Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other .....

1235

Comments

  • #202
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I still can't quite get my head around how scientists should be less trustworthy because they aren't in it for the money Orange2. Is it like reverse-psychology or something? Or do you think the scientists are planning something more nefarious?
    You actually have me quite confused now.


  • #203
    Oranage2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,128 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    I think this cartoon of Dilbert sums up my whole opinion of evolution -


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ_pnReVyFA


  • #204
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? If so then why? Serious question.


  • #205
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Sure all a person has to do is look at a heliotrope and you get your answer.


  • #206
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,859 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Northclare wrote: »
    Sure all a person has to do is look at a heliotrope and you get your answer.

    why don't you answer the question instead of saying "look at the flowers and you'll get your answer"? :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #207
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I think this cartoon of Dilbert sums up my whole opinion of evolution
    You do realize that Dilbert is satirical?


  • #208
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    There you go I can study the heliotrope and get the right answer and someone else can study astronomy and get a similar answer.

    A dog with a mallet up his ar$e could answer that question :)


  • #209
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Northclare wrote: »
    There you go I can study the heliotrope and get the right answer and someone else can study astronomy and get a similar answer.
    How exactly does a heliotrope distinguish between the earth going around the sun, and the sun going around the earth?


  • #210
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Wait until the sunflowers start to flower in the summer and figure it out for yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other
    I'll rephrase that:
    How come Atheists are against "laws that prevent you from bashing religions" but are OK with bashing religions.

    Hrm...


  • #212
    Newaglish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    the_syco wrote: »
    I'll rephrase that:
    How come Atheists are against "laws that prevent you from bashing religions" but are OK with bashing religions.

    Hrm...

    That's dangerously on-topic syco. Post reported.


  • #213
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    @Zombrex: I thoroughly enjoyed reading your well laid out post. You refrained from being condescending or angry, which would have been so easy (what I would have done). You must have the patience of a saint patient person. :D

    @Oranage2 and Northclare: You really have nothing intelligent to add to the thread. Have you any sensible arguments against the post by Zombrex? I know it would be futile, but maybe you could give it a go?


  • #214
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Northclare -
    Northclare wrote: »
    Wait until the sunflowers start to flower in the summer and figure it out for yourself.
    I've posted publicly and privately about how this forum works, and how its members are expected to engage with each other, but for some reason, you're ignoring forum etiquette.

    This is your first public moderator request for you to start contributing positively to the discussion that happening around you. If you don't, you'll be carded. If you continue avoiding contributing beyond that, you'll be banned from the forum.


  • #215
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Joseph if we were not putting any input into these threads you wouldn't be able to read what Zombrex has to say.

    I like what Zombrex has to say he is very insightful and doesn't put anyone down,he is able to hold a discussion and look into what others have to say.

    Your lack of interpretation is your weakness.

    I'm new to all of this.
    I think myself and Orange are doing ok considering most people are either banned or run out of A+A.


  • #216
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Those willing to engage in debate reasonably aren't.

    So far, you have been frankly confusing in your posting style, without any concrete link to what is being discussed.

    Oranage2 is being given all the explanations one might need, but still clings to his scientist CT.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Oranage2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,128 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    joseph brand wrote: »
    @Zombrex: I thoroughly enjoyed reading your well laid out post. You refrained from being condescending or angry, which would have been so easy (what I would have done). You must have the patience of a saint patient person. :D

    As Northclare has said, I would rather you not bring your own insecurities out in this thread, the fact that you'd be angry or condescending over somebody opinions shows me that you are a weak and immature person, probably the oldest child though under achieved compared to your other siblings yet still looking for the admiration from a parent that what you do just isnt good enough for.

    Now Zombrex has wrote a lot so I'll address his/her post soon.


  • #218
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    That's the easy way out Robin banning people.

    Robin your lack of understanding the opposite side to your arguments is your lack of esotheric knowledge,or spiritual input,when you choose to ignore me or Orange its a sure sign of fear of the unknown.

    Robin you told me you could trust a chief who cant change a light bulb.

    I would prefer to eat what I can see rather than eat in the dark.


  • #219
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    I believe in science I also believe in spirituality it gives me a double edged sword.

    If it was a sword fight I would be able to adapt to the situation fairly fast,but when one side has no edge to his sword he is in a dilemma :)


  • #220
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Like I said, just downright confusing.


  • #221
    legspin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Like I said, just downright confusing.
    I wait with baited breath for the brilliant and insightful explanations and evidence from these two...


