Spinoff: If evolution is a lie...

2

Comments

  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    its under that. well actually near the top about 4 - 5 inches down from the top of the butt ?

    I know where it's at and what it was. It was a tail and now it's not. It's called a coyccx.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    b*braze wrote: »
    right click save

    The only valuable thing in that post.
  • UPTOWN
    UPTOWN Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 13,009 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    Dakari wrote: »
    lol @ you gettin mad because you say the dumbest ? outside of illpix and i happen to stumble upon it. Obviously the only thing you are capable of doing is looking at females.
    Grump old man stay in your rocker. catchin feelins like a female
    rockin_granny.gif

    LOL

    listen to how mad you are LOL

    yo man is there something you wanna talk to me about??? LOL its almost as if you're reaching for anything you can possibly find that you can quote and try to make yourself feel better about something. what that something is i have no idea. im basing this off of the fact that anytime im have a convo or debate ANYWHERE outside of ill pix no matter what it is or who its with, you always somehow seem to enter the convo, siding with the opposing poster, posting ? gifs, and using the ol "you're only good for ill pix" line that you and like two other posters always use LOL

    cuzzin... that ? doesnt work with me baby boy. 17 year old children with pics of naked babies in their sig cant really argue with me. what are you so bitter about??? you remind me of some jump off who wants to see bad things happen to me because i wouldnt consider her for anything other than jump off status. say what you will, but you have no purpose on this board what so ever. ive never even seen you in any logical discussions or bring any talent or charisma to the board. youre just here saying and doing childish things. i usually dont do this, but if you would like some fatherly attention or would like to have a man to man convo to make yourself feel better about things that are going bad in your life. im here man LOL ... ill help you out lil ?
  • Dakari
    Dakari Members Posts: 9,387 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    LOL

    listen to how mad you are LOL

    yo man is there something you wanna talk to me about??? LOL its almost as if you're reaching for anything you can possibly find that you can quote and try to make yourself feel better about something. what that something is i have no idea. im basing this off of the fact that anytime im have a convo or debate ANYWHERE outside of ill pix no matter what it is or who its with, you always somehow seem to enter the convo, siding with the opposing poster, posting ? gifs, and using the ol "you're only good for ill pix" line that you and like two other posters always use LOL

    cuzzin... that ? doesnt work with me baby boy. 17 year old children with pics of naked babies in their sig cant really argue with me. what are you so bitter about??? you remind me of some jump off who wants to see bad things happen to me because i wouldnt consider her for anything other than jump off status. say what you will, but you have no purpose on this board what so ever. ive never even seen you in any logical discussions or bring any talent or charisma to the board. youre just here saying and doing childish things. i usually dont do this, but if you would like some fatherly attention or would like to have a man to man convo to make yourself feel better about things that are going bad in your life. im here man LOL ... ill help you out lil ?

    me mad? lol look who's typing the paragraphs here
    and smh at the bolded. very ? thinking old man
    Herbert_the_Pervert.png
  • UPTOWN
    UPTOWN Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 13,009 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    We have a tail end? Where? Does that mean that we are tadpoles evolved from ocean creatures? Why didn't we keep our tail?
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I know where it's at and what it was. It was a tail and now it's not. It's called a coyccx.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

    peep the bolded tho LOL

    what exactly is it you want to know?? because now you're just arguing in circles
  • elhuey
    elhuey Members Posts: 156
    edited January 2011
    well if thats the case then it argues against your logic

    what logic? i dont understand
  • UPTOWN
    UPTOWN Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 13,009 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    Dakari wrote: »
    me mad? lol look who's typing the paragraphs here
    and smh at the bolded. very ? thinking old man
    Herbert_the_Pervert.png

    paragraphs speak to intelligence more than they do emotion LOL

    let anyone who takes notice to this exchange know for the record

    this young man who is obsessed with following me around on the internet claims that im only good for posting pictures, but we are in the social lounge where we could easily spar minds using logic and he resorts to what???? POSTING PICTURES

    LOL.... its just like a bitter female. she doesnt care about using logic, as long as she expresses herself in a way that makes her feel good, she is satisfied. when a womens is fed up, you cant speak to her with logic LOL

    im not gonna ruin T/S thread with donkey posting ... so i wont bring the ether that i can easily bring to you. so just like i do when i get into a debate with an emotional woman ... ill let you win .... and laugh with the fellas about your finger snapping, neck rolling, beyonce independent woman attitude. iiiight dakari you right LOL .. but just for your sake you do realize you named yourself after a female drink right??

