No, Sir Qorl, I do not know why elephants have red eyes! And unfortunately, I have not seen any cave men running around lately. Not for at least a week or two!
So they could hide themselves between strawberries Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That might have worked if strawberries were brown: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I wonder why soo much hate religious have against Mr. Charles Darwin. His theory evolved and it is impossible to deny evolution. Your little faith is no match with the mountains of evidence that evolution have.
Christians hate Darwin so much because he made man into just an animal. Scientist had already taken away the central role of earth in the universe and Darwin took away their most precious belief. That man was special.
I originally asked you why you made that comment in a different thread. Page 9 of Masculinity and Men (highly recommend it): Satyr says something silly like this: I say something like this: Buddha comments that Satyr is a retard. Then you respond with: I assumed, most likely correctly, that you weren't referring to Satyr. Since there were basically two other people conversing in there regularly, and I was one of them, it's not hard to see that you were probably referring to myself and Buddha1. I had asked you in that thread to comment on how I was blind, or how I claimed the sky was purple. You evidently didn't care too much to respond then. I finally got a response out of you, but you said: Well, I just refreshed your memory, I suppose. Oh, well. I don't really care about it anymore anyway. I won't ask you about it again. Besides, it was probably just monkey chatter! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you think I keep track of what I say to every member of this forum in every thread. Or did you imagine you made some kind of impression on me that I would remember your ramblings in an unrelated thread?
Far from it. You popped in out of nowhere, made a peculiar statement about people being blind, and never bothered to justify the insult. As far as making an impression, I frankly don't know if you read any of those "ramblings" or not. You apparently didn't have the time to actually say WHY anyone was blind or reply when someone asked you to explain (which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to ME), so why should it be so wrong for me to return the favor in "an unrelated thread"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Its a relatively new comical quiz programme broadcast in the UK, full of interesting little facts like the one you mention designed to purposefully catch people out(hence its comic value). I have to admit im impressed, before i saw the programme i had no idea Darwin never mentioned it.
Do you really mean you didn't understand the comment? Two people who know nothing of science agree on the wrongness of a scientific concept and reassure each other that what they say has merit and the whole world is wrong. You cannot connect that to being compared to two blind people assuring each other that the sky is purple? :bugeye:
What makes you so sure I don't know a THING about science. That's a pretty hefty accusation. What scientific concept is this that you're referring to that I claimed was so wrong??? Do YOU even know what you're saying? I'm sure if you had actually replied to me when that accusation was first made, things would have been more clear. You are mistaken in your assumption that I believe and agree with everything that certain other person is saying, and I stated as much in response to your blind statement when it was first posted. I have seen some of what he is talking about exhibited by both myself and other people I have interacted with. I agree with quite a few of his ideas and his observations, but I have no way of knowing that everything is as he says it is, or if this is a worldwide phenomenon, and I have never said that I believed he was totally accurate in the first place. I don't hesitate to disagree with him, which is fairly often. You seem to be jumping to conclusions that are off the mark.
But, since this is supposed to be about Darwin, maybe it's best not to talk anymore here. NOBODY SHOULD BE TALKING HERE! I demand silence for my orbula. Ssshhh! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think that statement was intended to be an example. Not that you were one of the two who knew nothing.
Sarkus says: Strawman fallacy. You say "natural selection" is a tautology like "survival of the fittest" and then go on to explain why "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. But you have NOT explained why "natural selection" is a tautology. Woody says: I am not denying that evolution can happen, I'm merely stating that the cause is unknown. Natural selection has been proposed as a cause by you and others. Before there can be any discussion about "natural selection" you must define what natural selection is? That's all I ever asked for was a definition that is not self-defining. Self-defining definitions are false when they are used in logical analysis. For example, if you say a "cow by definition is a cow." You make a true statement but it is only true within itself: it provides no new information for a logical analysis. It is therefore a useless, flawed, redundant, and misleading statement in a logical explantion of something else. So how about definining natural selection in a way that provides new information? For example tell me who or what is doing the selecting and how it is being done. Animal breeders, for example, can breed various forms of dogs by artificially selecting certain "desirable traits." Darwin proposed natural selection based on the results from the artificial selection performed by animal breeders. He did not discover the cause of natural selection. Artificial selection is defined by who or what is doing it (animal breeders) and how it is being done (an intelligent choice of breeding stock based on specific traits that a breeder is looking for.) "Natural selection" needs to be defined likewise. What is a "desirable trait", is "fit," "adaptable," etc? How is the selection being done?
Why don't we ask Darwin? http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html What is a desirable trait? Any trait that responds well to change. How is the selection done? I guess Darwin might answer by the struggle for existence.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/cyclops-kitten-no-hoax/2006/01/11/1136956230663.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you could use "parasitic head baby" or "face-eating tumour" for the symbol of atheism, but Cyclops Kitty almost becomes cute if you look at it long enough. Well. THIS cyclops kitty. There are others that are much worse. Cyclops Kitty. It really means something.