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    legspin wrote: »
    I wait with baited breath for the brilliant and insightful explanations and evidence from these two...

    I wait with popcorn for the brilliant and insightful explanations and evidence from these two...:D


  • #223
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    As Northclare has said, I would rather you not bring your own insecurities out in this thread, the fact that you'd be angry or condescending over somebody opinions shows me that you are a weak and immature person, probably the oldest child though under achieved compared to your other siblings yet still looking for the admiration from a parent that what you do just isnt good enough for.

    Now Zombrex has wrote a lot so I'll address his/her post soon.

    :confused:
    Northclare wrote: »
    That's the easy way out Robin banning people.

    Robin your lack of understanding the opposite side to your arguments is your lack of esotheric knowledge,or spiritual input,when you choose to ignore me or Orange its a sure sign of fear of the unknown.

    Robin you told me you could trust a chief who cant change a light bulb.

    I would prefer to eat what I can see rather than eat in the dark.

    :confused:
    Northclare wrote: »
    I believe in science I also believe in spirituality it gives me a double edged sword.

    If it was a sword fight I would be able to adapt to the situation fairly fast,but when one side has no edge to his sword he is in a dilemma :)

    :confused:

    princess+bride+3.jpg


  • #224
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Northclare wrote: »
    That's the easy way out Robin banning people.

    Robin your lack of understanding the opposite side to your arguments is your lack of esotheric knowledge,or spiritual input,when you choose to ignore me or Orange its a sure sign of fear of the unknown.

    Robin you told me you could trust a chief who cant change a light bulb.

    I would prefer to eat what I can see rather than eat in the dark.

    You and Orange2 just want to drag us down to your level and beat us with your experience.

    All your talk of purple flowers, light bulbs, eating in the dark and sword fights really has me questioning some things.


  • #225
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Northclare wrote: »
    That's the easy way out Robin banning people.
    You've just been carded for ignoring a polite request to make a positive contribution to the forum.

    Can you please try to post something positive or interesting or funny or witty or thought-provoking or anything which contributes in some way to the forum?

    thanks.

    - robin.


  • #226
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Northclare wrote: »
    Wait until the sunflowers start to flower in the summer and figure it out for yourself.

    Explain please how the movement of the flower with the sun shows that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa.


  • #227
    Oranage2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,128 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? If so then why? Serious question.

    It's actually the Sun revolves around the earth but nice try ;)

    I've a question for you - If the world is suppose to be billions of years old than why is it only 2012?


    2 little science jokes hope you like them.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well imagining the entire process in one go is impossible, it is like trying to imagine how a river can make the Grand Canon or how the Alps can be pushed up by sliding plates. These processes take millions of years, and trillions upon trillions upon trillions of localised events.

    Same is true with evolution. It would be impossible to visualise in your head all the mutations required to go from a single proto-cell to a human. But luckily you don't have to.

    Just like you can study the effect of a single rain fall on some rock (where only a tiny amount of material is removed) and then extrapolate that out over the entire length of time required to form the Grand Canon, you can look at the individual mutations that happen to an animals DNA.

    So far I've no problems with this, I do believe mountains exist and also I do believe that we evolve but through genetic variation. I just dont think it's possible and I havent seen the evidence to say we evolved from some sort of chimp, if that was the case how come we're the only animals that speak. I know other animals do communicate but not through a language.
    Well to be honest I think your only problem is ignorance with what the theory says, the evidence for it and what it explains. It is not really a question of how your brain works.

    I would educate yourself to the theory and then see if you still don't accept it or cannot imagine how it can work.

    Perhaps ignorance but I call it just not being enough facts to believe in evolution.


    Firstly the great thing about science is you don't have to trust scientists. You can trust scientists if you couldn't be bothered to research what they are saying, and to be honest that is what most of us do most of the time. I don't independently research Steven Hawkin's work on black holes, I'm happy to trust that others in his field have done that and if there they are happy I'm happy. I don't independently research how my solid state hard drive works, the theories that go into it, I'm happy that the engineers at Cosair know what they are doing and that I haven't bought a 150 euro paper weight.

    But the point is that if you were so inclined you could. Science is an open enterprise. Scientific research is published and it expected that others will independently verify the work.

    If a scientist got up and said "I've made this amazing discovery but you can't see it you are all going to just have to trust me" he would be laughed out of where ever he was giving such a ridiculous statement. In fact a chief motivator (other than money which we will get to in a sec) for scientists is showing up other scientists, demonstrating that they have missed something or that they have measured something wrong. This competition is healthy and expected in science. While lay people who couldn't be bothered doing the research themselves might trust scientists, scientists don't trust other scientists.

