No God's No Guilt - Page 7 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25th, 2008, 11:40 PM   #121
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lbfin88 View Post
Maybe the Phantom could?
Thats what Im thinking
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 25th, 2008, 11:55 PM   #122
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
You can observe a spark plug igniting fuel, it happens the same way time after time. Also you can observe it over and over.
The origin of life on the other hand has more than one theory and none of which has been proven and or repeated so as to allow us to observe it over and over again.
At what point do you or did you go from scientific proof to unsubstantiated faith in making a decission as to what you believe the origin of life is because no matter what is said or written the origin of life is an unproven theory.
What I'm talking about with the spark plug thing is that scientist are not sure HOW a spark plug ignites the fuel mixture not IF. Like I said earlier, I like the electron deflection THEORY.

Also, in your above aurgument you are using circular logic to try to prove your point. From what I've been able to untangle from your post I have not used unsubtantiated faith (I don't go to the Church of Darwinism) but instead have used the scientific process to come to the conclusion that Evolution is a viable process. Unlike "faith" I am eager to learn information on the subject of evolution and my opinion is moldable with new information. If there was a study that said alien space monkeys are responsible to volcanos and there was alot of evidence to back it up, I'd be a believer.

I don't mean this as an insult but I don't feel you have the background to debate a scientific subject. From your posts I can see that you are not quite sure of the terminology. I respect your position about the theory of evolution but our discussion has boiled down to the definition of semantics. I would suggest you go to the library and check out "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. Read it will a critical eye (like a scientist would) and then come back and debate this subject.

Last edited by Nuggets; May 26th, 2008 at 12:44 AM.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 12:20 AM   #123
no1likesme
not Frank Sinatra
 
no1likesme's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-08
Location: shepherd, MI
Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to no1likesme Send a message via MSN to no1likesme
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
I don't mean this as an insult but I don't feel you have the background to debate a scientific subject. From your posts I can see that you are not quite sure of the terminology. I respect your position about the theory of evolution but our discussion has boiled to to the definition of semantics. I would suggest you go to the library and check out "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. Read it will a critical eye (like a scientist would) and then come back and debate this subject.
and bring candy
no1likesme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 12:44 AM   #124
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
What I'm talking about with the spark plug thing is that scientist are not sure HOW a spark plug ignites the fuel mixture not IF. Like I said earlier, I like the electron deflection THEORY.

Also, in your above aurgument you are using circular logic to try to prove your point. From what I've been able to untangle from your post I have not used unsubtantiated faith (I don't go to the Church of Darwinism) but instead have used the scientific process to come to the conclusion that Evolution is a viable process. Unlike "faith" I am eager to learn information on the subject of evolution and my opinion is moldable with new information. If there was a study that said alien space monkeys are responsible to volcanos and there was alot of evidence to back it up, I'd be a believer.

I don't mean this as an insult but I don't feel you have the background to debate a scientific subject. From your posts I can see that you are not quite sure of the terminology. I respect your position about the theory of evolution but our discussion has boiled to to the definition of semantics. I would suggest you go to the library and check out "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. Read it will a critical eye (like a scientist would) and then come back and debate this subject.
I don't get insulted, I always try to listen weather its evolution, or hydrocarbon chemistry. I won't argue something like the stoichiometric air fuel ratio for gas at 14.7:1 or if it's actually 14.68:1 since both can can be supported more than once.

I haven't even argued Darwins theory, and I never read The Origin of Species completely as I found it to be to speculative and repetative to earlier and similar theorys.

My point is the theory's surrounding evolution are their infancy relative to significant amounts of hard proof.

I'm not going to try to pull a bunch of scientists names or published work by them as proof because it's a waste of time on this subject because it's to opinionated, but scientists have claimed to have discovered the remains of early humans that are larger than the remains of later humans.

This is something I read in one of the sciencs publications a while back. It was not any type of religious publication just science news.

I found it interresting that the Bible talks of giants in Genisis and in the story of David and Goliath.

So do you make the conclusion that these scientists have offered proof of the theory of the bible, and now we have scientific proof the bible is correct.

Well to read this with a critical eye I would have to say no.

I also have to say if you read Darwins publications without first understanding his background, education, and the time period he lived, not to mention the competition that was going on at that time to publish something about evolution your thoughts could be manipulated.

