Today’s Teabagger News: Only 41% of Texans know humans did not live with dinosaurs

apple0154 said:
Life is continuous. The sperm and the egg are alive.

Everyone has jumped on the DNA wagon without understanding what the hell they're doing. Like the "know-it-alls" who testified in a case, years ago, stating the biological children of a certain woman were not her children. They didn't know a person can have two sets of DNA.

DNA is one way of classifying something. It is not the only way.
Click to expand...

Sperm and egg are indeed alive, they are single-cell living organisms. When they conceive, they form a multi-cell living organism, we call it "human life." Seems like we had this exact same debate just a few months ago, have you forgotten your schooling already? Or are you just trying to divert the topic of the thread because your fellow pinhead is getting his ass handed to him?
 
Dixie said:
Sperm and egg are indeed alive, they are single-cell living organisms. When they conceive, they form a multi-cell living organism, we call it "human life." Seems like we had this exact same debate just a few months ago, have you forgotten your schooling already? Or are you just trying to divert the topic of the thread because your fellow pinhead is getting his ass handed to him?
Click to expand...

That's just a theory. It's tentative science.
 
Dixie said:
Yes it would be, because there is no plausible explanation for why a china teapot got there.
Click to expand...

There's no plausible explanation for how dinosaurs lived in a small group for millions of years without dying because of inbreeding and other factors, managed to come in contact with proto-human, then conveniently died out right before we developed written records, without leaving any kind of fossil evidence.
 
Dixie said:
Right, so we can't "believe" that man wasn't roaming the earth during the days of the dinosaur, because it would be cool to think we evolved from monkeys much later! ...We need evidence! I'm glad you came to realize how stupid you were being about this. You've made great progress, Waterhead!

You can talk about coincidence and likelihood all you like, I have no problem with that. If you want to argue it's "not likely" man roamed the earth with the dinosaurs, I can accept that, it's a valid opinion to have. Remember, I am not arguing in contradiction to the belief that man didn't exist at the time of the dinosaur, I am in the camp who isn't sure and doesn't profess to know the answer to that particular question at this time. I do reject the continued insinuation that this is some kind of empirical fact that science has proven, because that is a lie.
Click to expand...

You take it seriously. It's stupid to even take it seriously. The only reason to take it seriously is if you are part of some belief system that blocks rational inquiry - like religion.
 
Dixie said:
Overwhelming proof to support the theory? That sounds as if it's not a conclusive fact at all, that a possibility remains for some other explanation! You don't need overwhelming proof to support the possibility of a FACT!
Click to expand...

What?

Dixie said:
I'm not "pretending" anything, you are! You are pretending that something which has not been proven or established, is indeed proven and established fact. I am taking a much more pragmatic approach, and saying that I don't know the answer one way or the other, and I am willing to keep an open mind about it at this time.
Click to expand...

You are not keeping an open mind at all. You are denying the overwhelming weight of proof that makes your fairy tale highly improbable to claim equivalence between a belief backed by tons of proof and one backed by no proof whatsoever.

Dixie said:
No, but it would reasonably explain why you haven't found their remains in the same proximity of dinosaurs. As we've previously established, you haven't explored every place on Earth, through every time period from the beginning. Once you've done that, and found no evidence of man before dinosaurs, then you can make the argument you are making. Until then, you are drawing a conclusion based on speculation, which is based on limited information.
Click to expand...

Which is far different than drawing a conclusion based on nothing or arguing that those conclusions are just as likely.

Dixie said:
As I pointed out earlier, it's a good thing you weren't around calling the shots when Louis Pasteur stood the scientific community on its ear with his Germ Theory.
Click to expand...

What theory did germ theory supplant? What was the proof for the previous theory?

You are wrong on this as well. Pasteur was not even the first to offer proof of germ theory.

Dixie said:
The fact is, you have no fact! You have an idea, a theory... maybe you even have a valid and legitimately based theory, maybe a preponderance of evidence and opinions support your theory, but it's still only a theory, not a fact. You can't ever make it a fact, no matter how much you wish it to be one, or how many names you call me.
Click to expand...

You do not have a valid and legitimately based theory. You are equating conclusions based on our knowledge and one based purely on imagination.
 
There's a difference between keeping an open mind on things and creating a false balance between two theories with vastly different amounts of evidence for them. I keep an open mind. Dixie draws the equivalence. In fact, he's crowding out the good stuff in his mind to make room for all the crap he's letting in.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....are you trying to argue that because in some bizarre circumstance someone had two sets of DNA, that therefore we can't accurately determine an unborn child is not his mother?.....
Click to expand...

We know the zygote/embryo/fetus is not the mother. That does not mean it is a human being. It simply means it's not the mother.
 
apple0154 said:
We know the zygote/embryo/fetus is not the mother. That does not mean it is a human being. It simply means it's not the mother.
Click to expand...

But it IS a human being. It can't be anything else, unless you want to change what we define as a human being. You admit it is NOT the mother, yet it IS a living organism of some kind. Well, what else can it be? Is it a dog, a tree, an apple? Nope, it is a living HUMAN organism. It is in the state of being, therefore, it is called a "human being" by practical application of the words we use to describe things. You just don't wish to acknowledge this fact, because it makes you uncomfortable to know you support killing human beings.
 
Dixie said:
But it IS a human being. It can't be anything else, unless you want to change what we define as a human being. You admit it is NOT the mother, yet it IS a living organism of some kind. Well, what else can it be? Is it a dog, a tree, an apple? Nope, it is a living HUMAN organism. It is in the state of being, therefore, it is called a "human being" by practical application of the words we use to describe things. You just don't wish to acknowledge this fact, because it makes you uncomfortable to know you support killing human beings.
Click to expand...

Only under a ridiculous speciesest definition of personhood.

But we know that the thing that makes us identify with another living thing and call it a "person" is not the fact that it has human DNA, but the fact that it exists on some cognitive level. You're just playing logical trickery to muddle this fact.
 
Dixie said:
But it IS a human being. It can't be anything else, unless you want to change what we define as a human being. You admit it is NOT the mother, yet it IS a living organism of some kind. Well, what else can it be? Is it a dog, a tree, an apple? Nope, it is a living HUMAN organism. It is in the state of being, therefore, it is called a "human being" by practical application of the words we use to describe things. You just don't wish to acknowledge this fact, because it makes you uncomfortable to know you support killing human beings.
Click to expand...

What fact?

There can be no fact. Only tentative science.
 
You mean Dinotopia isn't real!!! :palm:

dinosaur_boulevard.jpg


morning_in_treetown_sm.jpg


mountain_tribesman_sm.jpg


garden_of_hope_sm.jpg


I'm heartboken.
HEARTBROKEN I TELL YA
 
Dixie said:
...

There is currently no evidence to suggest man roamed the earth with dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they didn't, it just means there has been no evidence discovered to suggest it. Have we discovered everything? Do we know the answers to everything? If so, we can make definitive claims like you have made, but if not, we must remain open-minded to the possibility (as remote as it may seem to you) that man doesn't know all the answers.
Click to expand...


Yo, my Bush-loving, Iraq war-supporting, climate science-denying, NeoCon Nincompoop…..get off the Sarah Palin facebook page, and think, man. Try to read and comprehend. Move your lips while your read, if you must:

The poll question DIDN’T ask if science had proven beyond all possible tiny shred of doubt, and with 150% absolute bullet-proof certainty, that every single Dino went extinct 65 million years ago. .


The poll asked people what they believed; i.e., what their conclusion was…. A belief or conclusion that is based on either the preponderance of evidence, or on their best professional/personal judgment….i.e., people were asked if they AGREED OR DISAGREED that humans and Dinos lived and frolicked together.

A vast number of teabagging Texans professed the belief, aka, they came to the conclusion, that humans and Dinos coexisted.

You, and some other wingnuts find it entirely rational for someone to arrive at a conclusion that Dinos and people frolicked together.......This is teabagging buffoonery. But, don’t let me stop you Mr. 1/3. This is gold….comedy gold, I tell you!
 
RStringfield said:
What?
Click to expand...

What do you mean, what? Am I supposed to re-type it because you didn't hear it or something? Go read it again, idiot! Jeesh! What my ass!

You are not keeping an open mind at all. You are denying the overwhelming weight of proof that makes your fairy tale highly improbable to claim equivalence between a belief backed by tons of proof and one backed by no proof whatsoever.
Click to expand...

WHAT FUCKING PROOF? You have PROOF that man was not here when the dinosaurs were? Let's see the PROOF!!! Dumbass!

Which is far different than drawing a conclusion based on nothing or arguing that those conclusions are just as likely.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who has drawn a conclusion, that is YOU! I have argued that we mustn't draw a conclusion on this! Are you following the conversation at all?

What theory did germ theory supplant? What was the proof for the previous theory?
Click to expand...

The prevailing scientific theory at the time was "spontaneous generation" and again, you seem to want to confuse PROOF with EVIDENCE. I don't know what the evidence was for spontaneous generation, it doesn't matter now, because it was an incorrect theory.

You are wrong on this as well. Pasteur was not even the first to offer proof of germ theory.
Click to expand...

No, there were several other microbiologists studying it, but it was Pasteur who was credited for advancing the Germ Theory, as well as a host of other related things. This isn't a myopic debate on what Pasteur did or didn't do, it was presented to illustrate how profoundly stupid it is to believe you know everything, when in fact, you really know very little.

You do not have a valid and legitimately based theory. You are equating conclusions based on our knowledge and one based purely on imagination.
Click to expand...

Well that's good since I didn't present any theory! MY argument is, we don't KNOW what we don't KNOW! Nothing more! You are the one insisting that we DO know something that we DON'T!
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
Only under a ridiculous speciesest definition of personhood.

But we know that the thing that makes us identify with another living thing and call it a "person" is not the fact that it has human DNA, but the fact that it exists on some cognitive level. You're just playing logical trickery to muddle this fact.
Click to expand...

Personhood is not a word, sorry.

There is only one thing that needs to happen to form a human life, a sperm cell and egg cell need to merge. That's it... nothing else is required or needed to form a human life. Now, from there... how "cognitive" the human life is... you are welcome to debate, and we can have that conversation, but it's already a human life, it became one at the point of conception. There is no logical trickery, or trickery of any kind in that, it's just basic biology.
 
Dixie said:
As I pointed out to Stringy, we aren't likely to find evidence of humans living among the dinosaurs, unless they were pinhead humans without enough sense to hide from them! Maybe all the humans back then were living inside caves deep within mountains, to prevent from becoming a dinosaur snack... and we haven't discovered the remains because the caves collapsed and buried the remains underneath a huge mountain? I'm not saying I think this is the case, but it's a possible scenario, and one that must be considered.
Click to expand...

LOL. You actually think this nonsense is reasonable? I was going to let you slide on it.

You want us to believe that all humans hid/died in caves and volcanoes and were so scared shitless of dinos that they did not come out for 60 million years. You can not be serious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top