Search results

My point exactly. Pure irrationality.

Then how do you know I haven't?

This is pure nonsense. I don't need to believe in an imaginary god to seek the greater answers to life's mysteries. I do not believe, however, that the greater answer is subserviance to a man in the sky. THAT would render life meaningless.

Yeah, you already posted this on another thread and it's still a pointless question. My reaction would be that the martians must have figured out how to build a house.

Very well said! Oh, but if we don't believe in God, life has no meaning. :)

What I find amazing is that so many folks think that without a man in the sky telling you what to do life has no meaning. Astounding.

That's a fairly sweeping generalization.

Ah, but he did use the science and techology of his time, sailing ships, navigation (as it was), even food technologies to a degree (dried foods). His faith may have sustained in him difficult times but it would not have allowed him to make the voyage if he did not use the science of the day...

That's right, if you don't buy stock right now. the terrorists will have won!!

I haven't read Greene's book but I think you must be misinterpreting what he said. No object with mass can travel at the speed of light. Photons always travel at the speed of light but they have no mass. For an observer a photon travels at light speed. For the photon the travel time is...

That's been postulated at various times, that neanderthals were assimilated by homo sapiens. It's probably not the case as more recent evidence suggests. What I think is more interesting is that before the diaspora out of Africa, the ancestors of homo sapiens lived in close proximity to about...

Not really. Same mechanisms, same theory. Read up a bit on the textbooks. Also read "Structures of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn to understand how and why scientific paradigms changes over time. And last, what you described was not a change in paradigm cuz the idea that neanderthals...

I'm in NYC. If James wants to pull his silly games here, I'll wait on a corner for him. Hell, I'm usually there anyway, getting turned down by ugly hookers.

Gotcha. Wasn't sure so I clarified. I guess Aphex isn't interested in discussing cuz he basically left the flamebait and bailed. Oh well. These creationists give me a headache.

My personal theory is they argued for evolution against a bunch of creationist and all club themselves to death rather than listen to another harebrained hypothesis.

OK, if that wasn't clear: How, pray tell, does that fact that humans are not descended from neanderthals (a fact not in much dispute, btw) "blow a gaping hole in macro-evolution[sic]"?

BTW, the harping on "macro" versus "micro" evolution is nonsensical. The same mechanisms control all levels of evolution.

Eh, no. We have one group saying that the best scientific theory to date to explain our existence is evolution and one group saying they think a man in the sky created the cosmos. BIG difference. Evolution is not a "belief." It is the best scientific theory on the subject. Could it be...

How?

Probably because strawman is the most common fallacy employed by weak debaters. I hear them over and over and over again in these evolution/creationsim "debates": Evolution is just a "theory"; the fossil record doesn't "prove" anything; how can evolution explain the diversity/order of nature...