Spartan Swill
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

The Swill Bin evolution thread

+2
AnomanderRake
Cameron
6 posters

Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-01-31, 20:57

We have a thread about religion and challenging religious dogma. It's only fair that religious people have a thread to challenge evolution. I recognize that the two subjects often become intertwined, but I find that unnecessary, so in the interest of keeping the two topics separate, I've started this thread. Only time will tell if this is a futile effort on my part.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-01-31, 21:36

Antineoplastons wrote:
Cameron wrote:I was hoping for a religious person who wasn't obviously crazy to participate in this discussion, but you make do with what you've got, I suppose...

(Also, I am realizing as I write this post that this thread is dangerously close turning into a full on debate about evolution, which would be a matter for a separate thread as evolution is not a religion. So after this post I will probably attempt to refrain from discussing evolution to focus on the topic at hand, and I would encourage others to do the same.)



RE: Law of Biogenesis, since you keep bringing it up. http://asktheatheist.com/?tag=law-of-biogenesis That link explains it more clearly than I probably could. If you look into the elemental composition of the universe, and then compare it to the elemental composition of biological life here on earth, you see that (aside from Helium) the most common elements in the universe are the most common elements in biological life, in similar ratios.

RE: Organized Religion vs. actually reading and understanding the Bible, I take it that you believe the the Bible is literally true and the inerrant word of the creator of the universe? I hope so, that's easier to argue against than someone who picks and chooses which parts they believe.



This has already been responded to, but I'll reiterate. Calling humans the "end of the chain" and wondering why monkeys still exists demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not directed and it's not on a path. Humans are not the end, but merely a step in the ongoing process. Monkeys still exist because why the fuck wouldn't they? We didn't come from rhesus macaques, they didn't become human. Common ancestor. Not that complicated.

"Also if everything is just random, how is it that each individual human has their own DNA?" I'm not sure I understand the question. You think all humans should have exactly the same DNA?



I would like to draw a parallel between Karl being unable to comprehend the nature of infinity and people who doubt evolution being unable to comprehend the effects of time on a massive scale and the vastness of the universe creating (possibly) infinite habitable planets for life to have a chance to take hold on. At a certain point, if they aren't comprehending, they won't ever. It's as sad as it is frustrating, really.



Humans will continue the process of evolution if the species continues to survive. I can't imagine we'd grow wings, as we'd have to evolve many other adaptations (hollow bones, to name one) in addition to wings to get any benefit from them.

The Big Bang is not incompatible with deism. It would contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible, obviously.

Atheism takes no stance on the afterlife, per se, insofar as a god is not necessary for some sort of afterlife. Though I would imagine that most athiests (myself included) probably do not believe in any sort of afterlife either.



"... why some apes become humans while others remain apes?" Humans ARE apes. All apes living today share a common ancestor at some point in the past. That common ancestor does not still exist in the same form as it did then. That's not how evolution works. Now apply that to the rest of that nonsense paragraph about super-humans enslaving regular humans or whatever you're on about.

Law of Biogenesis addressed above.



How very patronizing. "Gay people, we are only making you feel bad about who you are and trying to prevent you from achieving equality because we know what's best for you better than you do, because God told us." That's what you're effectively saying. Asinine.

Starts out his reply with an insult.  Tells me I'm on the right path

I call 'em like I see 'em.

" If you look into the elemental composition of the universe, and then compare it to the elemental composition of biological life here on earth, you see that (aside from Helium) the most common elements in the universe are the most common elements in biological life, in similar ratios."

Yeah, and?  Carbon is an element found in both the universe and in biological life here on earth.  You know what else is made out of carbon?  Rocks.  Are you saying you consider rocks to be living things?

You profoundly misunderstand my point. I had thought it to be self-evident, but now I'm struggling to articulate it, so the problem probably lies with me here. Let me try to rephrase.

If biological life consisted mostly of sulfur and plutonium (and the elemental composition of the universe as a whole was the same as it actually is), then I would find the idea of directed evolution or intelligent design more compelling. I find it interesting and compelling that the most abundant elements in the universe are also (except for helium) the most abundant elements in known biological life. To me, it does not strain credulity to think that, given the right conditions and enough time, simple organic compounds could interact and become complex enough to form a single celled organism. Once you have that, I consider the rest of the process to be fairly well understood. Not by you, of course, but still.

"RE: Organized Religion vs. actually reading and understanding the Bible, I take it that you believe the the Bible is literally true and the inerrant word of the creator of the universe? I hope so, that's easier to argue against than someone who picks and chooses which parts they believe."

Yes, I'm not part of a phony religion that considers a man coming back from the dead and being lifted into the Heavens to be literal but not the story of Noah.  Plenty of evidence that the world was wiped out by a cataclysmic event such as a flood.  

"This has already been responded to, but I'll reiterate. Calling humans the "end of the chain" and wondering why monkeys still exists demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not directed and it's not on a path. Humans are not the end, but merely a step in the ongoing process. Monkeys still exist because why the fuck wouldn't they? We didn't come from rhesus macaques, they didn't become human. Common ancestor. Not that complicated."

Ahhh ok so I'm the crazy person, not somebody who thinks in 1 Million years from now humans will biologically turn into something superior than what they currently are.  Please give me your opinion as to what this superior being will look and act like?.  Will they be mightier or inferior than what will exist in a million years based on the technology that will be in existence by that time?  Or will you have a convenient excuse and say that the natural evolution of living beings was stomped out due to the interference of transhumanism?  Because that seems like a fucking god damn GREAT excuse!!!

I believe that you have demonstrated yourself to be a crazy person throughout your posting career, yes.

And I don't think I ever asserted that in 1 million years humans will turn into something biologically superior to what we currently are. It won't take nearly that long. Now, if you're asking how long it will take for humans to evolve into a new species, that I don't know. But I feel that the species is improving over time, and I think that's actually measurable in very concrete ways (world records in track and field, average height/weight, that sort of thing).

I'm not well-informed on transhumanism, so I won't comment on that. (Hell, I'm not even really that well-informed on evolution, just compared to you...) As for predicting the evolutionary path of the human species, that's a bit beyond my knowledge. If my admitting that makes you feel as if you've scored some sort of point against evolution, good for you. You'd be wrong, but good for you.

