RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: VMartin's cosmology, where he will not be off-topic< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,12:43   

I've shifted meta-discussion to the Bathroom Wall thread.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,00:50   

Erasmus arguments why aposematic insects haven't peopled the Earth detering all their predators with their "protective" coloration and "poisonous" qualities:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=240

 
Quote

...lions aren't protected by noxious chemicals and have no predators.  why don't they people the whole earth?  blue whales?  brown tree snakes?  grizzly bears?  bahhh.




Maybe lions are too lazy to support neodarwinian idea of proliferation of the strogest. They almost oversleep all day doing nothing. They are not so vivid as rats and mice that are far better example of "struggle for life".

Medieval kings put the lion on their coat of arms. They considered him to be the  king of animals. It's a pity nobody could instruct them at those dark times about population genetic. Neodarwinian would have had a rat on his coat of arms. Rats are best adapted to various niches and win "struggle for life" everywhere. Lion couldn't survive a day in the sewage conduit.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,02:07   

You're babbling, Marty. AND off-topic.

If you go back to the first message on this thread, the questions are:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?
2) how old is the earth?

You answered the second. Since being 'on-topic' is so important for you, answer the first now:

do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?

Bet you're still afraid to answer.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,05:08   

The thread about aposematism has been closed. Anyway according to my "cosmology" coloration of animals presents only some kind of species self-representation. Especially so called "warning coloration" of insects do not give them often any survival advantage. I am discussing the problem of wasps coloration at EvC forum, so if you would like to know more about  my arguments go there. (I dare say there is really discussion at EvC, no one uses denigration there instead arguments (idiot, Croatian old teacher,  etc...) except one person, who's access has been suspended because of it.)  

Of course I am ready to discuss any insect aposematism here ( also butterflies etc...). But because the topic and my person seems to be not wellcome here I would not start it again. Unless somebody ask me and admin would allow it.

Thank you.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,09:52   

Marty, why don't you just lay out your theory instead?  It shouldn't be that hard, right?  You've got one, right? That would make Lou and everyone else happy, no?

Your 'discussions' are nothing more than hand-waving and question begging.

I for one would love a thread where we could actually talk about your ideas instead of how wrong you (in simple ignorant error) believe the ideas of others to be.  

But I think the reason why we don't is that you don't have any ideas.  None, except some magical cosmic notion of progress and just enough sense to fall on your own sword.  It is entertaining to watch you fake the English-as-a-second-language gambit then drop the ball and you use some american slang.  love it.  mean it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,14:03   

Reading the book "Evolutionary biology" by Jaroslav Flegr Charles Uni Prague, Department of Parasitology,  I hit on the name and quotation of some thoughts of professor John Davison.  Flegr has written that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240).

John Davison's Manifesto and his ""Evolution as self limiting process" are listed in the Literature of this 500 hundered pages book published by Academy of Science of Czech republic.

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/book_evbiol.php

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,22:59   

VMartin - I thought you were going to tell us your theory.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,23:28   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 30 2007,22:59)
VMartin - I thought you were going to tell us your theory.

I absolutely guarantee you that will not happen.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:11   

LOU at the thread "Evolution of the horse"

Quote

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.


I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:15   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,11:11)
LOU at the thread "Evolution of the horse"

Quote

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.


I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

Keep to the topic?

Go back to page 1, Marty. Here is the 'topic'. You never answered question one. Care to try now?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:18   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,11:11)
Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man.

What rules?
Who made them?
How are they directing evolution?
Why are they directing evolution towards "man".

How can you say that evolution is over when real scientists are saying the opposite?
http://www.newscientist.com/article....te.html
   
Quote
Human evolution is speeding up. Around 40,000 years ago our genes began to evolve much faster. By 5000 years ago they were evolving 30 to 40 times faster than ever before and it seems highly likely that we continue to evolve at this super speed today.

Our population explosion and rapidly changing lifestyles seem to be the drivers of this acceleration, the discovery of which contradicts the widely held notion that our technological and medical advances have removed most of the selection pressures acting upon us.

This stunning insight into humanity's development comes from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants gathered by the international HapMap project. Investigators led by John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, studied 3.9 million simple differences in DNA called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced "snips") from 270 individuals, including people of Han Chinese, Japanese, Yoruban and northern European extraction.

More here
The data was from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants. The data is there. It's not agreeing with you.

Game over VMartin.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:36   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.


No, Marty.  We'd like to discuss your theory.  Which part of that is too difficult for you to understand?  You are not only permitted, but you are encouraged to discuss your theory.  Can you not read the thread title?

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules.


Ok, very good.  We've got a start here, because you are freaking finally saying something more than "Darwin Sucks -Dohn A. Javison".

Now, you've asserted that the created world in your theory has some rules.  Could you please enumerate them, elaborate on the ones that might be unclear, and provide some evidence that these rules exist?  Then we can move on to more complicated things.


Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man.


No, no, no.  You've skipped a few steps.  Go back to my previous comment.  Please tell us what rules you believe exist, and provide some evidence of that.


Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.


I'm sure you'll be happy to elucidate the relevance of these statements.  After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be (biologically speaking).

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?


No, no, no.  Again, read the title of this thread.  This thread is about "VMartin's Cosmology".  So keep to the topic please.

Stop evading and give us some specifics of your kick-ass scientific theory that will overthrow the very foundations of modern biology.

Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,12:40

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:37   

theyoungmanphilosophe

 
Quote

What rules?
Who made them?
How are they directing evolution?
Why are they directing evolution towards "man".


And towards the Highest. Spiritual forces. Beyond scope of the science. Would you like to use science to explain
supernatural?

The evolution is over. We have discussed it already. No new mammalian Order last 30 millions years (except Pinnipedia). Diversification of mammals is decreasing. See research of fossils in John Day fossil Beds done also by neodarwian scientist Gingerich.


The period of 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Formation) seems to harbor the greatest diversity in
known fossils of families and genera. Current diversity
of families and genera of the basin assessment
area does not match that of this time period,
and would even be far less if only current-day
mid- and large-bodied mammals (to match those
taxa more likely to persist and be discovered in
the fossil record) of sagebrush-steppe communities
were considered.


http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_410/pg069-79.pdf

It agrees with John Davison's quotation of Robert Broom who also claimed that mammalin evolution is over.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:52   

LOU

Quote

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be.


Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:56   

I think it's time to euthanize this thread.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,12:07   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:52)
LOU

 
Quote

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be.


Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,13:56   

Quote

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...



Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:06   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,13:56)
Quote

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...



Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

Uf, we'd much rather hear your alternative to the Darwinismus. I hope your interest in telling us will arouse.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:12   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:31   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

6 pages and he is still unable to answer those two questions.  I think they are probably too sciency even for him.

Maybe you could give Martin something easier to answer, like count your nose or maybe what primary colors make the color green?  Or how many IDiots does it take to come up with a testable theory.

I'm just trying to be helpful and again, 6 pages and he's still incapable of answering two simple questions suggests the questions are over his head.  No sense in calling a dope a dope over and over.  

So in all fairness, give him some questions his intellect can withstand.  Start with "count your nose" and see if he can get that one right.  And don't ANYONE help him.  That defeats the purpose.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:32   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:37   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:32)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.

What religion are you, Marty?

Are you one of those religions that says that common descent is false?

C'mon Marty. The alternative to the atheist Darwinismus please be giving to us now.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:42   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,15:12)
The theory, V.  Get to the theory.


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:09   

The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:21   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,16:09)
The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html

See page one, Marty. That's not what this thread is for.

You really are obsessed with caterpillars. You need to get out more.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:21   

is vmartin herezeroisreal's sock puppet? neither seems capable of answering a simple question and neither is able to make any sense.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:24   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,17:09)
The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html

So we're back to "Darwin Sucks"?

V, I've practically been BEGGING you to advance a hypothesis, ANY hypothesis, and support it to replace modern evolutionary theory.

You have repeatedly and exclusively declined in favor of "Darwin Sucks".

To accuse me of censoring your theory when you refuse to advance one is disingenuous and rather infantile.

Please take this opportunity to advance your replacement hypothesis and attempt to support it.  If you can do that, you may very well have the paradigm shifting theory that the Intelligent Design movement has been craving since its stillbirth from creationism.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:35   

The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:38   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,16:35)
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

Your 'cosmology' is that something other people think is wrong?

Wow, that's pathetic.

So, if the Darwinismus is wrong, what's the real cause of variation in nature? Could you splash us an answer?

Uh, you DO believe that there is variation in nature, right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:41   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,17:35)
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

Fair enough.  So your "Cosmology" consists of "modern evolutionary theory is wrong and science should just stop"?

Is that correct?  If the correct or accurate evaluation of the universe around us cannot be proven or disproven, then what would be the point of science?

To extend this thought, why do you consider it important to fight against science, if it's fruitless and pointless anyway?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
  494 replies since Sep. 06 2007,12:29 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]