Terminology and definitions change on a daily basis, therefore they have limited use thats all reletive to their time period.

Newton is known as a great scientist his theory on gravity has been superseeded by einstiens relativity. Dispite this fact obsolete Newton formulas are used in science as opposed to the more complicated Einstien formulas because the Einstien formulas are to hard for lazy asses to use. Therefore the calculations using Newtons formulas are incorrect.

I dont know what your back ground is but incorrect is incorrect and I'm not comfortable with just going along with an unproven theory because of some terminology or ever changing definition.

Oh by the way the stoichiometric air to fuel ratio for ethanol is 7.81:1 but a spark plug will still fire both.

Last edited by Mr Toes - R.I.P.; May 26th, 2008 at 12:51 AM.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 12:59 AM   #125
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post

I don't mean this as an insult but I don't feel you have the background to debate a scientific subject. From your posts I can see that you are not quite sure of the terminology. I respect your position about the theory of evolution but our discussion has boiled down to the definition of semantics. I would suggest you go to the library and check out "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. Read it will a critical eye (like a scientist would) and then come back and debate this subject.
The credentials of Charles Darwin are not indicative of what a rational person would consider adequate of a person making the claim they have the answer to the origin of life.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 01:07 AM   #126
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

But HOW does the spark set fire to ethanol (or gas, or mice for that matter). Feel free to use detail, attach additional sheets if necessary.

You are trying really hard to come across as a man in the know with this subject but the fact of the matter is that you are not familiar with what we are really talking about. You don't believe in evolution and you very well could be right. Your not believing in the theory of evolution is acceptable even if you don't know all of the details surrounding the theory.

If you really want to debate this subject further I'll start a thread about the theory of evolution just for that purpose. I've been doing everything from memory but if you want to kick up the discussion I would be happy to start suppling references to what I post. I find debates like this very intellectually stimulating and I always seem to learn something new from them.

About my background: I wash dishes at the Texan restaurant part time and I work at Big Apple Bagel on Saturdays.

One last thought: Intead of me explaining Darwin to you, how about you give your views on how life started and progressed to this point. Mikesova converted me to Pastafarinism, this is your chance to get me to think like you.

Last edited by Nuggets; May 26th, 2008 at 08:00 AM.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 01:09 AM   #127
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
The credentials of Charles Darwin are not indicative of what a rational person would consider adequate of a person making the claim they have the answer to the origin of life.
Thomas Edison was somewhat of a retard too.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 08:21 AM   #128
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lbfin88 View Post
Yeah, you can't go back in a time machine to observe the beginning of life nor can you repeat it in a laboratory.
The laboratory duplication has been done to some degree. Sea water and other components (the primordial "stew") were subjected high voltage shocks (to simulate lightning strikes). The results were complex amino acids which scientists agree are the basic building blocks of life.

Note to Mr. Toes: This statement does not PROVE how life started, it only suggests it.

Wow, look at the time. Got to go wash dishes now and clean the toilet at the Texan.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 11:03 AM   #129
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
But HOW does the spark set fire to ethanol (or gas, or mice for that matter). Feel free to use detail, attach additional sheets if necessary.

You are trying really hard to come across as a man in the know with this subject but the fact of the matter is that you are not familiar with what we are really talking about. You don't believe in evolution and you very well could be right. Your not believing in the theory of evolution is acceptable even if you don't know all of the details surrounding the theory.

If you really want to debate this subject further I'll start a thread about the theory of evolution just for that purpose. I've been doing everything from memory but if you want to kick up the discussion I would be happy to start suppling references to what I post. I find debates like this very intellectually stimulating and I always seem to learn something new from them.

About my background: I wash dishes at the Texan restaurant part time and I work at Big Apple Bagel on Saturdays.

One last thought: Intead of me explaining Darwin to you, how about you give your views on how life started and progressed to this point. Mikesova converted me to Pastafarinism, this is your chance to get me to think like you.
If your refering to the subject being do you accept a given theory or not, then yes we all are in the know because we all are entitled to an opinion.

As long as you debate any theory than you are debating an opinion.


I keep saying I'm not debating evolution I'm just not accepting unproven theorys as truth.

The Texan is OK but I kinda like The Turkey Roost or Linwood Corners for beakfast.

I don't have a clue how life started, I wasn't there.

Maybee a discussion on Darwin would be fun.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 11:05 AM   #130
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
Thomas Edison was somewhat of a retard too.
Are you comparing yourself to Thomas Edison, or are you saying Darwin was retarded ?
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 01:01 PM   #131
lbfin88
American Infidel
 
lbfin88's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-24-06
Location: Lapeer
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to lbfin88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
The laboratory duplication has been done to some degree. Sea water and other components (the primordial "stew") were subjected high voltage shocks (to simulate lightning strikes). The results were complex amino acids which scientists agree are the basic building blocks of life.

Note to Mr. Toes: This statement does not PROVE how life started, it only suggests it....
So, this experiment proved that it did need intelligence to start life?
:tonka:
lbfin88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 01:17 PM   #132
no1likesme
not Frank Sinatra
 
no1likesme's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-08
Location: shepherd, MI
Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to no1likesme Send a message via MSN to no1likesme
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lbfin88 View Post
So, this experiment proved that it did need intelligence to start life?
:tonka:
nope.
no1likesme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 02:22 PM   #133
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lbfin88 View Post
So, this experiment proved that it did need intelligence to start life?
:tonka:
I wonder if you could run your car on lightning, or have a monkey hold a spark plug wire while you turn a motor over and verify the missing link.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 02:32 PM   #134
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
The laboratory duplication has been done to some degree. Sea water and other components (the primordial "stew") were subjected high voltage shocks (to simulate lightning strikes). The results were complex amino acids which scientists agree are the basic building blocks of life.

Note to Mr. Toes: This statement does not PROVE how life started, it only suggests it.

Wow, look at the time. Got to go wash dishes now and clean the toilet at the Texan.
This is not an argument against your post it is an observation of facts.

The duplication you refer to is not definitive of what exsisted in the period of time for which the experiment is aimed at providing proof. It is again therologically a limited, not exact duplication.

The sea water and additives provided by the scientists are prepared by them to show something they want to show. Therefore one could conclude the experiment is bias.

So we are back to unproven theory.

Last edited by Mr Toes - R.I.P.; May 26th, 2008 at 03:07 PM.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 04:37 PM   #135
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
This is not an argument against your post it is an observation of facts.

The duplication you refer to is not definitive of what exsisted in the period of time for which the experiment is aimed at providing proof. It is again therologically a limited, not exact duplication.

The sea water and additives provided by the scientists are prepared by them to show something they want to show. Therefore one could conclude the experiment is bias.

So we are back to unproven theory.

Fail. Please stop pretending. You keep refering to theories as unproven opinions. Since you don't believe in evolutionairy theory and you don't believe in intellegent design, I would have to assume you are all about magic fairy action and witchcraft.

From you posts in other threads I feel that all you are trying to do create an antaginistic environment in an effort to further your ego. You can't even grasp the concept of hypothesis vs theory vs fact.

This whole string you have brought NOTHING to the table as far as alternative veiw points or other information that would support your stance. I've tried to have an intellegent discussion about the topic of evolution but apparently I've overestimated your capacity for rational thought.

Would anybody else out there like to continue the discussion of evolution or propose another theory (since there are no FACTS). I would be eager to hear all educated view points and discuss the topic in a professional manner. Shouting no no no you're wrong without backing up your statement is not debating.

Last edited by Nuggets; May 26th, 2008 at 04:44 PM.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 04:45 PM   #136
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Mr. Toes = ignore list.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 06:59 PM   #137
no1likesme
not Frank Sinatra
 
no1likesme's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-08
Location: shepherd, MI
Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to no1likesme Send a message via MSN to no1likesme
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
Mr. Toes = ignore list.
OH SNAP!

I would gladly argue theories like evolution but I have a feeling that we will agree on most points making for dull topics.
no1likesme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 07:15 PM   #138
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by no1likesme View Post
I would gladly argue theories like evolution but I have a feeling that we will agree on most points making for dull topics.
lol
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 07:26 PM   #139
no1likesme
not Frank Sinatra
 
no1likesme's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-08
Location: shepherd, MI
Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to no1likesme Send a message via MSN to no1likesme
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
lol
you bastard...
no1likesme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 08:06 PM   #140
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by no1likesme View Post
you bastard...
I ment lol in a good way.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Tags
dave kerwin, explaining it to a rock, ham gravy, sucks cock

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.37633 seconds with 80 queries