    daiquiri_straw.jpg

    only ? drink Daiquiri's cuzzin SMH


    hopefully that was enuff attention for you for the day
  • Dakari
    Dakari Members Posts: 9,387 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2011

    only ? drink Daiquiri's cuzzin SMH


    hopefully that was enuff attention for you for the day

    that explains your mother's ? guzzling
  • UPTOWN
    UPTOWN Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 13,009 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    elhuey wrote: »
    what logic? i dont understand

    wait are you saying that humans do or dont have tails because of evolution??
  • Pond Scum
    Pond Scum Members Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    "Bacteria grow to a fixed size and then reproduce through binary fission, a form of asexual reproduction."

    asexual is to carry both male and female parts inside ... such as angiosperm species

    and as far as the disrespect ... i apologize for hurting your feelings in the past. hopefully we can move on LOL smh

    asexual means neither male nor female though. at one point in history some of these asexual organisms evolved and became more complicated and thus began sexually reproducing since it wouldn't really be possible to maintain a complex organism with one set of genetic data (also why siblings really shouldn't be banging each other).

    this is why men have nipples if you believe in all that evolution ? . i think it's because ? wanted lesbians to be a little more comfortable having a threesome but i could be wrong.
  • UPTOWN
    UPTOWN Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 13,009 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    binstar wrote: »
    asexual means neither male nor female though. at one point in history some of these asexual organisms evolved and became more complicated and thus began sexually reproducing since it wouldn't really be possible to maintain a complex organism with one set of genetic data (also why siblings really shouldn't be banging each other).

    this is why men have nipples if you believe in all that evolution ? . i think it's because ? wanted lesbians to be a little more comfortable having a threesome but i could be wrong.

    i feel you on this one cuzzin, but having both male and female parts constitutes not being male or female specifically. it doesnt mean that you dont have characteristics of both genders, it just means you are not specifically one or the other
  • perspective@100
    perspective@100 Members Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    From other thread:
    binstar wrote: »
    Well I don't exactly think things were better hundreds of years ago when religion dominated so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
    Every era of society uses a thought process to define existence. It was once religion and only religion. I'm simply stating that science will dominate this era.

    binstar wrote: »
    As far as scientific research controlling everything I can't believe we even have to have this argument. What's wrong with trying to figure out how the universe works? While I agree that the way scientific research is used and applied is often misguided or foolish it doesn't mean the knowledge itself is bad.

    How much do you really need to know? For everything discovered and utilized in a positive manner, there is an equal and opposite usage for that discovery. Perhaps the discovery happens in reverse. There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out how the universe works, but why are we leaping to such bounds when we can't even create a perfectly functioning society? Our priorities are out of sink with nature. We are advancing in technology so fast it has surpassed our collective moral judgement.

    Example: When Physicist helped create the atomic bomb why were they not invested in harnessing that energy to help sustain society?

    People with the gift to understand things are still barbaric in nature, at least some of them are.


    binstar wrote: »
    It is possible to be religious and and not anti-science. I'm not even sure why some religious people want to make it an either/or situation since science can't lose that one. What do you call the force that kept Jesus stuck to planet earth as it revolved around the sun and the moon controlled the tides? See what I'm getting at here? even in a religious context science still ? to explain how things work..

    Everything about science is anti-religious. Science has no room for "the super natural" as it seeks an explanation for everything. If there is no super natural ? can not exist.

    binstar wrote: »
    And your analogy between science becoming debunked like religion is preposterous. Science changes. If we find out that the theory of relativity doesn't hold up then a new scientific theory will take it's place. Science can correct itself and facts aren't subject to interpretation.

    I never said science will be debunked as you assume religion is now debunked from your own wording. I'm aware of the capability of science to change but with that as a key factor I never take science as the all knowing truth or accept it as what everyone likes to call "fact". Its a collection of data with similar results thats eases the mind from the obsessive behavior of trying to understand existence. The Bible did and in some ways continues to do this but for the most part science has a strong influence in modern society.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    I never said science will be debunked as you assume religion is now debunked from your own wording. I'm aware of the capability of science to change but with that as a key factor I never take science as the all knowing truth or accept it as what everyone likes to call "fact". Its a collection of data with similar results thats eases the mind from the obsessive behavior of trying to understand existence. The Bible did and in some ways continues to do this but for the most part science has a strong influence in modern society.

    I agree with everything you wrote up to this point. I think what differs between Science and Religion is that science actually puts to the test what they claims. It really doesn't matter what anyone takes from it. The fact that it offers tangible observable evidence whether law or theory is what it's all about. No one can claim science to be absolute and no scientist could honestly hold such an opinion with all the new discoveries made everyday. Religion has the trouble of using the process of science to observe but jumping to it's own conclusion based off of opinion and pondering rather then testing anything. The ultimate problem with science is the scientist that wields the new discovery for negative or positive effects.
  • fiat_money
    fiat_money Members Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Because it's one of "? 's" fetishes.
  • perspective@100
    perspective@100 Members Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Religion has the trouble of using the process of science to observe but jumping to it's own conclusion based off of opinion and pondering rather then testing anything. The ultimate problem with science is the scientist that wields the new discovery for negative or positive effects.