Regarding DNA...our genetic code works exactly like a computer program.  A liver code would have no need to be connected with a neuron code.  All of our cells carry a copy of the genomes so there is a system in place that uses if-then flow systems just like computer programmers. The parallel is that a creator would have been needed to program our DNA much like any computer program would require a programmer.  It's awesomely ironic that science ( DNA ) is available to contradict atheism!!

You are missing a bit of logic here. Computer programs are man-made. By definition, they have a creator. The same logic does not, ipso facto, apply to DNA. Why must DNA have a creator? I don't see any logical basis for that assertion.

"I would like to draw a parallel between Karl being unable to comprehend the nature of infinity and people who doubt evolution being unable to comprehend the effects of time on a massive scale and the vastness of the universe creating (possibly) infinite habitable planets for life to have a chance to take hold on. At a certain point, if they aren't comprehending, they won't ever. It's as sad as it is frustrating, really."

The exact same insult can be made of atheists.  If I wanted to be like you and go this route I'd say I gave you clear evidence of DNA being something that should completely discredit the notion that we not created by a higher being, yet I also have no doubt you will dismiss this and still believe you were created by a rock

You did not give me clear evidence. You made an unsupported assertion. And I don't believe that I was created by a rock, nor did I ever say so. I was not "created" by anything or anyone other than my parents, and I would argue that created is not the correct word there.

"Humans ARE apes. All apes living today share a common ancestor at some point in the past. That common ancestor does not still exist in the same form as it did then. That's not how evolution works. Now apply that to the rest of that nonsense paragraph about super-humans enslaving regular humans or whatever you're on about."

So Darwin, the guy who discovered this theory you subscribe to, was lying when he said we evolved from monkeys and not apes?  

Link? I am open to the possibility that I'm not aware of some quote of Darwin's or what have you, but I'm also not confident that you have a greater understanding than I of Darwin's theory, nor am I confident that you are capable of accurately paraphrasing him.


Let me break it down in simple terms.  Here is what proponents of the THEORY of evolution believe.  That the survival of an evolutionary line is dependent upon the ability of its members to live and reproduce in their environment.  This is your belief, correct?  So please let me know how you are able to reconcile your promotion of the homosexual agenda with your beliefs that our species can only survive with reproduction?  homosexuality is NOT compatible with your views on NATURAL selection.  So either way you're a hypocrite....which way?  well I'll let you decide.  

What it comes down to, in THEORY ( you know, things you fully believe in like Evolution, Gravity, etc..) you would just fine with the human population not surviving because if you think it's ok for people to be gay, then you'd have to be ok with 100% of the population being gay.  Your belief system in essence says it's ok to destroy the human species, NATURAL selection, entirely because of something that is UNNATURAL

The theory of evolution is not a system of ethics or morality. That's important to note. It takes no stand on whether homosexuality (or any other trait) is "right" or "wrong."

Homosexuality as a trait does not have any clear evolutionary advantage (though there may well be some advantages that are not readily apparent). Not all mutations that end up getting selected for are beneficial. Some non-beneficial traits can end up being inextricably linked to other traits that are beneficial and may get propagated for that reason. Some negative traits may decrease fitness, but not to the point of death or inability to reproduce, and may persist simply because they are not fatal. Whether or not this is the case with homosexuality is beyond my knowledge.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-01, 09:17

Cameron you're probably wasting your time but I appreciate the effort, this is a great post.

You'll find as with most arguments here that any response will be riddled with logical fallacies.
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-02-02, 18:44

Antineoplastons wrote:I haven't taken the time to figure out the quote within a quote function, so I'll just copy and past each point and respond:

"If biological life consisted mostly of sulfur and plutonium (and the elemental composition of the universe as a whole was the same as it actually is), then I would find the idea of directed evolution or intelligent design more compelling. I find it interesting and compelling that the most abundant elements in the universe are also (except for helium) the most abundant elements in known biological life. To me, it does not strain credulity to think that, given the right conditions and enough time, simple organic compounds could interact and become complex enough to form a single celled organism. Once you have that, I consider the rest of the process to be fairly well understood. Not by you, of course, but still." -Cameron

A quick google search about the elemental composition of the universe reveals:

"Hydrogen is more plentiful than any other element, making up about 3/4 the mass of the universe. Helium is second, making up almost all of the remaining 25%"

So your "exception" basically includes half of the 2 primary elements in the universe. If you want to say that 25% isn't close to 75% then I'll note that the number of elements found in humans not found in the universe is higher than 25% (37%)

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus"

For your correlation/comparison to be apt I'd expect to find more than just 1 of the 6 major elements being found in both.

The reason that helium is the exception stems from this: "Of all the elements of the periodic table, helium is the least reactive. It does not react with water, acids, halogens, bases or air." https://www.reference.com/science/helium-reactive-5ae11cf608920460#

"I'll note that the number of elements found in humans not found in the universe is higher than 25% (37%)"

Umm, what? Did you switch some words around or something here? Name me a single element that is found in humans that is not found elsewhere in the universe. I must not be understanding what you're trying to say here.

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus"

I feel that this supports my point. Those elements are among the most abundant elements in the universe. There's a table on wikipedia I wish I knew how to paste into this post. Here's a link to the section of the article containing the table, that will have to suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Elemental_abundance_and_nuclear_binding_energy


"You are missing a bit of logic here. Computer programs are man-made. By definition, they have a creator. The same logic does not, ipso facto, apply to DNA. Why must DNA have a creator? I don't see any logical basis for that assertion."

You don't see any logic in it but computer programmers do.  Are you a computer programmer by chance?

Just one example..."I had some fun coming up with some analogies between DNA and cell vs. programs, algorithms, and computers. Here is my best shot at it. It is meant as a broad overview. In this sense, DNA could be seen as the programming language used to encode the algorithm (i.e., the recipe) for creating life. The computer executing the program would be the "intracellular space" of a living cell, which can only execute programs written in the DNA language as it is equipped with all of the components required to recognize and interpret only that language (i.e., the cell is only responsive to the DNA chemical structure). The algorithm implemented by the DNA program is the complex process of gene expression. This algorithm dictates which genes should be sequentially turned on and off. Some of the expressed genes in the sequence result in the creation of protein strands, other genes result in the creation of auxiliary non-protein encoding molecules (we used to call the latter "junk DNA", till researchers recently found out what they are actually responsible for). The non-protein encoding molecules are used to both bind smaller protein strands into larger ones as well as to signal which genes should be expressed next in the sequence. Each algorithms results in a unique organism. It could be a banana, or a butterfly, or a delicious green tea leaf, or a beautiful baby. Changes to the encoded algorithm result in changes to the program output. Viruses are like hackers. They attempt to infiltrate the computer, i.e. the "intracellular space" of cells, with the goal of ingesting their own DNA programs into it. This causes their programs to be roguely executed by the infected computer, i.e. the cell. The algorithm implemented by the virus's DNA program is a replica(s) of itself. This generally ends up very badly for both the computer (i.e, the cell) and its owner (i.e., the host): the cell explodes to release the virus’ replicas while the host has to deal with a spreading viral attack.

