Quote:I wasn't fazed by anything that you said, in fact, I was just getting warmed up...so if I did get booted (didn't know that I did, but anyway), that actually saved your ass.

A laughable misunderstanding of the sequence of events.

You don't even know -- or you deliberately chose to ignore -- the standard format for debate.

Tell us again how educated you are.

I guess I should reply...

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: You laugh too much...

"If this was football, I'll be scoring touchdowns / but it is the circus tho, cuz I see some tough clowns"

In your head...

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: The theory... actually theorem... was you who brought up.
And that theorem allows for both interpretations. Meaning that it is incomplete. It is lacking in further detail in order to conclusively say something about the past of time.

So the light can be on and not on at the same time...gotcha.

I see the lights are all off.... in your head.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Actually... not quite... it's one more point against your position.
You may address it as well, or, just cover your ears and listen to what people are telling you. Reality, in many instances, doesn't seem logical: evidence: Quantum Mechanics - Your computer!

"Listen to what people are telling you". When the sense that they are talking outweighs the sense that I am talking, I will.

Try to turn on the lights in your head and things will make sense. Keep them off and remain in the dark ages.

Fundamentalism is a dimmer switch which is hard to reverse.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:20 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 10:14 am)His_Majesty Wrote: You can believe it all you want, but it isn't science.

Unfortunately what you regard as 'science' is irrelevant seeing as you obviously have no clue or grasp over it.

I think it's time to stop making decisions buddy, ok?

POE. Has to be. I mean, it's obvious to everyone that HM doesn't know the first thing about the science he's arguing against, but to outright lie and utilise fiction to justify your arguments is just so silly.

How do people like this survive in RL? I mean, it just makes you wonder how someone with such a terrible grasp of reality is able to function on a day to day basis.

Just makes you realise how dumb some of us humans really are.

I don't understand the mindset of Christians who post such crap on internet forums. It's as if they want the entire world to see how stupid they and like-minded believers can be. So I agree that it's really possible this guy is a POE, and an anti-christian one.

Of course, on the other hand, it could just be another example of the Dunning–Kruger effect ("a cognitive bias whereby unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

(November 15, 2014 at 12:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: Fundamentalism is a dimmer switch which is hard to reverse.

Fraid so.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: No, they weren't, dude. Read a book.

Another ignorant one. Let's just "read" the wiki article...

"Although the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard", the name is somewhat misleading, as dinosaurs are not lizards. Instead, they represent a separate group of reptiles that, like many extinct forms, did not exhibit characteristics traditionally seen as reptilian, such as a sprawling limb posture or ectothermy."

So how about you read a freakin' book instead of displaying your willful ignorance regarding your own religion (evolution).

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: *could have sworn

*Dinosaurs were reptiles

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: Maybe your teacher was wrong, maybe you misunderstood, maybe your memory is faulty; all the same, dinosaurs were not reptiles.

Or maybe the entire theory of evolution is a lie. I will go with that option. As far as dinosaurs/reptiles...just send an email to the webmaster of every single website that comes up in a search when you type in "Is a dinosaur a reptile", and tell them how wrong that they are.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: That web site says no such thing.

Within the first two sentences

"This group of land-living reptiles appeared around 230 million years ago. Like reptiles today, dinosaurs had a scaly, waterproof skin, and young that hatched from eggs"

Either you didn't bother to read it, or you are just a liar.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: The distinction is quite real; you are being incredibly stupid.

You've just blatantly lied, and you've just demonstrated you are arguing about a subject that you don't know anything about. This is an example of someone that was so quick to join in the fight, so quick to attack, and clearly not giving a damn about the truth value in what they are saying.

You are a liar, and ignorant of the voodoo theory that was passed down to you by the apostles of your religion (biology teachers).

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: No, dinosaurs and reptiles are in entirely different classes. Not the same thing at all.

You can repeat it all you want, I've just given you two different links that disagree with you. Take it up with them...because as I said, it really doesn't matter whether they are reptiles or not, I am saying the entire thing did not happen. If the entire theory is false, then this internal battle you have with them makes both parties look dumb.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: We see it in the DNA.

Which don't mean a fuckin' thing.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: Read a fucking book.

I did. I read the Bible, and in Gen 1:24-25 it states "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.…

Fast forward thousands of years later, and what do we see? We see animals bringing forth after their KIND...we see dogs produce dogs, cats producing cats, snakes producing snakes...and anything beyond that is voodoo. You can believe that garbage if you want to.

The Bible corroborates the only thing that mankind has ever witnessed when it comes to the reproduction of living organisms, which is the fact that animals have only been observed to produce what they are, not what they aren't.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Thackerie Wrote: I don't understand the mindset of Christians who post such crap on internet forums. ]/quote]

Then it isn't for you to understand.

[quote='Thackerie' pid='797062' dateline='1416069950']
It's as if they want the entire world to see how stupid they and like-minded believers can be.

Christians aren't buying the bullcrap that evolutionists are selling. Call it what you want.

(November 15, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Thackerie Wrote: So I agree that it's really possible this guy is a POE, and an anti-christian one.

I am a defender of the Christian faith and worldview.

(November 15, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Thackerie Wrote: Of course, on the other hand, it could just be another example of the Dunning–Kruger effect ("a cognitive bias whereby unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

No, it is called the Bullshit-Intolerance effect, and they don't have a wiki link for it.

(November 15, 2014 at 12:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: Fundamentalism is a dimmer switch which is hard to reverse.

Fundamentalism is not a dimmer switch. It is a fuse to protect pitiful short-circuited excuses for brains from being burned out by the any flow of scientific facts and reality.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 11:12 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: Read a fucking book.

He already does. Just THAT one

Read a real book.

(November 15, 2014 at 12:15 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: A laughable misunderstanding of the sequence of events.

You don't even know -- or you deliberately chose to ignore -- the standard format for debate.

Tell us again how educated you are.

Actually, both. Before the fight I was prepared for an all out war...I was preparing to punch, kick, elbow, hit with chairs, poles, and bats...but instead I get a referee in the ring telling me that elbows, chairs, poles, and bats are prohibited...I can only punch

It is ok, tho..he can get intellectually owned on the threads.

(November 15, 2014 at 7:20 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Actually, both. Before the fight I was prepared for an all out war...I was preparing to punch, kick, elbow, hit with chairs, poles, and bats...but instead I get a referee in the ring telling me that elbows, chairs, poles, and bats are prohibited...I can only punch

Oh, so you were just lying when you said the rules I directed you to sounded good and you agreed to play by them? Because, to be clear, you never communicated to me that you had a different idea in mind, you just agreed to follow the rules. If you want to bear your analogy out fully, it'd be that you were happy enough to punch, kick, etc, but you would only do so if your opponent was restricted to punches.

See, what you can't do is characterize the rules as unfair when you were quite happy to let me alone follow them while you went off to do whatever you want. That just means you didn't think the rules were unfair consistently, just when they were applied to you. It means you were quite happy to walk into an unfair fight, just so long as the advantage was yours alone.

Quote:It is ok, tho..he can get intellectually owned on the threads.

The fact that you think that's actually what's happening speaks to the depth and breadth of your delusions regarding your own prowess, here. But if you're so sure of yourself, maybe you should define "kind."

You know, the intellectually honest thing to do?

(November 15, 2014 at 12:24 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:10 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Bullshit. Archaeopteryx is supposedly the missing link in the idiotic reptile to bird chain..or are you that ignorant?

No, Archaeopteryx is the missing link in the dinosaur to bird chain; dinosaurs and reptiles are on different prongs of the classification system. They aren't even in the same class, let alone anything of more specificity.

That depends on how the term reptile is used. Traditionally, reptile is purely a bucket word, meaning it is a term used to contain air breathing quadruped vertebrate animals which are neither mammals, nor amphibians, nor birds.

Dinosaurs were obviously not mammals nor amphibians, and their close relationships with birds were not understood, therefore they became reptiles by default.

So any transitional form between dinosaurs and birds were by traditional definition transition between reptiles and birds.

Only later did it become generally accepted that classification in this manner conveys little reliable information about deeper physiological similarities and interrelationship between different classes, and is therefore not very useful. It is much more useful to classify organisms by their natural ancesteral relationships as inferred by their deeper physiological and genetic similarities.

Basically, a class of animals should contain their physiologically or genetically inferred last common ancester, as well as every last one of the descendants of that common ancester, and nothing else.

When seen this way, it becomes clear "reptile" is not a natural grouping of animals. The word reptile retains currency because of its antiquity and long use. It does not retain currency because in it traditional application it actually implies meaningful description of ancesteral relation or fundamental physiological similarity. In the word of the moron that styles himself "his majesty". Reptile is not a "kind". It is a bucket containing arbitrary collection of different "kinds" that are only superficially similar, but examined more deeply are clearly not physiologically more similar to each other than each is to "kinds" outside the reptile bucket.

What is worse, traditional "reptile" classification sometimes arbitrarily bisects major deep physiological "kinds", such as archosaurs and synapsids, by including some of their members Under the reptile bucke, and excluding other members simply because presumed superficial similarity. For example, the archosaursian crocodiles and land dwelling dinosaurs were considered reptiles, while avian dinosaurs were not considered reptiles, despite the fact that archosaurs were clearly physiologically closer to birds than to any other members of the traditional reptile group.

When we dispense with the burdensome and baseless "reptile" concept, we see Archaeopteryx was just another dinosaur, just as all descendants of archaeopteryx are still dinosaurs - birds being just a subset of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs in turn being just a subset of archosaurs. Dinosaurs are physiologically not more closely similar to other traditional members of the reptile bucket than they are traditional nonmembers of the reptiles bucket, like mammals.

Mammals, a traditional nonreptile bucket, in turn are not clearly distinct from all members of traditional reptile bucket. Clearly mammals are very physiologically similar to synapsid reptiles - traditional member of reptile bucket. Mammals and synapsid reptiles are clearly far more similar to each other physiologically, than synapsid reptiles are to other members of the traditional reptile bucket.