Thread: Greatest fictional book

Originally Posted by BlueMania

[quote:e3be5ff2f4="Jaian"]Evolution IS a fact.

No, it is not. You fucking dumb-shit. Let me use an analogy, because you are having trouble with this point,[/quote:e3be5ff2f4]

A fact is a verified piece of information about something that has happened or is currently the case.

Evolution is a change in the genetic frequency of a population of a species over generations. If you want to get anal, replace 'genetic' with allele', and specify population in the biological sense, not statistic definition.

Has evolution been confirmed repeatedly, both in the fossil record, in laboratory conditions, and recorded and verified in the wild? Do we see it happening today? Yes. Does that make it a fact? Yes.

Common Descent is more complex, if the VCE biology standards are similar to that of the HSC, then I would hesitate to even suggest you have a rudimentary understanding or knowledge of the issue. However, if you examine the resources I recommended, you'll see that Common Descent is not disputed in the mainstream scientific community. It is considered a fact. I'm sure with your impressive high school credentials you can dismiss the scientific community, while citing a few religious fundie/fringe scientists who disagree. However, Common Descent is a fact, which is why I previously made reference to the geological column and fossil record.

While I'm skeptical of a number of fields, such as abiogenesis (how life began) and those amino acid building experiments they taught us about in high school, Common Descent and evolution have established themselves as facts.

Your mum dropped you on the head when you were a baby: fact
Your mum slept around with a lot of men, thus you were created: theory.

This proves my point that you are unfamiliar with the terms 'fact' and 'theory'.

Both of your examples are theories. Unless of course you have documented evidence of said event (my mother dropping me on my head) occuring.

In the meanwhile, I'll help you recognise the difference between a fact and a theory:

Fact: Your mom gave birth to you.
Theory: I fucked your mom in the ass, then made her lick her own shit off my dick while your dad sucked my cum out of her asshole. Unfortunately, I forgot to use lube, and my 12" throbbing agnostic penis ripped the wall between the anus and vagina, which meant your dad failed to suck all my cum before my little soldiers reached your mom's ovaries, and thus impregnated her. Hello son.

Natural Selection while being selection, is based on randomness.

Although that appears to be an idiotic statement, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and give you a chance to explain yourself. Or perhaps we're using different definitions. Here is the definition that first shows up in my dictionary:

Noun: Randomness
The quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

Now, natural selection, by it's very nature, has a predictable order or plan. That being organisms best suited for their environment will be more likely to survive and reproduce, whereas those who are ill suited are more likely to die out.

That's predictability. The opposite of randomness.

Think of the random mutations that occur in gametes that cause a catapillar to change from its parental colour of green to gold. This is where the randomness is. Now a bird may eat it, weining the gold ones out of the population.

Okay, selective non-random pressures at work, which also demonstrates that evolution occurs.

However, another random factor evolves [pun int.] in the environment, where the catapillar may be crawling through dead leaves, making it camoflaged there. The bird is unable to see the gold catapillar, and it survives and reproduces.

Your point? I've already specified that in general mutations are random. Admittedly, they're not completely random, but for the sake of the arguement I've already assumed they are.

Remember, the person I was replying to made this claim 'evolution up to the point of sentience is random, it has to be, nothing is ordering it'. Yes, 'random' factors are involved in evolution, I've mentioned them before you posted, but evolution itself is not random. So your comment about it being 'based on randomness' is either a demonstration of your ignorance, or you agreeing with me. Take your pick.

Dont take me for an idiot. 3/4 VCE Biology last year, we studied both genetics, evolution and natural selection. I achieved a base score of 41, the top 6% of the population. I know my shit when it comes to this territory. And after taking the course, and doing so well, it is still foolish to believe in evolution. And im an athetist too.

Dude, you are an idiot. In high school, you were most likely shown Haeckel's illustrations comparing the embryos of various creatures, including humans and frogs, to demonstrate their similarity, correct? This is despite the fact that this has been demonstrated to be at the very least exaggerated, definately incorrect, and quite possibly forged.

There is a reason I used to read talk.origins; I'm fully cognizant that my high school biology education is severely lacking and not necessarily accurate. High school text books are often full of errors which are rarely corrected even when identified, and high school science education teachers aren't exactly up to scratch on current scientific trends. Even if they were, they have to stick with the syllabus. IIRC, in the USA some Creationist kids have been taking their state education departments to court over the fact that biology text books are full of errors which aren't corrected even though the educators admit to them; yet they still teach from them.

That is why I recommended you to borrow and read UNIVERSITY LEVEL TEXT BOOKS on the subject of evolution. In high school you are nothing but bleating sheep, following wherever the BoE (or whatever they call it here) leads you.

I wonder, is this a GU thing? First Illusions, then you. Posting your grades in discussions? I mean, if you're right, you're right, if you're wrong, you're wrong, regardless of your grades. Hiding behind your high school grades doesn't in any way lessen your mistakes or ignorance. I would be more impressed if you had any university level education in this field, but even if you did, my appreciation of your knowledge would lie within the content of your posts here.

It seems your happy to mock others for their beliefs, but yours are just as stupid.

An atheist is telling an atheistic agnostic his beliefs are stupid? You're either a militantly idiotic atheist, or a lying theist. I've met many lying theists, but you'd probably qualify as the only militant atheist I've encountered.

And before you turn around and state its the accepted norm, well i dont have an actual figure, but how many million (or billion?) people are religious?

That depends on what you mean by religious. If you mean by those who identify themselves as Christian/Muslim when they are in fact non-practising, or atheists/agnostics, then I'd say well over half the population. If you mean practising theists, then substantially lower.

What is your point though?

Originally Posted by Jaian

I wonder, is this a GU thing? First Illusions, then you. Posting your grades in discussions?

I think it's a last-year-of-highschool thing. I worked hard in my final year and I was proud of the result. I felt that I had learnt a lot and had really come to grips with some of my subjects - economics in particular.

Boy was I wrong - but the understanding came later.

While I second Jaian on the "read a university textbook" call, it's easy to forget how huge your highschool scores seem in the Cosmic Scheme of things. Right until your first day of university, when they cease to matter. It's just a funny old world.

Originally Posted by Jawa

So what you're saying is someone with interests other than your own are wasting their time.

I mean, since I'm interested in the evolution/creation debate, obviously it must be a waste of time unless I can use it for professional purposes. Why? Because you don't share my interest.

It's funny, you use the same arguements most parents use with their kids; playing games and posting on msg boards online is wasting time. Why? Because they don't share their kids interest.

I love your logic.

Heres a tip, knowledge and entertainment are two seperate issues, the fact that you confuse these two shows how flawed your processes are. I play games in order to enjoy myself, if you read evolution bulletin boards for entertainment... you are a retard, and you have no life, everyone agrees, beleive me. If this is not the case, then what exactly are you going to achieve with your knowledge of evolution??? I'll inform you, absolutely "f*ck all" because its a worthless topic, unless you are professionally involved with the topic, your "knowledge" is absolutely worthless, except for insulting creationists, which is... still worthless.... actually, now I understand, you're worthless, so I suppose your sad knowledge should match.

Originally Posted by Mr Happy Drugs

Not only this, but you've somehow extrapolated my agenda in reading, and occasionally contributing, to talk.origins. To 'lord up that knowledge over people'.

Oh ok... I was mistaken?? what was your agenda?? was it saving mankind?? oh I doubt it, you can't answer this with anything sensible, evolution is a worthless topic, you can't even use it in small talk, and considering that this site is apparently created to counter creationists.. I think i'm right.

Originally Posted by Jack the Flipper

Back to the issue: just because you don't share the same interests as I doesn't mean I am wasting my time anymore than you are when you devote time to gaming online, or reading gaming journals etc.

No, I don't read anything about gaming unless one of my games doesn't work, then I research it. If I play games It's because I enjoy them, I take part in this forum because its a community, not to gain any particular knowledge or information, I don't trust information on this forum, shit I trust information from here less than I trust the rest of the internet. What you are having trouble with, is that the thing you have referenced is a information bulletin board, which you can use, to get information, that is it... It is worthless information, hence.... you are wasting your time with stupid shit.

Originally Posted by Jam

Natural selection is not random. Just look at the word itself. Natural SELECTION. Selection being the deliberate act of choosing.

Was that too complex? Would you like me to break it down into babystep? Fine, let me provide you an example:

Grub A is tasty, and green, blending in the grass it lives in.
Grub B is tasty, but yellow, standing out of the grass it lives in.

I didn't originally say natural selection was random, evolution however is random. How the f*ck did Grub B end up green? eh?? eat that shit for brains...

sorry I missed this bit here

Originally Posted by jackoff

Remember, the person I was replying to made this claim 'evolution up to the point of sentience is random, it has to be, nothing is ordering it'. Yes, 'random' factors are involved in evolution, I've mentioned them before you posted, but evolution itself is not random. So your comment about it being 'based on randomness' is either a demonstration of your ignorance, or you agreeing with me. Take your pick.

Makes little difference, the development of new characteristics is random, therefore evolution is random. The governing factors of what decides whether something evolves or not are random. It's random. If you say that "this situation causes a new mutation to fail" and the situation is random... then what the f*ck is ordered about it?

Originally Posted by Jinx

You posted the exact same bullshit that is found in Christian literature. From the same 'Christian science' publications which explain how T-rexes were vegetarian, we find these arguements

1. Evidence proving evolution was planted by God to test our faith.

No, I suggested that if there is an ultimate power then whats the effort of adding some decoration... You say that theres evidence??? where did I say that, your misquoting is fucking awful, you should probably get that looked at, either that or go work for a current affair, they'd love you, they might even think that you have the necessary skills to blow ray martin, you'd be in heaven eh, cos you're f*ck all good for anything else. Everyone else here makes mistakes, but you're doing it on purpose aren't you?? you're filth.

Originally Posted by Jeenie

I would like you to prove you aren't lying, and give me the datestamp of when you posted this quote. I've gone back, and cannot find where you quoted any such thing.

sorry, fucked up there, lost the post right at the end, had to write it again must have missed the quote.

this however is the correct one congratulations.

Originally Posted by them

Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. Any errors you identify should be reported to the authors or to the editor.

As a general rule, you should never rely too heavily on anything you read on the Internet. Read the primary, reviewed literature before making up your mind on any topic. Most of the archive's essays provide references to primary sources to make it easier for you to do this.

That is where it says that there may be misstatements of fact, otherwise known as untruths, also lies, sometimes bullshit. This is all I need to show that your source is unreliable.

Originally Posted by Janine

Where does it say that the material on the site can be posted by anyone? Prove it to me. Get one of your posts on that site. And no, 'letters to the editor' does not count.

Im sorry, did you just say before that you participated in it?? that's enough proof for me.

this is the question that is answered.

Originally Posted by them again

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

Originally Posted by them from before

While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists

Many... not all, and the bit about laymen isn't refuted by the answer, so, yeah thats where it says. If people with no qualifications can submit.. thats anyone..


and omg you people are filth.

The fact is that this discussion is stupid.

The theory is that its gonna go for all eternity.

Theory can be disproved by the previously held fact that I get bored after two days of gibberish..

Originally Posted by jackoffasaurus

[quote:931c682ae5="Harbinger"]No because you see, I play games, this gives me an interest, this forum that i PARTICIPATE in, I don't just read it for the purpose of obtaining knowledge...Obtaining knowledge for the express purpose of having that knowledge.. is the greatest waste of time I can imagine, all it let's you do is lord up that knowledge over other people... oh wait.. that's you, well, that proves my point, what a waste of time..

So what you're saying is someone with interests other than your own are wasting their time.[/quote:931c682ae5]

Do you even speak english?

Originally Posted by Jankina

Saying an invisible green space monkey pooped life out of his butt and then pooped out the world, deliberately faking evidence in the world to make it seem as if we evolved, cannot be disproved.

So if someone fakes evidence to prove evolution... (yeah sif that would happen :O) then evolution is automatically ruled out as a theory, its proven false by false evidence? You attempt to disprove the arguments put foward by saying that others have falsified evidence, stop eating paint.

Originally Posted by Jinderella

Of course the current theories of evolution could be disproven

[jaian mode]well that means god is real!![/jaian mode]

what the hell are you on about, your whole argument is based on evolution being utterly undisputable and you say that its a theory, and not a fact, but also an undisputed fact, but also an almost definite thingy....

Does it hurt thinking like that?

Jaian
Just give up, everyone beleives in evolution, the arguments are only trying to justify the right of people to beleive if they wish. Even if their arguments have turned quite badly (your fault), their original intention is correct, you can't disprove the existance of god.

Everyone Else
He has just as much right to say that god doesn't exist, and as we are in flames, he is allowed to put shit on said beleifs. However this topic is now a long way from whether the bible is true, you all know the bible is full of shit. Meataxe posted this thread trying to be subtle about posting an obvious flamebait topic, that should have been enough evidence for everyone to ignore it. You can take this as fact right here

Meataxe is a dickhead.

and

Jaian will never admit that he's wrong, he will argue for eternity with an ever shifting topic that hardly manages to stay still for more than one post. I ask that everyone stop responding, I know its difficult because he seeds his arguments with flames that make you respond whether you want to or not. Try to ignore him, he might go away. I'm not modding here, I wont bother locking this, but I will attempt to stop posting, although this is unlikely as his other trick is deliberately misinterpereting your posts..... I make these assumptions with the beleif that he is doing it on purpose.. otherwise... he's the stupidest fucker ever born

Leave the young boy alone. One day he will fall from the arms of christ and see the universe in an enlighted way.

lord of the rings

magician

dune

just some of the greats

:idea: would it be possible to move this secular argument away to a new topic that is slightly more relevant? it seems to me that some people have transgressed from what is actually an interesting subject, into a realm of shitty semantics.

Originally Posted by Jaian

I wonder, is this a GU thing? First Illusions, then you. Posting your grades in discussions?

disappointed when your arse gets roasted? and then of course you try to denigrate our results and accuse us of hiding behind them. nice double-standard when it comes to credibility. a highschool certificate is a standard, and our performance in our final year determines our ranking in relation to other students. hence, a high score in english is an indication that i'm in the top tier of english students and that - yes, to your dismay - i know how to read, analyse and respond.

Originally Posted by El Presidente

I think it's a last-year-of-highschool thing. I worked hard in my final year and I was proud of the result. I felt that I had learnt a lot and had really come to grips with some of my subjects - economics in particular.

Boy was I wrong - but the understanding came later.

While I second Jaian on the "read a university textbook" call, it's easy to forget how huge your highschool scores seem in the Cosmic Scheme of things. Right until your first day of university, when they cease to matter. It's just a funny old world.

and you're still wrong. nice assumption by the way, although your own experiences don't necessarily apply to others. some of us for instance, have read university texts. ta, that'll be all for tonight.

Defensive.

lol didn't read half this stuff..but Harb you're brilliant as always

Jaian - give up nobody cares. We've all noticed how big your ego is, how opinionated you are, and I also see a lot of attention seeking and blah blah blah

Magician's a great book