Oh. My. God.

Taft2016 said:
And there's one of the straw men again.

Sad.
Click to expand...

It's not a strawman. It was in fact your argument and we have a record of it.

But we can move on from your blunder if you will just quit lying about it.

Again, if it is true that you accept the theory of evolution for all species but man, then how do you explain that we could not have possibly evolved from a common ancestor with other apes but that an elephant evolved from a common ancestor with a sequoia. The obvious proof of our common ancestor with apes is far more compelling.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
It's not a strawman. It was in fact your argument and we have a record of it.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't and I've explained what it meant countless times, but you still just haven't the capacity for a nuanced discussion. Instead, you nittle over distractions because you were soundly thrashed on the main topic.

Sad.
 
Taft2016 said:
No, it isn't and I've explained what it meant countless times, but you still just haven't the capacity for a nuanced discussion. Instead, you nittle over distractions because you were soundly thrashed on the main topic.

Sad.
Click to expand...

You have lied about what you meant. No one but you suggested that man has evolved further and faster than any other.

I have already addressed what a very generous reading of your nonsense suggests. That is, being very generous, I think what you were trying to say is that man is too far separated from the other species for evolution to explain the gap. Again, you think that the variation from man to other apes is greater than the variation from elephant to field mouse or elephant to sequoia? Really? Reeeeallllllly? The elephant and sequoia both have trunks but that is about the only thing that is obviously in common.

You have thrashed no one. You are clearly delusional. Your comments about eyeglasses has absolutely nothing to do with the proof for evolution. No evolutionary biologists that I know of has argued that eyeglasses are proof of man's evolution. I have provided you with various lines of proof for the theory evolution, please, make your case, if you can.

What proof is their that all other species evolved but that disproves man's evolution?

Your position is one chosen based on nothing but whim. It is not based on science or any search for truth.
 
Last edited:
Dick from the Internet said:
You have lied about what you meant. No one but you suggested that man has evolved further and faster than any other.
Click to expand...

No, you're mischaracterizing what was said to give yourself a fighting chance.

And it ain't workin'.

Meanwhile, if man has evolved, it's self evident that it was faster and further than any other species. He's the only species that even knows there is a Moon, let alone what it is, let alone that it is a place to try and visit, and let alone actually accomplish it.

I have already addressed what a very generous reading of your nonsense suggests. That is, being very generous, I think what you were trying to say is that man is too far separated from the other species for evolution to explain the gap. Again, you think that the variation from man to other apes is greater than the variation from elephant to field mouse or elephant to sequoia? Really? Reeeeallllllly? The elephant and sequoia both have trunks but that is about the only thing that is obviously in common.
Click to expand...

The fail here is epic. The rationale that an elephant has evolved further than a tree does not negate the fact that man, if he has evolved (it's annoying that you make me specify that every time now), has evolved faster and and further than probably every other speicies on the planet combined.

Does a field mouse know what the Moon is? Or the elephant? Or the tree? No.

You have thrashed no one.
Click to expand...

Perhaps "thrashed" isn't the right word.

"Absolutely fekkin' throttled" may be more appropriate.
 
Taft2016 said:
No, you're mischaracterizing what was said to give yourself a fighting chance.

And it ain't workin'.

Meanwhile, if man has evolved, it's self evident that it was faster and further than any other species. He's the only species that even knows there is a Moon, let alone what it is, let alone that it is a place to try and visit, and let alone actually accomplish it.



The fail here is epic. The rationale that an elephant has evolved further than a tree does not negate the fact that man, if he has evolved (it's annoying that you make me specify that every time now), has evolved faster and and further than probably every other speicies on the planet combined.

Does a field mouse know what the Moon is? Or the elephant? Or the tree? No.



Perhaps "thrashed" isn't the right word.

"Absolutely fekkin' throttled" may be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Earth to Taft;
No matter what you profess to believe, you will not live forever...
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Bullshit. Einstein was an agnostic and the only concept of God he entertained (Spinoza's) is very different than yours. For instance, Spinoza did not see God as a creator but merely a cause.
Click to expand...

Baruch Spinoza defined "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

with both matter and thought ?

God is 'something' with both matter and thought....what the hell are the implications of that ?

That is food for thought....but I'll remain an agnostic...its far above my pay grade.
 
NOVA said:
Baruch Spinoza defined "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

with both matter and thought ?

God is 'something' with both matter and thought....what the hell are the implications of that ?
.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said he was clearly no physicist.:awesome:
 
Taft2016 said:
Which is why I said he was clearly no physicist.:awesome:
Click to expand...

God is 'something' with both matter and thought....what the hell are the implications of that ?

How can you say you believe that definition of 'God' and say you're an agnostic at the same time....where is the logic.

If you accept any definition of God, to me, imo, you're a believer, not an agnostic.

 
Taft2016 said:
And I think I know what the problem is.

.
Click to expand...

The problem is you have a retarded childish notion that if you say the correct fucking nonsense that you will live forever...
Now get down on your retarded knees and mumble some retarded magic incantations to imaginary supernatural beings, like yo mama taught you, you stupid fucking twit...
 
NOVA said:
Baruch Spinoza defined "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

with both matter and thought ?

God is 'something' with both matter and thought....what the hell are the implications of that ?

That is food for thought....but I'll remain an agnostic...its far above my pay grade.
Click to expand...

Agnostic means literally "I don't know"...
Blabo has admitted he doesn't know anything...
LMFAO
 
Dick from the Internet said:
I know he is a liar.

He claims he accepts the theory of evolution in one breath then in the next he rejects it. He says the evolution of man is not possible then claims he has not argued that man has not evolved. Those are both lies, with no two ways about the last one.

He argues that the unsupported assertion that man has evolved faster and farther than any other species is proof that man has not evolved. This one indicates that his IQ must be very very very low. So maybe he is not lying. Maybe he is just so dumb that he could not intentionally lie. But his other posts don't really support that.

EDIT: Oh yeah, then there is his lie that Einstien was a creationist. This one I have heard from this group of morons (ditzy, PiMPle and Taft) for over a decade. I have shown several times now that Einstein rejected the idea of God as a being that is active in the world, but they continue to smear him and Spinoza.
Click to expand...

His claim that natural selection involves a "lesser" species indicates his complete lack of knowledge and is a conversation stopper in itself.

I've been around the block with these kinds more than once and it's an exercise in fultility. They always come back with their mantras taken directly from creationist sites. Simpletons.
 
domer76 said:
His claim that natural selection involves a "lesser" species indicates his complete lack of knowledge and is a conversation stopper in itself.

I've been around the block with these kinds more than once and it's an exercise in fultility. They always come back with their mantras taken directly from creationist sites. Simpletons.
Click to expand...

Taft's ignorance and gullibility is breathtaking...
 
Last edited:
Buckly J. Ewer said:
Agnostic means literally "I don't know"...
Blabo has admitted he doesn't know anything...
LMFAO
Click to expand...

Poor Fuckly the Asshole...

don't even know what the word agnostic means.....let me help you out....

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I always strive to make the ignorant, like you, less ignorant....
 
NOVA said:
Poor Fuckly the Asshole...

don't even know what the word agnostic means.....let me help you out....

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I always strive to make the ignorant, like you, less ignorant....
Click to expand...

un-huh
Poor Blabo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top