These are intelligent algorithms rather than random instructions, otherwise we obviously wouldn't be here. In computing terms, even random search as theorized by evolution is an algorithm itself, it requires causality to work (i.e., your DNA sequence doesn't decay into something else, your electrons hold their charges, etc…). It takes a mind to create a programming language (DNA), a recipe book (DNA encoded algorithms), and a computer to interpret these (the cell). They never write or create themselves."

Seems like the parallels between the 2 are quite astounding in this programmer's opinion.  Doesn't sound random in the least...

I understand the analogy. In many ways, it is quite elegant. It still does not present adequate logical basis for the assertion that DNA requires a creator. It is clear to me that we will not see eye to eye on this. But I don't take lessons in evolution from computer programmers. I don't take lessons in computer programming from evolutionary biologists either.

"You did not give me clear evidence. You made an unsupported assertion. And I don't believe that I was created by a rock, nor did I ever say so. I was not "created" by anything or anyone other than my parents, and I would argue that created is not the correct word there."

But your "clear" evidence in your example is " the vastness of the universe creating (possibly) infinite habitable planets for life to have a chance to take hold on..".  Why is Earth the only planet that is habitable even though there are supposedly 7 or 8 other planets nearby Earth?  Show me evidence of your assertion ( something that doesn't involve the words "possibly" right next to "infinite" lol..)  Oh wait, Bowie wrote a song about Life on Mars so it must be true!!

I qualified the word infinity because I'm not aware that it has been incontrovertibly proven that the universe is in fact infinite. But I know that some models of the universe do postulate that it is such.

I did not say that Earth was the only planet that is habitable. In fact, I said the opposite. If the universe is infinite, then there are infinitely many habitable planets. As for why the other planets in our solar system don't have life on them, the answer is so obvious that I'm not going to bother typing it. From the way you worded things, it seems like you may even doubt the existence of the other planets in our solar system ("supposedly"). If that is the case, it would be a waste of my time to discuss them at any length.

"Link? I am open to the possibility that I'm not aware of some quote of Darwin's or what have you, but I'm also not confident that you have a greater understanding than I of Darwin's theory, nor am I confident that you are capable of accurately paraphrasing him." - Cameron

"The Simieade then branched off into two great stems, The New World and Old World MONKEYS, and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the Wonder and Glory of the Universe, proceeded" - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man Chapter 6

Okay. This is merely a simple semantic issue. He didn't say, as you asserted, that man "evolved from monkeys and not apes."

"The distinction between apes and monkeys is complicated by the traditional paraphyly of monkeys: Apes emerged as a sister group of Old World Monkeys in the catarrhines, which are a sister group of New World Monkeys. Therefore, cladistically, apes, catarrhines and related contemporary extinct groups such as Parapithecidaea are monkeys as well, for any consistent definition of "monkey". "Old World Monkey" may also legitimately be taken to be meant to include all the catarrhines, including apes and extinct species such as Aegyptopithecus,[4] in which case the apes, Cercopithecoidea and Aegyptopithecus emerged within the Old World Monkeys." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World_monkey#Classification

Homosexuals can't naturally "reproduce IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT", a tenet of the theory of evolution of which the survival of species is incumbent upon.  

You intentionally misquoted me to make it sound like I don't think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.  The irony is that one of the few crossovers between evolution and creationism is that negative aspects of homosexuality are involved in both.  If people are born that way, fine, of course they should have the same rights but the agenda in its PROMOTION is a great cause of concern.  And you want to know how bad it's gotten?  Even the rapping/hip hop community, the last place I'd expect homosexuality to be promoted, is experiencing it in huge numbers....


"The irony is that one of the few crossovers between evolution and creationism is that negative aspects of homosexuality are involved in both."

I'm trying to figure out this sentence. Are you equating the religious tenet that homosexuality is an abomination unto the lord with the assertion that homosexuality holds no clear evolutionary advantage? Are those the negative aspects you mean?
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-02-03, 16:08

Antineoplastons wrote:"Name me a single element that is found in humans that is not found elsewhere in the universe. I must not be understanding what you're trying to say here."

I'm talking about as a percentage of the total composition of both.  2 elements make up 99.9%, or the vast amount, of the universe ( carbon and helium ), but humans are comprised of 6 elements.  25% of the elements of the universe are not found in humans, but more than 25% ( I used 37% as a rough number ) of the elements in humans are not found primarily in the universe.  So I would expect more crossover of these elements to make your correlation.  

Where are you getting that carbon and helium make up 99.9% of the universe? That's simply not true.

" It still does not present adequate logical basis for the assertion that DNA requires a creator."  So you believe it's all merely random then.  A rock eventually turned into living beings with intricate systems as complex as computer programs just merely by chance and luck.  To me that seems highly implausible.  Look into Darwin's background.  He was likely a Freemason ( his father and grandfather both were ) just like Newton.  Freemasons are not atheists but rather are Luciferians.  Don't you think it's a little strange that people who believe in Satan would espouse beliefs that try to deny a God when you can't have Satan without God?  

"So you believe it's all merely random then." Yes, I do.

"From the way you worded things, it seems like you may even doubt the existence of the other planets in our solar system ("supposedly"). If that is the case, it would be a waste of my time to discuss them at any length."

