Athiests will enjoy this

[o0_Sithid_0o]

Sense when did you give a damn about or actually follow the rules AB? Remind me again how many times youve been banned here and how many times Courageous has been banned here.

Oh and wtf is with your " i know all, here ill impress you with nifty statistics and big words" shit? Methinks you use wiki a bit too much.

Anywho, I didnt watch the entire vid, i got sick of the stupid questions but what I did see of it I found interesting.

 

[Jarrod]

"If God doesn't exist, then how come almost every religion refers to God as a male?"
"If God doesn't exist, how do you explain intuition?"
"How can you believe in extra-terrestrial beings of higher intelligence, and not believe in God?"

I was waiting for dumber questions.
"If God doesnt exist, should I have hamburgers today?"
"If we have the Pink Unicorn, why can't we have the toilet monster? At least we can smell that one"
"If god was a male, how large was his weener?"

All in all I think the guy did a great job of not just blasting out "dude... wtf kind of question is that??!!?" to most of the stuff. He did a great job answering as well.

 

[Jarrod]

You dont tell someone above you how to do their job or go over their head. It's like going up to your boss, and telling him if he doesnt like how you do your job, than to take it up with HIS boss. Try doing that sometime and see what happens.

I have done that on more than one occassion. The higher ups thanked me for bringing it to their attention and dealt with him accordingly.

 

[Radwen]

Sense when did you give a damn about or actually follow the rules AB? Remind me again how many times youve been banned here and how many times Courageous has been banned here.

Oh and wtf is with your " i know all, here ill impress you with nifty statistics and big words" shit? Methinks you use wiki a bit too much.

Anywho, I didnt watch the entire vid, i got sick of the stupid questions but what I did see of it I found interesting.

If you want people to read your post seriously, at least use Since and not Sense.

 

[o0_Sithid_0o]

Yay for you Radwen, now take your place with the rest of the grammar Nazis.

 

[Radwen]

Ok, I suggest you also kill yourself.
Back on topic please.

 

[shrundowr]

Sense when did you give a damn about or actually follow the rules AB? Remind me again how many times youve been banned here and how many times Courageous has been banned here.

Since David got fed up and said he might leave starbucks. He's cool and I don't want him to go.

Oh and wtf is with your " i know all, here ill impress you with nifty statistics and big words" shit? Methinks you use wiki a bit too much.

How would wiki help me write that? I had a smart moment, leave it alone, they dont happen often.

 

[Mo Khan]

I have found, on every public demonstration by Richard Dawkins (written or spoken), since the '70s, that he has a condescending sleight of hand method of avoiding direct questions, by trying to discredit the presenter of any logical arguments which are contrary to his own platform. Typically, when he speaks in public, he is surrounded by university students who maintain a cavalier position and feel they are blazing intellectual pathways never before traversed, only to find, one day, that they are on a well beaten path. Dawkins feeds off the carcasses of the young minded intellectuals who gladly fill his auditoriums and support his viewpoints, allowing him to feel a confidence he receives in no other venue.

This appearance is no different. He is presented with people who ask the questions, which, are lacking in intellectual verbose and Dawkins utillizes a superior vocabulary to diminish the questioner or to seize the opportunity to make a joke at the questioner's detriment, furthering his "I'm the smartest guy in the room" swank, allowing him to put down his opposition while at the same time ridiculing them in the intellectual forum. I have yet to witness his appearance in a room where he is surrounded by equally skilled linguists with a strong background in creationism, to counter both his viewpoints, and his advanced language usage.

The bottom line, regarding evolution vs. creationism, is this:

BOTH ARE TAUTOLOGIES. NEITHER HAVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO WHOLLY SUPPORT THEM nor do they have the same to discredit them.

Now, I present one question...

do you believe in evolution?

 

[Maynza]

I believe survival of the fittest.

 

[shrundowr]

Well even some creationists belive in evolution to some extent.. I mean its a little hard to defy it when certain species have evolved during your lifetime.. the main thing most creationists disagree with is the evolution of MAN.

 

[Mo Khan]

I believe survival of the fittest.

Then I believe you, unfortunately, misunderstand the tautology of evolution. For it is not those who are "fit" who survive, rather it is those who have the most offspring. I will expound:

According to many evolutionary "tree" diagrams, the big cats are, incrementally, at the far end of the feline "branch", implying they "evolved" from the smaller cats. Based on the assumption of only the "fittest" surviving, that would result in the extinction of all small cats, becasue they are not the "fittest" of the species. This, empirically, is not the case. We all know small cats exist and have avoided extinction, and yet the more "fit" of the feline thread, the big cats, exist as well.

- hmmmm, interesting huh?​

 

[Mo Khan]

Well even some creationists belive in evolution to some extent.. I mean its a little hard to defy it when certain species have evolved during your lifetime.. the main thing most creationists disagree with is the evolution of MAN.

What you refer to is labeled as theistic evolution. It is typically defined as the fence riders' position, implying that the Designer employs evolution as the prefered method for creation.

As far as evolution witnessed in my lifetime? Um... *looks around*... where??? Could you illuminate the exact species that have evolved during my lifetime, 'cus I don't see any.