    I think you have a misunderstanding of Religion itself. The bible is not literal. If you don't believe in anything you still must have to agree that there is some higher power that none of us can elaborate on not even science.
  • Pond Scum
    Pond Scum Members Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    From other thread:
    Every era of society uses a thought process to define existence. It was once religion and only religion. I'm simply stating that science will dominate this era.

    How much do you really need to know? For everything discovered and utilized in a positive manner, there is an equal and opposite usage for that discovery. Perhaps the discovery happens in reverse. There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out how the universe works, but why are we leaping to such bounds when we can't even create a perfectly functioning society? Our priorities are out of sink with nature. We are advancing in technology so fast it has surpassed our collective moral judgement.

    Example: When Physicist helped create the atomic bomb why were they not invested in harnessing that energy to help sustain society?

    People with the gift to understand things are still barbaric in nature, at least some of them are.

    The atom bomb was created for one reason and one reason only so that's a bad example but I get what you're saying. I just don't agree that being in a primitive state of unawareness is a very good solution to humanity's true problems any more than I think scientific understanding is.
    Everything about science is anti-religious. Science has no room for "the super natural" as it seeks an explanation for everything. If there is no super natural ? can not exist.

    I never said science will be debunked as you assume religion is now debunked from your own wording. I'm aware of the capability of science to change but with that as a key factor I never take science as the all knowing truth or accept it as what everyone likes to call "fact". Its a collection of data with similar results thats eases the mind from the obsessive behavior of trying to understand existence. The Bible did and in some ways continues to do this but for the most part science has a strong influence in modern society.

    ? can exist - It just wouldn't be supernatural. The same way you and I exist but neither of us are supernatural.
  • UPTOWN
    UPTOWN Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 13,009 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    I think you have a misunderstanding of Religion itself. The bible is not literal. If you don't believe in anything you still must have to agree that there is some higher power that none of us can elaborate on not even science.

    the story of jesus is literal in every denomination of christianity .... along with the books of the torah etc. the only books they say shouldnt be taken literally just so happen to be the ones with stories they cant explain or that contradicts their beliefs, such as the story of the tower of babel
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    the story of jesus is literal in every denomination of christianity ....

    How quaint, every CHURCH makes it literal, good way to keep 'em in line.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    I think you have a misunderstanding of Religion itself. The bible is not literal. If you don't believe in anything you still must have to agree that there is some higher power that none of us can elaborate on not even science.

    No i don't.
  • judahxulu
    judahxulu Members Posts: 3,988 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    the story of jesus is literal in every denomination of christianity .... along with the books of the torah etc. the only books they say shouldnt be taken literally just so happen to be the ones with stories they cant explain or that contradicts their beliefs, such as the story of the tower of babel

    christians dont own the bible though. and all of them DONT take it literally. i dont ? with christians, but u aint gotta lie to kick it.
  • perspective@100
    perspective@100 Members Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    binstar wrote: »
    I just don't agree that being in a primitive state of unawareness is a very good solution to humanity's true problems any more than I think scientific understanding is.

    Being Primitive and being unaware of things is undoubtedly the largest problem of humanity in my eyes.
    Every successfull society that has ever existed has failed because of these factors. Technology means nothing if we lack the capabilities to use it properly. If we don't understand the implications of our advancement we will fail to advance.


    binstar wrote: »
    ? can exist - It just wouldn't be supernatural. The same way you and I exist but neither of us are supernatural.

    I only use the term supernatural in the sense that ? can not be explained by "science". Personally I believe ? is abundant in all the energy that surrounds us. "? is everywhere and everything" was often said to me when I attended church as a young person. I never fully understood that phrase until I rejected religion, then fully accepted science, then rejected science only to create my own personal thoughts. I take things from both science and religion and my understanding of my own life has come full circle.

    Now I just believe. Its not a blind faith because I know its there regardless of what anyone says. I just know.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited February 2011
    the story of jesus is literal in every denomination of christianity .... along with the books of the torah etc.
    yeah, this is not correct
  • motrilla
    motrilla Members Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    I still haven't heard anyone explain how wisdom teeth are not a concrete example of evolution
  • judahxulu
    judahxulu Members Posts: 3,988 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    motrilla wrote: »
    I still haven't heard anyone explain how wisdom teeth are not a concrete example of evolution

    how about you explain how they are
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    judahxulu wrote: »
    how about you explain how they are

    Guess I'll do it....

    They are the remnants from a time when we were only vegetarians(before Noah sacrificed the animal to ? ), up until that point all we knew to eat was every green herb for meat. After that and trying to chew burnt offerings(tough as ? ) we evolved to have some pointy eye teeth for tearing.