NASA is a psy-op hoax that has been robbing this country's citizens to the tune of 20 Billion per year.  NASA= Freemasons.  It's no coincidence most of the astronauts were Freemasons.  It's beyond easy to prove objectively if taken the time to research it.  The heliocentric model was devised because the Freemasons/The Vatican worship the sun god primarily ( amongst others ) and hence want want to rid the world of the knowledge that Earth is the center of the universe as that would prove undoubtedly to the masses of God's existence.  There's a reason EVERY classroom in the US has a globe on the teacher's desk.  There's a reason we've been conditioned to "mock" the people who used to believe in a flat earth even though are senses tell us we are not stuck to a ball spinning a thousand miles an hour while traveling at 66,600( that number look familiar?) miles per hour around the sun.  

As I said, a waste of my time...

"Apes emerged as a sister group of Old World Monkeys in the catarrhines, which are a sister group of New World Monkeys"

Not semantics.  For comparison purposes you came from your mother.  Now your aunt may be similar to your mother but you didn't come from your aunt, you came from your mother.

I have given you all the information needed for you to realize that the point you thought you were trying to make there was actually nothing. If you wish to persist in clinging to it despite this, that's your choice.

"I'm trying to figure out this sentence. Are you equating the religious tenet that homosexuality is an abomination unto the lord with the assertion that homosexuality holds no clear evolutionary advantage? Are those the negative aspects you mean?"

If 100% of the world became gay would the human species be able to survive based on the theory of evolution?  No i wouldn't because they would no longer be able to reproduce.  It's viewed negatively in the Bible for similar reasons, it's an unnatural act and the laws of nature should be followed

Here's a good description.."The Darwinian theory of natural selection argues that the test of the success of a species is to spread the species. As the Wikipedia entry for natural selection states: “Modern evolutionary theory defines “fitness” not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.” Homosexuality, from a Darwinian standpoint, is clearly a disorder. Homosexual acts cannot produce offspring – so gay men and women effectively remove themselves from the gene pool by remaining homosexual."

"It's an unnatural act..."

I don't agree. Homosexuality occurs in nature in many species. I also don't agree with calling homosexuality a disorder (and I'm not entirely sure how doing so "from a Darwinian standpoint" is different from just calling it that generally, Darwin didn't have his own personal definition of "disorder" as far as I'm aware).

I've already conceded that homosexuality has no clear evolutionary advantage, and I've also discussed a little bit the possible reasons homosexuality persists despite decreasing evolutionary fitness. If your goal is to force me to take a moral stand against homosexuality because of evolution, you're wasting your time. As I've already explained, evolution is not a system of morals or ethics. It is not a religion.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-10, 13:48

Antineoplastons wrote:
Cameron wrote:

Where are you getting that carbon and helium make up 99.9% of the universe? That's simply not true.



"So you believe it's all merely random then." Yes, I do.



As I said, a waste of my time...



I have given you all the information needed for you to realize that the point you thought you were trying to make there was actually nothing. If you wish to persist in clinging to it despite this, that's your choice.



"It's an unnatural act..."

I don't agree. Homosexuality occurs in nature in many species. I also don't agree with calling homosexuality a disorder (and I'm not entirely sure how doing so "from a Darwinian standpoint" is different from just calling it that generally, Darwin didn't have his own personal definition of "disorder" as far as I'm aware).

I've already conceded that homosexuality has no clear evolutionary advantage, and I've also discussed a little bit the possible reasons homosexuality persists despite decreasing evolutionary fitness. If your goal is to force me to take a moral stand against homosexuality because of evolution, you're wasting your time. As I've already explained, evolution is not a system of morals or ethics. It is not a religion.

"Where are you getting that carbon and helium make up 99.9% of the universe? That's simply not true." - Cameron

I meant hydrogen, not carbon.  That meaningless error makes no difference in the point I'm making

OK let's look at it another way....you'll agree rocks don't hold water, right?  So exactly how did the explosion of this space rock create water?  It didn't, and if you believe it did then I should just stop wasting my time right now.  You understand that in the year 2017 where we can create robots we still don't have the ability to create water?  Every experiment combining oxygen and hydrogen results in explosions, look em up online if you don't believe me.  If your original premise is correct ( the things found in the space rock are basically the same found on earth ), then the earth being primarily water kind of completely flushes that idea of yours down the toilet.  

So in addition to how was water created, I'm still waiting to hear an answer as to who created the space rock whose explosion created life....

"So you believe it's all merely random then." Yes, I do." Cameron

LOL, ok.  Amazing how something random can turn out to be 100% correct in its wiring of our DNA that holds the equivalent of 3 BILLION codes that make our the human genome.  Do you think programmers today could create something so uniform out of just random programming?  No, but yet a rock from billions of years ago has this ability lol

"I don't agree. Homosexuality occurs in nature in many species." - Cameron

And monkeys play with their shit, so that would be a "natural" act if humans did the same?

Combining hydrogen and oxygen absolutely does produce water, it also happens to produce explosions but they're not mutually exclusive reactions. When the Hindenburg blimp blew up, the chemical reactions simultaneously created water and burned the blimp to a crisp.

You know there's a giant ocean of water the size of a galaxy sitting out in space right? You know water exists on planets and moons all over our galaxy and universe right? Massive reactions between hydrogen and oxygen create huge amounts of water right along with the explosions.
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-11, 13:07

^ Your lack of understanding of basic science is astounding. Nothing I said proves your point at all. Your condescending attitude in all of your posts is laughable considering how embarrassingly uneducated you are.

First of all the big bang theory is not that a "rock" exploded and created our universe. It actually would have been something more along the lines of a supermassive singularity, containing all of the building blocks of the universe in their most basic sub-atomic forms. After the explosion these subatomic particles combined in various ways to form atomic particles and then ultimately the elements we know today.

The water in space came from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen elements just like water anywhere else, including here on earth. Oxygen is extremely prevalent in the Universe, one of the most abundant elements actually.

Regarding the Hindenburg, the water likely did douse some of the flames but not enough to counter the flames. The fire didn't go out completely because the chemical reactions of explosions and water molecules combining are not necessarily equal, combined with the fact that water just isn't that great at putting out fires without overwhelming amounts. I mean that's like asking why fire fighters couldn't put out a house fire before the whole house burned down...

I want to be very clear here. I do not discount the possibility of intelligent design, as I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist. However, science has shown us that the Universe, if intelligently created was more "set in motion" than created in a static state, or even a state remotely similar to the current universe. Perhaps there is a creator, but given the vastness of the universe and its complexity, I find it impossible to believe that humans of any religion correctly identified and described such an unfathomably powerful being. If such a being exists, we sure as shit are not created in their image, and cannot even begin to understand its motivations for creation/destruction.
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-02-11, 18:44

Antineoplastons wrote:
Cameron wrote:

Where are you getting that carbon and helium make up 99.9% of the universe? That's simply not true.



