination. and then in other greek city-states they had virtually no homosexuality. It is a cultural phenomenon. The US has a higher portion of its population pursueing the 'gay' lifestyle because it is a cultural phenomenon.
Pedophelia, and your other sexual behaviors are radically different from homosexuality.
#328. To: Rabble Rouser (#325)
Let F-man learn ya right, BTP. That'll be the day. ROTFLMAO!
uneducated
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#329. To: robin (#304)
Yes, cheney is from Wyoming.
#330. To: Red Jones (#327)
in black africa they don't even know what homosexuality is, until very recent times it didn't exist over there. the same is true for other cultures of people around the world as well. Red There are only three types of mammal that have sex for pleasure, and cats are not among them. Pedophelia does not exist amongst species that do not have sex for pleasure. So, you either mistook what you saw for pedophilia, or you witnessed a cat that had been damaged acting out. Either way, it was not indicative of what exists in the species. Your statement about homosexuality in africa is just laughable! You are either just making this up, or you are clearly ignorant of history.
I saw an adult cat try to have sex with a kitten. that's pedophilia. You don't know what you're talking about
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#331. To: BTP Holdings (#326)
Be sure to read them before jumping to a snap conclusion. You can waste your time on this, not me. Trace... Don't try to cloud BTP's mind with facts, it just makes him grumpy.
To: Trace21231
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#332. To: tom007 (#323)
Maybe you can take Jesse Jackson with you. I hear they are looking for a new king of the Zulu. Oh, and send me back a good Afrikaaner woman while you're there. ;0)
I am going to Africa to apply for a nice missionary position with the natives.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#333. To: BTP Holdings, Feynman Lives! (#316)
Feynman has demonstrated a very strong affinity to homosexuality because on thread after thread after thread he loves that subject. either he's gay or he very much wants the people on this site to be focused on that issue.
Only a flaming faggot would say something like this.
#334. To: BTP Holdings (#332)
Hope you like possum stew, she's the best possum cook around.
Oh, and send me back a good Afrikaaner woman while you're there. ;0)
#335. To: Feynman Lives! (#330)
Duh!
you witnessed a cat that had been damaged acting out.
#336. To: Red Jones (#333)
Red, WOW, what an incredibly uneducated thing to say. I have commented on a couple dozen threads, from Cheney's shooting, to gold, to the myth of creationism, to police misconduct - and ALL you manage to see is homosexuality? It seems to me that YOU are the one hyperfocused on it. Methinks thou dost protest too much, Red.
Feynman has demonstrated a very strong affinity to homosexuality because on thread after thread after thread he loves that subject. either he's gay or he very much wants the people on this site to be focused on that issue.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#337. To: Rabble Rouser (#335)
Rabble, Well, you said you witnessed the same thing. Which shows that neither of you have a clue what goes on in nature.
Duh!
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#338. To: Feynman Lives! (#330)
I think you said a bigger mouthful than you realized.
you witnessed a cat that had been damaged acting out.
#339. To: Feynman Lives! (#337)
You have the Big Book of Fag Science. I have 20-some-odd cats, most tamed from feral. One of us has a clue what goes on.
Which shows that neither of you have a clue what goes on in nature.
#340. To: Rabble Rouser (#339)
I have the ability to read and comprehend, Rabble. You have an overcrowding situation which brings out unnatural behavior in any animal. nice try, thanks for playing.
You have the Big Book of Fag Science
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#341. To: Feynman Lives! (#340)
We can all read your posts, we can all comprehend that you are yet another gay propagandist, a Socrates wannabe. Incidentally, the raper kitties weren't from around here, and they aren't around here any more. Male cats(all the cats) around here are very affectionate and do mutual grooming, especially among siblings. I have never seen two males do anything sexual with eachother. No humping or anything oral. The closest I have ever seen to homosexuality was when two she-cats went into labor at the same time, and they licked eachother's placenta. It was a distinctly 69-ish situation, but it was clear that what was going on wasn't sex...unless, of course, there had been a gay scholar in the room to say, "Uh-huh, ya see? Lesbian cats! Just goes to show ya."
I have the ability to read and comprehend, Rabble.
#342. To: Rabble Rouser (#341)
Sounds like a band name. Other than that, your post is pointless.
the raper kitties
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#343. To: Feynman Lives! (#342)
I thought you said you could comprehend! The points were: 1) You area gay propagandist. 2) Empiricism validates the common intuition regarding sexual behavior, contrary to the expressed beliefs of many who would call themselves "educated". Incidentally, I have also seen exactly zero first-generation incest(siblings or parents).
Other than that, your post is pointless.
#344. To: Rabble Rouser (#343)
Rabble, I did read and comprehend your statement. As such, I stand by mine. Your commmentary was pointless.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#345. To: Feynman Lives! (#344)
If that's the best you can do, then I consider the evening a success. Goodnight :)
#346. To: Rabble Rouser (#345)
Rabble, Well, considering that you had nothing other than very subjective and unsubstantiated statements coupled with name-calling to offer, I am sure that you did the best that YOU could do. Which, in and of itself, is kinda sad.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#347. To: Dakmar, all (#180)
I hesitate to jump back into this fray as it can be so consuming, but you folks have raised another issue that tends to work against evolution. Consider what happens when a significant mutation occurs - what happens to that creature? Does it mate with others that are "normal"? Or does it die because most mutations in fact are probably not advantageous? Do the others kill it because it's different? Or is it unable to breed because it is a genetic dead end? If the mutation were significant enough to qualify the resulting creature as a different species, or the progenitor of a different species, I wonder if creatures could be found to mate with it, or enough creatures with the same mutation would exist to carry this gene forward to create a new species. What I see, and what I think common sense actually demonstrates to us, is that aside from genetic dead ends and superficial changes of size or color or ear/nose/eye shape - a monkey is still a monkey. A dog is still a dog. A fly is still a fly. A plant is still a plant. This is still true after seeing fossil records of these creatures sometimes millions of years old. I think there are semantic arguments being presented here that equate the concept of evaluation with the simple word...change. They are two different things. Again - the bottom line to me about evolution is the following: We don't know in a scientific, factual way how life originated or developed on earth. We can make guesses, but that's all. Our guesses may be found to be wrong with the passage of time and more data. Religious dogma is totally an area of faith. By its nature, it cannot be proven. It must be taken on faith. However, science cannot be allowed to have any dogmas. Science must be based on fact and fact alone - not on "beliefs". Evolution is a belief. I believe evolution serves as a creation myth - an explanation of where and how everything came into being - for atheists. I don't object to that. I think it has its limits as it still does not explain the ultimate source of everything, but that's their problem.. What I do object to is their BELIEF being enshrined as scientific fact that the rest of us must accept. I think this is particularly pernicious because it stops intellectual thought and debate with a dogma. There IS NO place for dogma in science. Ya know, maybe we were all seeded from some ancient race of Martians who just developed everything in gigantic genetic factories. Maybe many, if not most species on this planet actually WERE specifically created - by an intermediary source, if not by a God. Just as we will be capable of doing in a couple of generations, if not sooner. Maybe we will design our own completely new species and then the fun really starts. The correct answer to the evolution debate is....WE DON'T KNOW. and that's fine.
I know, but are they horses or donkeys? Maybe a genetic dead-end reached when two creatures sharing a common ancestor combine DNA?
#348. To: mehitable (#347)
If this were the basis for science, then NOTHING would be learned that was not ALREADY known.
Science must be based on fact and fact alone - not on "beliefs". Evolution is a belief.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#349. To: mehitable (#347)
Mehitable, Again, you STILL fail to grasp the concept of evolution. EVOLUTION occurs across a POPULATION, not an INDIVIDUAL.
Consider what happens when a significant mutation occurs - what happens to that creature?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#350. To: Feynman Lives! (#349)
You never did address this: People ARE animals, Zip. Also, humans are not the only species to have sex for fun. **************** Then their 'homosexual' behavior can't be compared to human sexual behavior.
#351. To: mehitable (#347)
Yes, and we have genetic PROOF that dogs descended from wolves. They EVOLVED into dogs. One species EVOLVED into a completely different species. This is an INDISPUTABLE FACT, Mehitable, not a dogma. Whether or not YOU want to accept that fact is immaterial, it still remains a FACT, not a belief.
A dog is still a dog
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#352. To: Zipporah (#350)
Zip, Humans are animals, like other primates and dolphins, all of whom openly practice homosexuality. They are all animals that have sex for fun, and they are all animals who openly and commonly engage in homosexuality as far back as documentation allows. The behavior is the same. Homosexuality is completely natural.