 

[Maynza]

Then I believe you, unfortunately, misunderstand the tautology of evolution. For it is not those who are "fit" who survive, rather it is those who have the most offspring. I will expound:

According to many evolutionary "tree" diagrams, the big cats are, incrementally, at the far end of the feline "branch", implying they "evolved" from the smaller cats. Based on the assumption of only the "fittest" surviving, that would result in the extinction of all small cats, becasue they are not the "fittest" of the species. This, empirically, is not the case. We all know small cats exist and have avoided extinction, and yet the more "fit" of the feline thread, the big cats, exist as well.

- hmmmm, interesting huh?​

Not really, what you posted makes no sense and shows that you lack an understanding of survival of the fittest.

It is not fittest in the physical sense, although it could be. It is the fittest to survive in a given environment. If for example, a species were in an evironment where they were constantly hunted and devoured, then the fittest in that example would be the one that produces the most offspring and therefore have a better chance of having a surving offspring.

 

[Mo Khan]

Not really, what you posted makes no sense and shows that you lack an understanding of survival of the fittest.

ummmm...I made no sense? ok, no comment.

It is not fittest in the physical sense, although it could be. It is the fittest to survive in a given environment. If for example, a species were in an evironment where they were constantly hunted and devoured, then the fittest in that example would be the one that produces the most offspring and therefore have a better chance of having a surving offspring.

So, based on your statement, you don't believe there are small cats roaming the plains of Africa, or the jungles of South America, or the mountains of North America, or the jungles of South East Asia...side by side with the lions, cheetahs, jaguars, panthers, tigers, bobcats, and lynx, all surviving in equitable environments?

And, wouldn't your statement further imply that if a given species were the "fittest" and they hunted and devoured all "less than fit" species, would they not eventually cause the extinction of the "less fit species" and stand alone as the "supremely fit species", above all others? You see, this logic justifies my previous statement:

It is the species, which can create the offspring, that survives. High offspring count offsets "fitness" allowing less than "fit" species to maintain existance.

 

[shrundowr]

What you refer to is labeled as theistic evolution. It is typically defined as the fence riders' position, implying that the Designer employs evolution as the prefered method for creation.

As far as evolution witnessed in my lifetime? Um... *looks around*... where??? Could you illuminate the exact species that have evolved during my lifetime, 'cus I don't see any.

I don't know the name, some fish. There was this christian chick I liked. I was trying to make her see other possibilities, so I had her research evolution (much to the dismay of her parents) and she found out about it. The bad thing is it sorta backfired, and now she belives sorta what you said about evolution existing, but God controlling it.

 

[Maynza]

No, because survival of the fittest does not cross species.

That is why you can have big cats side by side with small ones. They are different species.

 

[TheOutkastDev]

Off topic is permitted in starbucks. It says so. Perhaps you should take it up with Ryan?

C//

Good news! You don't have to listen to me anymore (not that you ever did.) I have convinced ASayre to let me return to the obscurity of a normal forum user.

 

[Maynza]

Good news! You don't have to listen to me anymore (not that you ever did.) I have convinced ASayre to let me return to the obscurity of a normal forum user.

High-five welcome back to the peon ranks.

 

[WarAngel]

Good news! You don't have to listen to me anymore (not that you ever did.) I have convinced ASayre to let me return to the obscurity of a normal forum user.

We love you anyway. <3

 

[Joeku]

I have found, on every public demonstration by Richard Dawkins (written or spoken), since the '70s, that he has a condescending sleight of hand method of avoiding direct questions, by trying to discredit the presenter of any logical arguments which are contrary to his own platform. Typically, when he speaks in public, he is surrounded by university students who maintain a cavalier position and feel they are blazing intellectual pathways never before traversed, only to find, one day, that they are on a well beaten path. Dawkins feeds off the carcasses of the young minded intellectuals who gladly fill his auditoriums and support his viewpoints, allowing him to feel a confidence he receives in no other venue.

This appearance is no different. He is presented with people who ask the questions, which, are lacking in intellectual verbose and Dawkins utillizes a superior vocabulary to diminish the questioner or to seize the opportunity to make a joke at the questioner's detriment, furthering his "I'm the smartest guy in the room" swank, allowing him to put down his opposition while at the same time ridiculing them in the intellectual forum. I have yet to witness his appearance in a room where he is surrounded by equally skilled linguists with a strong background in creationism, to counter both his viewpoints, and his advanced language usage.

The bottom line, regarding evolution vs. creationism, is this:

BOTH ARE TAUTOLOGIES. NEITHER HAVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO WHOLLY SUPPORT THEM nor do they have the same to discredit them.

Now, I present one question...

do you believe in evolution?

While I stand on the Creationist side, this is what I believe.

Of course Christianity is supposed to take a measure of faith anyway - I have seen a lot of evidence for it, though nothing can prove the absolute existence of a supernatural deity.

P.S. Evolution: of course I believe in it, to some extent. Otherwise, we humans (and other animals) wouldn't have differing physical features - though I can understand the domestication and evolution of a dog (originating from a wolf, right?), I can't seem to bring myself to grasp the concept of a fish becoming a pig which becomes a monkey which becomes a human... they are too dissimilar.