    The second point is that there is in fact tons of money to be made in evolutionary biology. And not just in the "Oh we got a research grant from the local university" kind of way, though there are of course those types of funding. Bio-engineering and genetic engineering are massive industries, and they all rely on the theory of evolution being sound. If it isn't they are in a lot of trouble, pouring billions into an areas that is ultimately a dead end. But of course it isn't a dead end because they wouldn't be putting this money into if it was. It is a bit like solar power. We might be still arguing about the details over what is the best way to get the energy from the sun light. But no one seriously thinks any more that there is no energy in the sun light to begin with.

    So there is a lot of money to be made. But also each individual scientist will be motivated both by money (do good research get a better salary) and by prestige. A scientist who making interesting and relevant discoveries is going to do well. It is not in a scientists interest to make stuff up, since as we saw above other scientists will not simply take their word for it. Make stuff up and others will expose you for doing so, and your career (and earnings) will be seriously effected.

    Again I cant argue with really, I just have my opinions that there's a science cartel out there.

    What do you mean you don't care too much for it? You seem to know very little about it (which again is fair enough, there are lots of things I've very little interest in), so how do you know you don't care too much for it.

    I could say I know very little about the Higgs Boson. But it would be a bit silly for me to follow that up by saying I don't care for it that much.

    When I said I dont care too much for I meant I dont care enough to put hours of research into looking up evolution or even reading a book. The past is the past, intersting stuff but not vital for me to know what's it about as my life goes on lally dally regardless.



    Okay I have to run out for lunch and shall address the rest of the post in the near future.


  • #228
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Explain please how the movement of the flower with the sun shows that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa.
    No, no! I'm fairly sure that he meant that flowers are proof positive of a deity because, um, they're pretty. Or something.

    Why do you never see anyone using the hideousness of the naked mole rat, or the ruthlessness of necrotizing fascitis as proof of deities?

    Look at the hideous proof of God's majesty!
    naked-mole-rat.jpg


  • #229
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    What do you feed that thing ?


  • #230
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I know other animals do communicate but not through a language.

    Plenty of animals 'speak', and use language. Just because they don't use the same method as ours doesn't disqualify it as a language.

    Chimps (or bonobos, not sure which) even have different dialects.

    Hell, even plants communicate.

    Perhaps ignorance but I call it just not being enough facts to believe in evolution.

    'Enough'? You're referring to mountains and mountains of evidence as not being 'enough'?

    And it isn't a case of 'believing', you either accept the evidence for the idea or you seek to disprove it.

    Again I cant argue with really, I just have my opinions that there's a science cartel out there.

    Could you expand on this? So far this you've been pretty vague on what this cartel exists for.

    When I said I dont care too much for I meant I dont care enough to put hours of research into looking up evolution or even reading a book. The past is the past, intersting stuff but not vital for me to know what's it about as my life goes on lally dally regardless.

    If you don't accept evolution, grand. But when you actively seek to debate it, or at least request information on it, you should be prepared to look into the topic.


  • #231
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    kylith wrote: »
    No, no! I'm fairly sure that he meant that flowers are proof positive of a deity because, um, they're pretty. Or something.

    Why do you never see anyone using the hideousness of the naked mole rat, or the ruthlessness of necrotizing fascitis as proof of deities?

    Look at the hideous proof of God's majesty!
    naked-mole-rat.jpg
    Star-nosed mole, I choose you!

    Star-nosed_mole.jpg
    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Plenty of animals 'speak', and use language. Just because they don't use the same method as ours doesn't disqualify it as a language.
    No, he's right on this one. Language is an entirely human faculty, distinct from simple communication, that contains a syntax and is capable of forming an infinite (in practical terms) number of combinations from a finite number of discrete elements. To the extent of human knowledge, no other species is capable of producing language.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    kylith wrote: »
    No, no! I'm fairly sure that he meant that flowers are proof positive of a deity because, um, they're pretty. Or something.

    Sir David Attenborough explains it here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa88SeNohY


    Now who wants to argue with him?


  • #233
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Star-nosed mole, I choose you!

    Star-nosed_mole.jpg

    No, he's right on this one. Language is an entirely human faculty, distinct from simple communication, that contains a syntax and is capable of forming an infinite (in practical terms) number of combinations from a finite number of discrete elements. To the extent of human knowledge, no other species is capable of producing language.

    Hmm. Ya learn something new every day.


  • #234
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    No other species is able to produce a language.

    I think that's a very shallow uninformed statement.

    Sure a shoal of mackerel can communicate much better than some people can.


  • #235
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Oranage2 wrote: »

    I've a question for you - If the world is suppose to be billions of years old than why is it only 2012?


    Just in case that is a serious question - I will give you a serious answer. It is 2012 because European Christians worked out that Jesus was apparently born 2012 years ago - so the year of his birth became year zero. Anything before that is termed B.C = Before Christ, and after is A.D = Anno Domini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini.

    This is slowly being replaced by B.C.E = Before Common/Christian Era and C.E. = Common/Current/Christian Era.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

    For the Chinese it is the year 4709 http://www.chinapage.com/newyear.html

    For Muslims it is the year 1433 http://www.al-habib.info/islamic-calendar/islamic-calendar-ummulqura-2011.htm

    For Jews it is the year 5772 http://judaism.about.com/od/holidays/a/Jewish-Holiday-Calendar-5772-2011-2012.htm


  • #236
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    It's actually the Sun revolves around the earth but nice try ;)

    I've a question for you - If the world is suppose to be billions of years old than why is it only 2012?


    2 little science jokes hope you like them.

    Nice, now can you answer the question?


  • #237
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Northclare wrote: »

    Sure a shoal of mackerel can communicate much better than some people can.

    Obviously.


  • #238
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Just in case that is a serious question - I will give you a serious answer. It is 2012 because European Christians worked out that Jesus was apparently born 2012 years ago - so the year of his birth became year zero. Anything before that is termed B.C = Before Christ, and after is A.D = Anno Domini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini.

    This is slowly being replaced by B.C.E = Before Common/Christian Era and C.E. = Common/Current/Christian Era.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

    For the Chinese it is the year 4709 http://www.chinapage.com/newyear.html

    For Muslims it is the year 1433 http://www.al-habib.info/islamic-calendar/islamic-calendar-ummulqura-2011.htm

    For Jews it is the year 5772 http://judaism.about.com/od/holidays/a/Jewish-Holiday-Calendar-5772-2011-2012.htm


    I think you missed this bit from Oranage's post:
    Oranage2 wrote: »
    It's actually the Sun revolves around the earth but nice try wink.gif

    I've a question for you - If the world is suppose to be billions of years old than why is it only 2012?


    2 little science jokes hope you like them.


  • #239
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Northclare wrote: »
    What do you feed that thing ?
    The souls of babies.


  • #240
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    I think you missed this bit from Oranage's post:

    Yup - I did.

    Still - given some of his questions - better to err on the side of caution methinks. Just in case....


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    kylith wrote: »
    Northclare wrote: »
    What do you feed that thing ?
    The souls of babies.

    Yeah another sick answer.
    Nice one kylith.....good to know the type of sick Muppets that come up with this kinda ****e be careful what you say about that kind of thing you twat.


  • #242
    Newaglish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Star-nosed mole, I choose you!

    Star-nosed_mole.jpg

    tumblr_lvm5ky5HpV1r5knofo1_250.png

    There is no God.


  • #243
    legspin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Northclare wrote: »
    Yeah another sick answer.
    Nice one kylith.....good to know the type of sick Muppets that come up with this kinda ****e be careful what you say about that kind of thing you twat.

    Get the fúck over yourself.
    Enough with the name-calling while we're here.


  • #244
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Northclare wrote: »
    good to know the type of sick Muppets that come up with this kinda ****e be careful what you say about that kind of thing you twat.
    That was a reference to the "atheists eat babies"-level stuff that religious people produce from time to time. It's a joke.

    Anyhow -- apart from directly insulting another poster which is against the forum charter -- as per my request earlier today concerning your posting style, you are now banned for a week.


  • #245
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I won't bother replying to Northclare's last post except to say two things. 1) I didn't even notice who I was replying too (not that it would have made any difference to me) and 2) doesn't it look like something that would eat souls?

    Oh, and I haven't been called a twat in years! How quaint :)
    Newaglish wrote: »

    There is no God.
    I think that it's quite cute, actually. If you want to see ugly google 'ugliest dog in the world'.


  • #246
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    That was a reference to the "atheists eat babies"-level stuff that religious people produce from time to time. It's a joke.

    Anyhow -- apart from directly insulting another poster which is against the forum charter -- as per my request earlier today concerning your posting style, you are now banned for a week.

    Actually, robindch I think you are being harsh on Northclare. I suspect that post may have actually been written by a shoal of mackerel. Think about it - it is the first one posted under that username that made sense - I still disagreed with it mind, but I least I didn't say '?????!!!:confused:'.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I havent seen the evidence to say we evolved from some sort of chimp,

    I truly want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when you say stuff like this after it has already been explained to you that no one in evolutionary biology thinks or says we evolved from chimps, it is hard not to think you are feigning ignorance for the craic.
    Pace2008 wrote: »
    No, he's right on this one. Language is an entirely human faculty, distinct from simple communication, that contains a syntax and is capable of forming an infinite (in practical terms) number of combinations from a finite number of discrete elements. To the extent of human knowledge, no other species is capable of producing language.

    What about sign language apes?



  • #248
    Oranage2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,128 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Plenty of animals 'speak', and use language. Just because they don't use the same method as ours doesn't disqualify it as a language.

    Chimps (or bonobos, not sure which) even have different dialects.

    Hell, even plants communicate.




    'Enough'? You're referring to mountains and mountains of evidence as not being 'enough'?

    And it isn't a case of 'believing', you either accept the evidence for the idea or you seek to disprove it.



    If you don't accept evolution, grand. But when you actively seek to debate it, or at least request information on it, you should be prepared to look into the topic.

    Ha, well the part in bold, I come here, I did ask about evolution and I was given very nice answers, I have looked it up a little, and I have learned more, the fact that I havent asked why chimpanzees dont give birth to human babies should be testimony to that. Also I dont think I've been ramming my opinions on evolution down people's throats like some but not all posters here!
    Could you expand on this? So far this you've been pretty vague on what this cartel exists for.

    Well I have some thoughts but I wont bore you with them now anyway.

    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Just in case that is a serious question - I will give you a serious answer. It is 2012 because European Christians worked out that Jesus was apparently born 2012 years ago - so the year of his birth became year zero. Anything before that is termed B.C = Before Christ, and after is A.D = Anno Domini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini.

    This is slowly being replaced by B.C.E = Before Common/Christian Era and C.E. = Common/Current/Christian Era.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

    For the Chinese it is the year 4709 http://www.chinapage.com/newyear.html

    For Muslims it is the year 1433 http://www.al-habib.info/islamic-calendar/islamic-calendar-ummulqura-2011.htm

    For Jews it is the year 5772 http://judaism.about.com/od/holidays/a/Jewish-Holiday-Calendar-5772-2011-2012.htm

    Thanks for that, I didnt want to waste your time I just wanted to show people that I do have a sense of humour :)
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Nice, now can you answer the question?

    Why even ask such a question.....twice?

    If I was to remember off my head it would to do with the sun's gravitation similar with the moon and the earth. Of course I could just google the answer but then I'd be accused of googling the answer, but if I didnt know that would that make me thick? Does not knowing something make somebody unintelligent? And if somebody isnt intelligent does that make them a worse person?

    The fact that you'd ask such a question really gives me an insight to the type of person you are.


  • #249
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    Why even ask such a question.....twice?

    If I was to remember off my head it would to do with the sun's gravitation similar with the moon and the earth. Of course I could just google the answer but then I'd be accused of googling the answer, but if I didnt know that would that make me thick? Does not knowing something make somebody unintelligent? And if somebody isnt intelligent does that make them a worse person?

    The fact that you'd ask such a question really gives me an insight to the type of person you are.

    Woah, someone's getting defensive. It's not my intention to make you look foolish, you manage that perfectly without any outside interference.

    My reason for asking the question in the first place was because you say you don't trust scientists, but I see from your answer here that you are rather selective about which scientists you distrust. Let me guess, any scientist who offers an alternative to ''God did it'' are the ones that are conspiring together, yes?

    And one has to ask a question a second time when it is not answered the first.


  • #250
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    As an aside, I do get a bit of a chuckle every time someone expresses their mistrust of science via the medium of a computer.


  • #251
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Woah, someone's getting defensive. It's not my intention to make you look foolish, you manage that perfectly without any outside interference.

    My reason for asking the question in the first place was because you say you don't trust scientists, but I see from your answer here that you are rather selective about which scientists you distrust. Let me guess, any scientist who offers an alternative to ''God did it'' are the ones that are conspiring together, yes?

    And one has to ask a question a second time when it is not answered the first.

    Who needs an alternative? It's got ALL the hits:

    http://www.amazon.com/God-Evelyn-Turrentine-Agee-Warriors/dp/B00004NH6M

    :D


  • Advertisement
Advertisement