Then their 'homosexual' behavior can't be compared to human sexual behavior.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#353. To: Zipporah, all (#262)
This change in the psychiatric standards is an example of scientific dogma in action - however now the dogma is that being gay is normal and natural and fine, etc. But is it? Of course not. It serves no useful adaptive purpose so why would it exist genetically? But even more damning than that, if homosexuality were strictly a natural, "normal" occurence, the incidence of it would be the same throughout human communities in the world now and throughout time, and that is not true. Some societies have very little homosexuality and some have a great deal of it. This variation in the amount of homosexuality throughout societies and histories alone tells us that homosexuality is a product, not simply of nature, but of other social and psychological factors. Personally, the gay men I have met (and I've known several) come from backgrounds with remarkably similar experiences. I have never met one with a good early experience with his father. They had negative fathers, absent fathers or weak fathers and these men were dominated (in a good or bad way) by their mothers as children. In addition, many of them - actually most of them, now that I consider it, were sexually abused as children. As this kind of behavior - weak, absent fathers, strong domineering mothers, sexualization of children - becomes more common in a society, I would expect the incidence of homosexuality to increase. Thus homosexuality is a type of developmental disorder. Unfortunately, our society has largely lost touch with actual reality and facts in our desperate pursuit of ideological ideals, so we no longer actually examine whether most homosexuals have these underlying childhood themes to a greater extent than heterosexuals do. Of course, there will be some children who will be exposed to the same problems but will not become gay - perhaps they will have emotional rather than sexual problems in dealing with the opposite sex. There is also a small (in percentages) group of people who have chromosomal problems and may have difficult identifying as male or female and may have feelings of being transgendered. Completely different situation and one which may have a true biological rather than psycho-social basis. Now why is this important? Personally I don't care if people are gay. I think it's a flaw or quirk like being an alcoholic or gambler or having some other maladaption that many of us have. I do think that society's views of this matters though as I believe we MUST revert back to basing our opinions on actual reality rather than achieving ideological ideals. If we keep re-designing our society in attempts to achieve these actuallly unachievable ideals, we will actually lose western civilization. We are nearly there now as people continue to deny reality - socially, biologically, politically, economically, demographically. It is an epidemic amongst us. It matters how we view these things. It also matters because if we views these as real problems - we might be able to treat them rather than normalizing the abnormal. Sorry for the length of this, but I feel strongly about the general lack of reality in our societal reasoning and planning and I think it's destroying us on a variety of levels. The changing view of homosexuality is only one of them.
Has nothing to do with my social beliefs.. it was catagorized as deviant behavior til the 70s by psychiatrists .. and the decision to change it was not based on science but on political pressure.
#354. To: Feynman Lives! (#352)
They are all animals that have sex for fun, and they are all animals who openly and commonly engage in homosexuality as far back as documentation allows. The behavior is the same. Homosexuality is completely natural. So now you're changing your former statements.. I see.
Humans are animals, like other primates and dolphins, all of whom openly practice homosexuality.
#355. To: mehitable (#353)
Sorry for the length of this, but I feel strongly about the general lack of reality in our societal reasoning and planning and I think it's destroying us on a variety of levels. The changing view of homosexuality is only one of them. I absolutely agree..
Now why is this important? Personally I don't care if people are gay. I think it's a flaw or quirk like being an alcoholic or gambler or having some other maladaption that many of us have. I do think that society's views of this matters though as I believe we MUST revert back to basing our opinions on actual reality rather than achieving ideological ideals. If we keep re-designing our society in attempts to achieve these actuallly unachievable ideals, we will actually lose western civilization. We are nearly there now as people continue to deny reality - socially, biologically, politically, economically, demographically. It is an epidemic amongst us. It matters how we view these things. It also matters because if we views these as real problems - we might be able to treat them rather than normalizing the abnormal.
#356. To: Red Jones, all (#327)
Once again, Red, you're absolutely on the money. You say with spare eloquence what I try to say with torrents.
The US has a higher portion of its population pursueing the 'gay' lifestyle because it is a cultural phenomenon.
#357. To: mehitable (#353)
Mehitable, It does not surprise me that A: you have a limited circle of friends, B: that people in your circle are somewhat reluctant to be truthful with you, and C: that you have an unfounded and widely reactionary position on the subject. Homosexuality is not a disease nor a maladaptation. It occurs across nearly all mammallian species and exists inside of hetrosexual partnerships as well. I get that you feel strongly about this topic, and you REALLY hit the nail on the head when you said that you have a LACK OF REALITY.
I have never met one with a good early experience with his father. I think it's a flaw or quirk like being an alcoholic or gambler or having some other maladaption that many of us have.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#358. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#330)
Guess you don't know much about cats. My male cat used to try to hump my arm every chance he got. And that was AFTER he was fixed. God only knows what he would have done before hand.
There are only three types of mammal that have sex for pleasure, and cats are not among them.
#359. To: mehitable (#356)
The US has a higher portion of its population pursueing the 'gay' lifestyle because it is a cultural phenomenon. Once again, Red, you're absolutely on the money. You say with spare eloquence what I try to say with torrents. Please show me your statistical data to back up this COMPLETELY unsubstantiated claim.
To: Red Jones, all
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#360. To: Rabble Rouser (#339)
ROFLMAO!!!!! I'd love to see the illustrations in that one.
You have the Big Book of Fag Science.
#361. To: mehitable (#358)
Mehitable, You do not understand the purpose of humping in species like cats and dogs. It is not a sexual issue, it is an issue of dominance. And you were so close to figuring it out because you knew this was STILL occurring AFTER he was fixed, which SHOWS you that it was NOT a sexual action that you were witnessing. Once again, you see the truth, but you close your eyes. Only Humans, dolphins and primates have sex for pleasure (note: the SMARTEST species) No other animals do. NONE.
Guess you don't know much about cats. My male cat used to try to hump my arm every chance he got. And that was AFTER he was fixed. God only knows what he would have done before hand.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#362. To: Zipporah (#354)
how did my statement change?
So now you're changing your former statements.. I see.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#363. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#348)
You are saying that the basis for science should not be facts?
If this were the basis for science, then NOTHING would be learned that was not ALREADY known.
#364. To: mehitable (#363)
ABSOLUTELY NOT. The basis for science should not be facts. The basis for science should be the relentless pursuit of the truth. FACTS come out of that pursuit, NOT the other way around. Yours is a typical response from the imaginary friend crowd. You are SO willing to believe in your imaginary friend with NO factual evidence, but you try to force science, that belives in TESTING theories, to abandon theory and rely only on fact. You can't have facts unless you pursue them. Otherwise, how would you know it was a fact? You have to have a theory first, and then prove or disprove it.
You are saying that the basis for science should not be facts?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#365. To: Feynman Lives!, Zipporah, Red Jones (#352)
Just as natural as polygamy; incest; beastiality; necrophilia; and not to mention schitzophrenia; manic-depression; paranoid delusions; ... yes, completely natural. Communist/Zionist Goals #23 and #24. Thank you federal media and Hollywood for making those possible.
Homosexuality is completely natural.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
#366. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#351)
Obviously it doesn't matter whether dogs and wolves are related to each other or one came from the other. That's not what evolution is actually about. What evolution is actually about is the progression from very small, low order animals through some alleged mutation process to develop into progressively more advanced animals. It's about where the wolf came from, and the ancestor of that creature, and the ancestor of THAT creature, and back into the mists of time. It's about whether evolution is an on-going process, as indeed it does not appear to be to any meaningful extent. You may prate on about dogs and wolves, but we can see that dogs and wolves are far more closely related to each other than dogs and spiders. We might even say a dog is a type of wolf as I think they can interbreed. But what is the connection of a wolf or dog to a spider? What have spiders progressed into - what will they turn into? Nothing? Are they to remain a recognizable species as indeed they have for countless millions of years? Where does evolution take the spider? Is there any kind of logic or process or methodology to this evolution??? You don't know. Neither do I. I think the bottom line here is that this is your atheistic creation myth. That's why you defend it so ardently. It allows you to explain existence without a God. Until you have to explain what created that very first spark of life from which everything else "evolved".
#367. To: Red Jones (#333)
He is a steam powered spambot who is here solely to disrupt the entire forum. Don't feed the trolls. ;0)
either he's gay or he very much wants the people on this site to be focused on that issue.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#368. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#357)
Alright, you odious, arrogant, sniping, little toad. I'm pulling out the guns. I actually have a wide circle of friends and have several gay male friends and have worked in businesses, because of my interests, that included large numbers of gay men. These men had no reason to lie to me, and indeed, when they were not talking to me personally, I would overhear their stories anyway. I am reporting what I have been TOLD and what I have HEARD. This is called R E A L I T Y, as opposed to the sniveling cranial drip you are oozing onto the website. I will not tolerate you calling me a liar. You have made far too many assumptions about me, you annoying little guttersnipe and I think my conversations with you are at an end.
#369. To: mehitable (#366)
Mehitable, This is EXACTLY what evolution is all about, and YOU try to ignore it. It shows CLEARLY that evolution IS an on-going process, and it shows the path of that progress as it regresses in time. It shows a VERY meaningful evolution from large feral wolves to domesticatable animals, and a dramatic change that forced the categorization of a completely new species. Dogs are MAMMALS, Spiders are INSECTS, mehitable, they are not closely related at all. Spiders HAVE indeed evolved over time, but not into mammals. Your ignorance of the world around you is quite impressive, Mehitable. Look at the common beetle... there are now over 350,000 DIFFERENT SPECIES of beetles. Just of beetles. You probably were unaware that we share 98% of the same genetic material with ALL primates, and even you have to see that THAT is a pretty STRONG correlation. As for your question: "Is there any kind of logic or process or methodology to this evolution??? You don't know. Neither do I." I actually DO know. There is no logical process or methodology to evolution. Genetic mutations take place, and those that suit the furtherance of the propogation of the species are carried on to the next generation, there is no "grand design" at work in the background, just adaptation of the species. When you make such glaringly ignorant statements like: "What evolution is actually about is the progression from very small, low order animals through some alleged mutation process to develop into progressively more advanced animals" you show that you really have NO concept of what evolution is, even though it has been explained to you clearly a half a dozen times on this thread alone. Remember, Mehitable, it is better to be THOUGHT a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. You have opened your mouth far too many times and proved yourself a fool on this topic time and time again.
Obviously it doesn't matter whether dogs and wolves are related to each other or one came from the other. That's not what evolution is actually about.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#370. To: mehitable (#366)
Mehitable, No one has any factual answer to that question at this time, it remains a mystery. Your claim that your imaginary friend did it all is as unbelievably ridiculous as anything I could put forth. However, with life in the present day, my science has your imaginary friend theory beat hands down without even trying. Actually, if you want the truth about ALL life... go to http://www.vengaza.org Now THERE is something you can put your faith in!
Until you have to explain what created that very first spark of life from which everything else "evolved".
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#371. To: mehitable (#368)
First off, great word choices... I like "odious" in particular! Uh, but I never called you a liar, just ignorant. There IS a big difference.
I will not tolerate you calling me a liar.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#372. To: mehitable (#368)
BOZO the little turd.
You have made far too many assumptions about me, you annoying little guttersnipe and I think my conversations with you are at an end.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#373. To: BTP Holdings (#372)
LOL!!! I know he's a troll, but trolls can sometimes be good in that they force us to focus us our reasoning and communication skills and create better arguments. At any rate, I've scraped him off my shoe, and good riddance :)
#374. To: BTP Holdings (#372)
Wow... BTP, It seems that all you do is call people names... you called me a bozo, a turd, a troll... yet you contribute nothing to the discussion. You could read other threads if this one displeases you so, you realize, don't you?
BOZO the little turd.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#375. To: mehitable (#373)
Yeah, and I usually do not waste my time since these types only repeat over and over and over the same BS. According to them, you are wrong, and they are right, no matter how thoroughly you happen to refute them. The last time I had a face to face with a creep like that I bitch slapped him so hard he cried. No shit!
he's a troll, but trolls can sometimes be good in that they force us to focus us our reasoning and communication skills and create better arguments.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#376. To: BTP Holdings (#375)
Yes, I see the same thing with the FLs of the world - they repeat the same things over and over. Frankly, I think FL has evolved into a parrot.
#377. To: mehitable (#373)
And what is even more remarkable is he don't even know I can't see what he posts. So he is just whistling in the wind. ROTFLOL!
BOZO the little turd.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#378. To: mehitable (#376)
That is an insult to the parrot. ;0)
Frankly, I think FL has evolved into a parrot.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#379. To: BTP Holdings (#375)
Please, show me where you refuted the position I have put forth. No, please... I like to see you struggle. You call ME a troll, yet all you manage to do is call names, ROFL.
According to them, you are wrong, and they are right, no matter how thoroughly you happen to refute them.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#380. To: Feynman Lives! (#379)
I retract my welcome. You can find a group of EvolBots of like mind and habit over on FR. Seek out Junior, VadeRetro and PatrickHenry and you will feel much better. While equally wrong but not quite so abusive, they will agree with you.
#381. To: Phaedrus (#380)
Was wondering ;)
I retract my welcome.
#382. To: Phaedrus (#380)
Uh, what is FR? Just askin' Oh, and for the record, I feel just fine right now, but I do appreciate your concern for my well being.
over on FR. Seek out Junior, VadeRetro and PatrickHenry and you will feel much better.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest