why that was nice

[jdawg 5,000+ posts]

its not that bad an idea since some people like sleeping on hard surfaces (me included), but having *** on a stone bed doesn't sound like much fun

X2

me too

I have a bad back, there are alot of nights when i rip my blankets off my bed and sleep on the floor

 

[Captain_Ahab 5,000+ posts]

Only time I sleep on a hard surface is if im plastered.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

this ^

 

[roarzorz 10+ year member]

Not for me. I like sleeping on my side and toos & turn too much for a hard surface. And that would totally screw up my knees during ***.

 

[mrteacha 10+ year member]

Not for me. I like sleeping on my side and toos & turn too much for a hard surface. And that would totally screw up my knees during ***.

On your knees during ***??? Sound like you've been doing a lot of catching //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wow.gif.23d729408e9177caa2a0ed6a2ba6588e.gif

Just phuckin witcha

 

[savagebee 10+ year member]

Only time I sleep on a hard surface is if im plastered.

so.. often?

 

[savagebee 10+ year member]

On your knees during ***??? Sound like you've been doing a lot of catching //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wow.gif.23d729408e9177caa2a0ed6a2ba6588e.gif

theres another option?

 

[Doingstuffwell 10+ year member]

no. worst bed ever...

its worse than sleeping in a hotel bathtub.

 

[Captain_Ahab 5,000+ posts]

so.. often?

not anymore.

maybe once every month or two now

 

[savagebee 10+ year member]

not anymore.
maybe once every month or two now

ahh, Ive been away

good for you, less unpleasant surprises in the morning now Im sure

 

[ngsm13 5,000+ posts]

No thanks.

nG

 

[Cameron_B 10+ year member]

Looks cool to me!!!

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

And a popular example of how information is lost is through the breeding of dogs: a dog that has been bred to lose the genetic traits of it's predecessors is not going to regain that lost information through random mutation.

Those exact same traits are not likely to result from random mutation, though they could. With that said, completely new traits can come from random mutation. Your argument that no new information occurs in evolution is simply false on its face.

There are two "types" of evolution: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is what has been observed by scientists as changes within a species, but not the changing of one species into another. This is also known as "adaptation", and is proven scientific fact. This is not to be confused with macro-evolution, which is large scale change (from goo to you style), and has not been observed by any scientist, at least, to my knowledge, thus making it conjecture. Darwinists are macro-evolutionists who put their faith (yes, macro-evolution requires faith) in a theory (the theory of macro-evolution) that has yet to be "demonstrated" or "observed". So, yes, I am using the word in a colloquial sense in describing Darwinist Evolutionary Theory, and feel quite comfortable (and correct) in doing so. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

The micro/macro distinction is nonsense and only a way of distinguishing time.

Let me ask you: what does "micro-evolution" do over millions and millions of years? What is the "wall" that prevents "macro-evolution" from occurring? What is this regulating system that keeps the species from changing any more, and what prevents it from further evolving? Part of this thinking comes from people who still think that evolution means a monkey gave birth to a human.

Macro-evolution (or the idea of common ancestry) is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence available. Not only do we have historical evidence of past speciation, we also have current evidence that speciation has occurred, most notably in fruit flies, some plants, and some fish. This was OBSERVED SPECIATION. You can't deny that it is possible.

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

how can evolution explain infanticide?

You realize hundreds of species perform infanticide? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

You have completely missed the meaning behind pascal's wager. First of all it does not present a dichotomy or attempt to pose a provable solution but instead attempts to make the best "ignorant" (if you will) choice when no option truly outweighs another from the skeptic's perspective. Thats why it's call pascal's "WAGER" not theory or model. It is not a dichotomy because it poses no mutually exclusive possibilities. There are in fact infinite possible outcomes anyone with a brain can realize. But pascal's wager says that even though the possibilies are indeed endless, the human element is limited. There are choices we have and do not have.
Thus, When the problem in question is: whether or not you should take a course of action when failing is theorized to destroy you... Inaction or refusal for the sake of inaction or refusal is an unwise decision.

I guess you completely missed the meaning of my criticism. The false dichotomy is this:

1) God exists and rewards belief in "it"

2) God does not exist

As a counter-example, consider the Atheist's Wager (which also uses a false dichotomy, but demonstrates part of why Pascal's Wager is wrong):

1) God exists and rewards skeptical or rational reasoning

2) God does not exist.

My point is that Pascal's Wager assumes a payout for believing in god; this is an unfounded assumption, unless you presume religious dogma to be accurate (which I do not, given the great deal of internal and external contradictions).

You have assumed that not believing will result in our "destruction", as you put it.

The mousetrap is not merely a knockoff on a previous theory, And does not only mean complexity infers design, let me explain per your statements.

Actually it is. They all boil down to the same argument: things are so complex that they must have had a designer, and that designer must be god. I can only assume that you have not read the works of Aquinas or Paley.

Infinite regress in built in to every statement, every action, every thought and every twinkle of existence that falls within the minute boundaries of the human perspective. Put simply there is doubtable fallacy in everything, because everything can be complicated to a level beyond human understanding. Literally, the only reason the mind can successfully function is by ignoring the impossibility of the universe around him. By arguing infinite regress you might as well be selectively choosing the theories you are choosing to ignore while accepting others just because you can.

The point about the infinite regress is to demonstrate that the argument for gods existence is no stronger than any other argument for what began. There we agree. The difference is that the god you propose ONLY exists in that infinite regression, whereas we have evidence of "natural causes" everywhere.

Similarly, I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know what came before (and in fact believe talking about what came before is basically non-sensical). You, on the other hand, assert that a god must be the answer, yet god also falls into the infinite regress from which you are trying to rescue yourself.

No but complexity in purpose does require design. Here is a poor example that attempts to explain the logic. I'm sure you've played the game sim city. Well if you start up the game and leave it running on your computer you have the possibility and vehicle of the growth of a city (evolution) but until the user inputs design, there is no method to facilitate development (Conscious input.) This is the point of Behe's mousetrap, not simply that the complexity of an item implies design, but that elements of the complexity of an item require design to function. And I'm curious as to the "evolution" that has proven complexity doesn't infer design.

You're comparing a computer game specifically programmed by us to behave in that manner to a natural universe that we do not know if it was programmed at all. That is hardly a valid comparison.

I'm unaware of any documented exaptation that is not purely theoretical and circumstantial. But this arguement has ties to the above. Specifically concerning extremely complex organisms, species must evolve complex structures gradually which is contradictory considering the process of evolution is to strengthen a population and the force endangering a species would very likely kill it off before the gradual change of evolution could facilitate saving a species. And furthermore, why and at what point does the functionality of a trait necessitate the removal of an appendage?

The rise of a more complex structure can be the result of a series of simpler structures evolving to co-operate and serve a new function. You are again making bald assertions; certainly many mutations do not have fitness benefits, but that doesn't mean that over millions and millions of years that there would be no mutations that would produce fitness benefits, and thus be more likely to survive.

It's just an example. But it implies that in fact there is no distinction between designed artifacts and natural. The distinction instead is in the designer. From that perspective, as you said above, perhaps if a creator exists, he is not the perfect god religion opines, but simply an existence above our own.

The point is that the distinction made originally (designed vs natural) is, according to creationists, non-existent, so there is no basis on which to put forth a designed vs natural argument. If it is only a question of the designer's abilities, how do you decide whether one artifact is "more designed" than the other?

eh i know the arguements

So you're aware, then, that every example Behe has given as "irreducibly complex" (including the eye, the bacteria flagellum, and the immune system) have been demonstrated as NOT irreducibly complex? Have you read any information in Kitzmiller vs Dover?

Are you listening to what you just said? Give me any statement you would consider "true" and i'll show you something you only say is true because you cannot prove otherwise.

Certainly we are in a state of epistemological darkness. Nothing can be completely known. But my point is that it is stupid to make a statement with no supporting argument, then say "Prove my statement is wrong or else it is true." I presume you believe in the celestial teapot, since it has not been proven wrong?

We shouldn't exist because every observable force in the universe opposes life. There are none that support it. Please don't respond with a statement referring to the fact that the earth supports life. things on earth die and everything is damaging to health. Every breath you take causes your body to decay. The earth is not a healthy cradling place but simply a less hostile place than others.

Again, you are making a bald assertion that life should not be the way it is. I look at life and I see energy coming in from the sun that, given the composition of the Earth, gives rise to continuing life. The life itself appears to give rise to more life. The evidence says the exact opposite of what you are asserting.

Can you explain to me how gravity opposes life?