"So you believe it's all merely random then." Yes, I do.



As I said, a waste of my time...



I have given you all the information needed for you to realize that the point you thought you were trying to make there was actually nothing. If you wish to persist in clinging to it despite this, that's your choice.



"It's an unnatural act..."

I don't agree. Homosexuality occurs in nature in many species. I also don't agree with calling homosexuality a disorder (and I'm not entirely sure how doing so "from a Darwinian standpoint" is different from just calling it that generally, Darwin didn't have his own personal definition of "disorder" as far as I'm aware).

I've already conceded that homosexuality has no clear evolutionary advantage, and I've also discussed a little bit the possible reasons homosexuality persists despite decreasing evolutionary fitness. If your goal is to force me to take a moral stand against homosexuality because of evolution, you're wasting your time. As I've already explained, evolution is not a system of morals or ethics. It is not a religion.

"Where are you getting that carbon and helium make up 99.9% of the universe? That's simply not true." - Cameron

I meant hydrogen, not carbon.  That meaningless error makes no difference in the point I'm making

OK let's look at it another way....you'll agree rocks don't hold water, right?  So exactly how did the explosion of this space rock create water?  It didn't, and if you believe it did then I should just stop wasting my time right now.  You understand that in the year 2017 where we can create robots we still don't have the ability to create water?  Every experiment combining oxygen and hydrogen results in explosions, look em up online if you don't believe me.  If your original premise is correct ( the things found in the space rock are basically the same found on earth ), then the earth being primarily water kind of completely flushes that idea of yours down the toilet.  

So in addition to how was water created, I'm still waiting to hear an answer as to who created the space rock whose explosion created life....

"So you believe it's all merely random then." Yes, I do." Cameron

LOL, ok.  Amazing how something random can turn out to be 100% correct in its wiring of our DNA that holds the equivalent of 3 BILLION codes that make our the human genome.  Do you think programmers today could create something so uniform out of just random programming?  No, but yet a rock from billions of years ago has this ability lol

"I don't agree. Homosexuality occurs in nature in many species." - Cameron

And monkeys play with their shit, so that would be a "natural" act if humans did the same?

"OK let's look at it another way....you'll agree rocks don't hold water, right?  So exactly how did the explosion of this space rock create water?  It didn't, and if you believe it did then I should just stop wasting my time right now."

First of all, what do rocks holding water have to do with evolution (the topic of this thread)? If you want to discuss the big bang, fine, but that's a topic for a different thread. Evolution and the big bang are not linked as you seem to think. Secondly, describing the big bang as the explosion of a space rock absolutely demonstrates your clear lack of understanding of the theory. Rake has already pointed this out, but I think you ought to hear it from multiple people so that it sinks in.

"LOL, ok.  Amazing how something random can turn out to be 100% correct in its wiring of our DNA"

You're putting the cart before the horse here. There wasn't some HUMAN DNA MASTER PLAN before humans, and evolution just happened to get it exactly right. There was no plan, it just happened and now here we are. You seem to still be failing to understand that humans are not the end point of evolution. I'm almost at a loss as to how to explain this to you, as no matter how much I try to simplify it, it still seems to go over your head.

"And monkeys play with their shit, so that would be a 'natural' act if humans did the same?" False equivalence, but yes, it would.


Antineoplastons wrote:
SUPERMASSIVE?  Hmmm, not according to the official definition...."What is the Big Bang Theory?
An unbelievably hot, exceptionally dense mass, only a FEW MILLIMETERS large - that was the composition of the entire universe before the Big Bang. But how could the enormous universe, which our Earth is a part of, have started from a MINUSCULE mass?

Hmmm, supermassive or something a few millimeters and minuscule....??

So how can you claim I have such a lack of "basic understanding" of it when you don't even have the "basic" knowledge of the theory you subscribe to yourself?

http://experimental-origins.weebly.com/big-bang-theory.html

"Oxygen is extremely prevalent in the Universe, one of the most abundant elements actually."

Umm, I guess so if you consider .006% ( the amount found in the Solar System ) to be "abundant"  scratch

"The water in space came from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen elements just like water anywhere else"

If water consists of 1% oxygen and there's only .006% of oxygen found in space how is/was there enough oxygen to create water?

Again straying from evolution, but I can't help but respond. Something can be extremely minuscule and still be super massive. Mass and size are separate attributes. This is extremely basic. Something that is the size of a golf ball but weighs as much as a truck has much more mass than something that is the size of a truck but weighs as much as a golf ball. So something that is minuscule and only a few millimeters large yet contains the entire mass of the universe would be the most super massive thing ever to have existed.

Looking at the percentages of elements seems to do your understanding of the topic at hand more harm than good. Just because oxygen makes up a small percentage of the universe compared to hydrogen doesn't mean that there's a shortage of oxygen. There just a fuck load of extra hydrogen kicking around out there.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Watch Out Pylon! 2017-02-11, 23:34

Antineoplastons wrote:Speaking of the Hindenburg, found out some interesting things as I've never really looked into that event.

"There were 22 photographers present at 7 p.m. May 6, 1937 to film the Hindenburg's arrival (left.) This seems like overkill for an event which had already occurred 20 times in the previous year at the same field without incident. So why would this typical New Jersey airship landing require 22 separate photographers, five of whom were newsreel photographers? "

Interesting point

"But not one of the photographers caught the actual "spark" that led to the "explosion". There was plenty of footage of a large fireball above the airship with a portion of the outer skin opened up. There was footage of the poor souls trying to get away from the burning wreckage. But no one caught the spark."

Lots of photographers/cameramen present, seems strange the spark wouldn't have been caught on film.

Here's the really important stuff regarding hydrogen..

"The biggest problem with the Hindenburg explosion scenario is that Hydrogen, by itself, separated from oxygen as in a sealed gas cell (Hindenburg had 16 separate cells) does not burn. Hydrogen and oxygen need to be combined stoichiometrically. You would take a sample of water, convert it into a gas thus composing two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. This burns with about seven times the amount of energy than an equal weight of petroleum. But only pure hydrogen was in the Hindenburg.

Blatantly striking a match inside a hydrogen fuel cell would do nothing at all except immediately go out (as soon as the oxygen, in solid oxide form, contained within the match head powder was exhausted.) If a static spark ignited Hindenburg, it would have started burning on the outside of the ship's skin where air containing oxygen could have mixed with the hydrogen escaping from a small leak. Even if there was a static electricity spark, as had never occurred in 30 years of successful operation, how would a flame requiring oxygen burn it's way inside the gas cell where there is no oxygen?

The Hindenburg had instruments that would detect and transmit the slightest changes in gas pressure to the bridge, so any sizable leak would have caused a pressure drop almost immediately and would have been detected."

https://www.henrymakow.com/the_case_of_the_hindenberg.html

In your world, what isn't a conspiracy theory?
Watch Out Pylon!
Watch Out Pylon!
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 23330
Join date : 2014-04-30

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-02-14, 04:59

Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-02-14, 21:09

Antineoplastons wrote:"First of all, what do rocks holding water have to do with evolution (the topic of this thread)?"

Isn't the theory you subscribe to that life evolved as a result from the explosion of a rock in space?  I believe you said something about how you believe the elements found in the universe help prove evolution since so many of them ( the elements ) overlap in both the universe and on Earth. If they're not related then who created the space rock since it must have been the first phase of the evolution chain.

I don't know of any theory about the origin of life that involves an exploding space rock. If you are referring to the big bang (again, not the topic of this thread), you are evincing great misunderstanding of that theory. Regardless, evolution is not predicated on the big bang. I don't think I'll be talking about elements any more with you because the point I was trying to demonstrate has failed to make itself clear to you and was not terribly important anyway.

"You seem to still be failing to understand that humans are not the end point of evolution. I'm almost at a loss as to how to explain this to you"  

I've asked you to give me an example of what man will evolve into, and you couldn't even fathom a guess..I assume it will be a completely different species than humans?  Will humans still exist or will they be like monkeys where some evolve and some decide to stay monkeys?  If man is going to evolve into an improved species then why is transhumanism such a big issue?  If we have robots, AI, etc today then how will whatever species humans evolve into be able to compete against that?  I have complete confidence that even if evolution was real, humans would be the last species. If there's a beginning, doesn't there have to be an end as well? It's nonsensical to think anything otherwise given the technology of today and the rate at which this technology exponentially grows...I believe I heard technology is doubling every day ( maybe it's every year, either way that's an enormous amount of technology).  

Humans will continue to evolve, and eventually that will result in an entirely new species (unless we destroy ourselves first). Whether or not humans continue to exist alongside this new species depends on many factors. It could happen that populations of humans become isolated from one another (for example, if we colonize another planet) and the two populations could diverge from each other significantly enough that they can no longer produce fertile offspring. I could guess how humans will evolve, but what point would that serve? It would be only a guess, and we'd have no way of verifying it's accuracy anyway.

Regarding transhumanism, why is it such a big issue? You're the only one talking about transhumanism. Again, the topic of the thread is evolution. You seem to feel that transhumanism and evolution are somehow related, but you've not elucidated that connection sufficiently for me to really understand the point you're trying to make.

"If there is a beginning, doesn't there have to be an end as well?" No, there doesn't. Change is constant and unceasing. Evolution is change.

"So something that is minuscule and only a few millimeters large yet contains the entire mass of the universe would be the most super massive thing ever to have existed." lol come on man...

massive - consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy:

large and heavy-looking:

Since this was all a random event, I assume there must have been a lot of these minuscule rocks floating around in space that also contained the entire mass of the universe and one of them just happened to explode, right?  I can't even imagine what the odds would be for this random explosion to have occurred in the ONE and ONLY rock that held the entire universe....so therefore if another one of these rocks also exploded would we have 2 separate universes?  2 Earths inside 2 solar systems or something...?

We're not talking about the dictionary definition of the word massive. Mass is a scientific term with a specific meaning, Being massive in the context of this discussion means the quality of having mass, it does not refer to size. You do understand that a bowling ball and a beach ball of equal size have different masses, yes? And I'm not sure why you are so fixated on rocks being a part of this, they aren't. NO ROCKS. But whatever word you use, recognize that there was only one of them (hence the term singularity).

"Just because oxygen makes up a small percentage of the universe compared to hydrogen doesn't mean that there's a shortage of oxygen. There just a fuck load of extra hydrogen kicking around out there."

For the amount of water on earth there'd have to be a fuck load of oxygen....and if even the tiny amount of oxygen in the solar system was enough to create all the water on/inside Earth, why isn't there water on any other planets that would presumably also have been created out of the same big bang that brought all this water to earth.  Or pools of water large enough as oceans floating around the universe....


There is a fuck load of oxygen. And I think that we have found evidence of water on other planets in our own solar system (in the form of ice). Being that you're a flat earth guy, I doubt that you would be receptive to that evidence so I won't trouble myself to find it for you.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-14, 22:35

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20110722.html

Two teams of astronomers have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away.

Space oceans bro, space oceans.
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-14, 22:55

https://www.fastcompany.com/1769468/scientists-discover-oldest-largest-body-water-existence-space

AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-15, 13:30

Antineoplastons wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20110722.html



Space oceans bro, space oceans.

Let me guess, you also believe the stars you can see from outside your window at night are 4 QUADRILLION miles away?

Stars and galaxies visible to the human eye are only up to a few million light years away. Beyond that we need a telescope with a much larger aperture to gather enough light over an extended exposure time.

You should consider spending more of your time reading about science instead of conspiracy theories. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll and can't possibly be this stupid.

Also how would you like to transfer your life savings to me? Certified check would be preferred. Thanks.

AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-15, 15:57

^ What's your point exactly? All I did was clarify how far away the human eye can see celestial bodies. Never argued with your 4 quadrillion mile number because I didn't care to do the math, and miles are rarely discussed in Astronomy.

Speculating the size of the point of origin for the big bang is pointless semantics. It's supermassive because it literally contained all of the mass of the universe. I never made any claims about its physical size, in fact I referred to it as a supermassive singularity which inherently suggests a single point of extreme and immeasurable density. Modern discoveries in quantum mechanics have brought a lot of questions about the characteristics of the initial singularity but again, it's pointless semantics here.

Let's be honest. You're just pissed that you didn't understand the difference between mass and weight when reading my original post.
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-02-15, 18:57

Antineoplastons wrote:
"I don't know of any theory about the origin of life that involves an exploding space rock. If you are referring to the big bang (again, not the topic of this thread), you are evincing great misunderstanding of that theory. Regardless, evolution is not predicated on the big bang. I don't think I'll be talking about elements any more with you because the point I was trying to demonstrate has failed to make itself clear to you and was not terribly important anyway."

Of course I'm referring to the big bang.  Fine, I'll refer to it a solid mass a few millimeters in length if you'd prefer.  

So who/what created this solid mass a few millimeters in length in your opinion?  That will be my last question on the topic since you think we're not getting anywhere.

I don't know who/what created the singularity. I know who/what it was NOT: the God of Abraham. That's enough for me for now. I have seen theories that postulate that the big bang is a cyclical process (they might call it something other than the big bang in theories like this, I'm not overly familiar), that the universe continually expands, then collapses on itself and forms a singularity, then another expansion, on and on forever without beginning or end. I'm not convinced that this theory is true, but I do find it interesting. It could also be true that there is something that could rightly be called "god" that created the singularity and set everything in motion. But if that is the case, I highly doubt that we are created in the image of that "god," nor do I find it likely that that "god" is something any human could ever hope to know or interact with in any meaningful way.

You guessing what humans will evolve into what matter, I'm just curious what you think humans will evolve into as somebody who believes this unequivocally will happen.

"Regarding transhumanism, why is it such a big issue? You're the only one talking about transhumanism. Again, the topic of the thread is evolution"

On this board, perhaps.  But MANY people are not just talking about it but setting it into motion.  And it directly relates to evolution as the end result of transhumanism will directly interfere with the natural evolutionary process.  Not saying we shouldn't embrace technological advances but if you are a proponent of evolution taking its course then you should also be against the philosophy of transhumanism.

I''m not sure I agree that transhumanism will "interfere" with the evolutionary process. It could impact it, just as I'm sure many technological and medical advances have changed the course of evolution. Being that it's not a directed process, these changes in course are not inherently problematic. Depending on what shape transhumanism takes as time progresses, it could well be that certain traits are beneficial in obtaining the maximum benefits of transhumanism, and those traits would then naturally be selected for. So I don't find any compelling evolutionary reason to oppose transhumanism. Evolution is not my religion, I don't have any vested interest in it continuing on into the future in the exact same form that it has existed in the past. That's a rather strange notion, frankly.

"We're not talking about the dictionary definition of the word massive. Mass is a scientific term with a specific meaning, Being massive in the context of this discussion means the quality of having mass, it does not refer to size. You do understand that a bowling ball and a beach ball of equal size have different masses, yes? And I'm not sure why you are so fixated on rocks being a part of this, they aren't. NO ROCKS. But whatever word you use, recognize that there was only one of them (hence the term singularity)."

Fine.  I would bet my life savings that AR wasn't aware it was only a few millimeters in length but no need to carry on any further.

"There is a fuck load of oxygen."

Enough to create a pool of water "140 TRILLIONS TIMES all the water in the world's oceans"?  If oxygen is .005% of the composition of the universe then yeah, I'm calling bullshit on there being enough oxygen to create this much water.  And why is it so far away ( 12 BILLION light years.)?  If there's enough oxygen in the universe to create as much water on earth as we have, shouldn't there be similarly large pools of water floating around near Mars or Venus? ( ever wonder why all the planets are named after ancient gods btw???)

You can call bullshit all you want, all that makes you is wrong.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-15, 23:40

Not to mention water is fucking everywhere in the Universe...I just used the largest space ocean discovered so far as an example because it shows how pervasive water was 12 billion years ago near the center of the universe.

We have discovered water all over our solar system already, it's in the soil on Mars...comets are made of water in the form of ice, combined with rock, dust, frozen gases...Jupiter's moon Europa has more water than Earth even.
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-16, 15:13

Antineoplastons wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:^ What's your point exactly? All I did was clarify how far away the human eye can see celestial bodies. Never argued with your 4 quadrillion mile number because I didn't care to do the math, and miles are rarely discussed in Astronomy.

Speculating the size of the point of origin for the big bang is pointless semantics. It's supermassive because it literally contained all of the mass of the universe. I never made any claims about its physical size, in fact I referred to it as a supermassive singularity which inherently suggests a single point of extreme and immeasurable density. Modern discoveries in quantum mechanics have brought a lot of questions about the characteristics of the initial singularity but again, it's pointless semantics here.

Let's be honest. You're just pissed that you didn't understand the difference between mass and weight when reading my original post.

My point is that you believe you have unaided eyesight that allows you to see something from quadrillions of miles away.  

It's ridiculous enough to believe we can see an object from almost 100 million miles away ( the sun ), but quadrillions???  

"n fact I referred to it as a supermassive singularity which inherently suggests a single point of extreme and immeasurable density"

So NASA can't measure the density of something a few millimeters in length but have no problem measuring something that is 140 billion ( or is it trillion? hard to keep track of all these numbers...) times the size of the earth's oceans from 12 Billion miles away??

What are you suggesting? It seems like you're suggesting that the stars are an illusion of some sort or that astrophysicists are incompetent and the stars are much closer than that? Nearby stars can have their distance measured using the Parallax technique which is a simple calculation based on a stars movement in the night sky in relation to Earth's orbit. That seems pretty straight forward.

Far away stars are more difficult because you need to build a bridge of data points to accurately calculate a deep space objects' distance. What I mean is we couldn't measure the distance to Quasars 12+billion light years away without collecting data points along the way and adjusting calculations accordingly. Astrophysicists use pulsating stars that alternate between extremely bright and less bright states to collect these data points. Even further distances require observing and measuring light from supernovas.

I don't understand what's so difficult to believe. You look up in the sky and you see stars with your own eyes do you not? Only stars in our own Milky Way galaxy are visible to the naked eye (and a few of the nearby galaxies look like stars but are actually much further away and filled with billions of their own stars).

Regarding measuring the massive space ocean vs the big bang. Our telescopes can actually see the massive space ocean, whereas we have not been able to observe the theoretical origin of the universe. It is theorized that the big bang originated from an initial singularity but we can't actually see it yet or the objects around it to directly measure it.

Even if we could see it, the laws of physics as we know them tend to break down as you approach the center of a black hole due to its incredible mass and gravity. Light cannot escape the event horizon of a black hole which makes them extremely difficult to measure, but their effect on objects around them are very much observable and measurable.

Just last year Astronomers observed light radiation being emitted from near a black hole for the first time.

http://www.sciencealert.com/visible-light-emitted-from-a-black-hole-has-been-detected-for-the-first-time
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by AnomanderRake 2017-02-16, 20:22

Antineoplastons wrote:"The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar"

"as you approach the center of a black hole due to its incredible mass and gravity."

OK so if black holes have such incredible gravitational forces then why doesn't it attract and pull in this large mass of water sitting right next to it?  How were they able to determine black holes have "incredible gravity" to begin with?

And I'm still waiting to hear an answer as to why NASA is incapable of taking real time video of our spinning earth if they have the ability to send man to the moon, etc.

Given enough time a black hole does attract the matter around it but because of how spread out things are in space, and the gravitational effects of other celestial bodies pulling on one another, this takes a very long time.

When we observe this ocean in space 12 billion light years away, we're seeing it as it existed 12 billion years ago because that's how long it took that light to travel to Earth for us to be able to see it. If we could look at it in real time today, it may look quite different after 12 billion years of gravitational effects have taken place.

I'm not sure what you mean in your last comment. NASA literally has live satellite streams of the Earth from space.
AnomanderRake
AnomanderRake
Spartiate

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2015-07-21

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-06-07, 16:26

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40194150
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Watch Out Pylon! 2017-06-07, 23:16

Man, Anti was dumb as a rock.
Watch Out Pylon!
Watch Out Pylon!
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 23330
Join date : 2014-04-30

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by tGreenWay 2017-06-07, 23:44

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Man, Anti was dumb as a rock.

Takes one to know one.
tGreenWay
tGreenWay
Geronte
Geronte
Swill Pick 'em 2022 Regular Season Champion

Posts : 55395
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : East Lansing

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Watch Out Pylon! 2017-06-07, 23:49

tGreenWay wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Man, Anti was dumb as a rock.

Takes one to know one.

You wanna get banned? Keep it up.
Watch Out Pylon!
Watch Out Pylon!
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 23330
Join date : 2014-04-30

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-06-07, 23:52

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Man, Anti was dumb as a rock.

He was obsessed with rocks, too. Kept mentioning rocks as being the source of evolution, called the big bang an exploding rock, just weird.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by DWags 2017-06-07, 23:55

tGreenWay wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Man, Anti was dumb as a rock.

Takes one to know one.

Would dumb people even recognize other dumb people? And if they did, does that remove them from the dumb category?
DWags
DWags
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 49785
Join date : 2014-04-21
Age : 62
Location : Right here

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by tGreenWay 2017-06-08, 00:02

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

Takes one to know one.

You wanna get banned? Keep it up.

Look at me, quoting you. The Swill Bin evolution thread 2275418548 The Swill Bin evolution thread 2809484752
tGreenWay
tGreenWay
Geronte
Geronte
Swill Pick 'em 2022 Regular Season Champion

Posts : 55395
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : East Lansing

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by tGreenWay 2017-06-08, 00:09

DWags wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

Takes one to know one.

Would dumb people even recognize other dumb people? And if they did, does that remove them from the dumb category?

You ask a fair question, but Pylon is too dumb to know how dumb he is, let alone another dumb guy.
tGreenWay
tGreenWay
Geronte
Geronte
Swill Pick 'em 2022 Regular Season Champion

Posts : 55395
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : East Lansing

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Watch Out Pylon! 2017-06-08, 08:03

tGreenWay wrote:
DWags wrote:

Would dumb people even recognize other dumb people? And if they did, does that remove them from the dumb category?

You ask a fair question, but Pylon is too dumb to know how dumb he is, let alone another dumb guy.

If there is a better case study in devolution than Greenway I have yet to hear about it.
Watch Out Pylon!
Watch Out Pylon!
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 23330
Join date : 2014-04-30

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by MiamiSpartan 2017-06-08, 12:26

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Man, Anti was dumb as a rock.
I'd say more mentally disturbed than dumb. He would argue his point well, but he had some deep seeded issues that led to him buying into this whacko conspiracy world.
MiamiSpartan
MiamiSpartan
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 12225
Join date : 2014-04-16
Location : Miami, FL

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Cameron 2017-06-08, 13:06

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Man, Anti was dumb as a rock.
I'd say more mentally disturbed than dumb. He would argue his point well, but he had some deep seeded issues that led to him buying into this whacko conspiracy world.

I don't know that he really argued his points well (and he certainly didn't seem to understand most points made by others). He almost always had some evidence, but usually the evidence he had was nonsensical.
Cameron
Cameron
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10799
Join date : 2014-04-16
Age : 35
Location : Michigan

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by MiamiSpartan 2017-06-08, 17:40

Cameron wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:
I'd say more mentally disturbed than dumb. He would argue his point well, but he had some deep seeded issues that led to him buying into this whacko conspiracy world.

I don't know that he really argued his points well (and he certainly didn't seem to understand most points made by others). He almost always had some evidence, but usually the evidence he had was nonsensical.
I guess what I meant was that he knew his arguments well, at least the ones I'd have with him. As I think about it, I guess it's that he was "book smart" about the arguments, in that he knew all of the nutjob talking points in and out, as well as how to respond to the most obvious counter points that people make. But he could not think on his feet when presented with something that the nutjobs didn't prepare him for, and that's when he'd get more irrational, defensive, and just claim that counter-evidence was fake. The irony of that is that one of his big talking points was that people need to think critically, yet when he was challenged with thinking critically himself, he would fall apart.
MiamiSpartan
MiamiSpartan
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 12225
Join date : 2014-04-16
Location : Miami, FL

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by tGreenWay 2017-06-08, 17:48

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

You ask a fair question, but Pylon is too dumb to know how dumb he is, let alone another dumb guy.

If there is a better case study in devolution than Greenway I have yet to hear about it.

tGreenWay
tGreenWay
Geronte
Geronte
Swill Pick 'em 2022 Regular Season Champion

Posts : 55395
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : East Lansing

Back to top Go down

The Swill Bin evolution thread Empty Re: The Swill Bin evolution thread

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum