Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 7:38 pm
(November 13, 2014 at 7:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (November 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Beccs Wrote: Well, His Travesty has responded and, as expected, it's all bullshit.
I hope you're going to substantiate that with hard fact and reasoned points rather than just sniping!
(I jest of course)
(and why did you use a disparaging name?!?)
It's a good job I'm infatuated with you you blade wielding maniac. Wait... you have weapons...
* fr0d0 back away slowly
Holy shit aint this ironic.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 7:45 pm
(November 12, 2014 at 6:19 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Just gonna call it now - I don't think he's going to post.
(November 12, 2014 at 2:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Seems as if your opponent
can't answer the bell, Esq.
That's rare in the first round.
(November 13, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Irrational Wrote: Well, I know I'd be pissed if I had to write all that for a debate and then realize my debate opponent was never going to reply.
I'm just gonna call these in 
![[Image: mock.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-7v7j7YXK4sU%2FUbJ9HtxKo4I%2FAAAAAAAANng%2FJ8NusU0zXl4%2Fs400%2Fmock.jpg)
Posts: 35448
Threads: 205
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
145
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 7:52 pm
(November 13, 2014 at 7:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (November 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Beccs Wrote: Well, His Travesty has responded and, as expected, it's all bullshit.
I hope you're going to substantiate that with hard fact and reasoned points rather than just sniping!
(I jest of course)
(and why did you use a disparaging name?!?)
It's a good job I'm infatuated with you you blade wielding maniac. Wait... you have weapons...
* fr0d0 back away slowly
I use a disparaging name because the guy has a HUGE ego (as seen from his posts) and, to be honest, It has become habitual.
I don't usually do it but some people are deserving of mockery.
And I admit to sniping, though for hard evidence you just need to read his response. Whatever differences you may currently have with Esqui, you have to admit the responses from HM are ridiculous and not actually answering many of the points brought up.
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 7:59 pm
(November 13, 2014 at 7:52 pm)Beccs Wrote: I don't usually do it but some people are deserving of mockery.
Agree on the ego part, but personally I find him to be rather boring. I'm yawning even before I can think about anything witty to say.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 8:04 pm
Quote:To believe in evolution without God would have to mean that you have to believe in life from nonlife, and intelligence from nonintelligence, and consciousness from unconsciousness. But there isn't any proof for EITHER of it.
This is exactly what I used to think back when I was a naive Christian. I used to see life, intelligence, and consciousness as discrete things with clear definitions rather than constructs with fuzzy boundaries of definition.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 8:05 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2014 at 8:06 pm by fr0d0.)
Ok beccs you deserved this whipping...
(November 13, 2014 at 8:04 pm)Irrational Wrote: Quote:To believe in evolution without God would have to mean that you have to believe in life from nonlife, and intelligence from nonintelligence, and consciousness from unconsciousness. But there isn't any proof for EITHER of it.
This is exactly what I used to think back when I was a naive Christian. I used to see life, intelligence, and consciousness as discrete things with clear definitions rather than constructs with fuzzy boundaries of definition.
You used to believe that the answer was an unbiased "we don't know"?
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 8:06 pm
Actually going for micro versus macro evolution was better than I expected. The problem is of course, as I'm sure will be pointed out in the first rebuttal is that all those little changes do eventually create new species and new families (or as the creationist idiots sometimes say new kinds.) That a single generation never represents a new species is neither here nor there.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 35448
Threads: 205
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
145
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 8:07 pm
(November 13, 2014 at 8:05 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ok beccs you deserved this whipping...
(November 13, 2014 at 8:04 pm)Irrational Wrote: This is exactly what I used to think back when I was a naive Christian. I used to see life, intelligence, and consciousness as discrete things with clear definitions rather than constructs with fuzzy boundaries of definition.
You used to believe that the answer was an unbiased "we don't know"?
I'm a dead horse?
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 31075
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Debate has been temporarily suspended pending a staff decision on the below:
(November 13, 2014 at 8:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: His_Majesty did not present an opening argument, therefore has advanced no argument for Esquilax to rebut. Instead, he skipped ahead and posted a rebuttal to Esquilax's argument.
Thread temporarily closed pending staff decision.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 8:11 pm
(November 13, 2014 at 8:07 pm)Beccs Wrote: I'm a dead horse?
Apologies... I thought you were of English descent
|
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
