| KrayZ_Katz wrote: | | Psyche987 wrote: | | KrayZ_Katz wrote: | | tomtitan wrote: | | KrayZ_Katz wrote: | | tomtitan wrote: | | KrayZ_Katz wrote: | | tomtitan wrote: | | KrayZ_Katz wrote: | | Atu_1 wrote: | | KrayZ_Katz wrote: | | Can I tell you guys a secret? I hate South Park AND Family Guy =O |
I barely watch FG, and I think South Park would be funny without all the gratuitousness of it. |
Probably same. Plus, everytime I hear swearing, it catches me off guard and scares me. Dunno why that is. I can read it without spazzing, though. -is wierd- So let's talk about how real ghosts are. Anyone a believer? |
i want to believe it but i don't, i used to but i took an interest in science so naturally i had to reject any interst in anything supernatural. (i also turned atheist, but now i'm agnostic) |
I used to not beleive it, too. Then all these really trustworthy people who never would lie talked about these ghosts and stuff that they'd "met", so I started reading more about ghosts and stuff, and then I watched some shows that convinced me. You've gotta admit though, there are some things science could never explain, and half the stuff they teach us is still "in the process of being proved", like Global Warming(I don't know whether to agree or disagree with that one... I guess we should try to conserve energy and forests anyways, but humans just release an itty bittyfraction of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), organic food being better for you, (The nutricionists I've talked to say that it's not been proven that they're better or worse), and evolution (Find me that missing link and I'll believe it.) They used to think that transfats were better for you, but it turns out they're worse.How about we get back to the ghosties. Anyone ever been to a haunted house? |
organic food is (pardon my language) bulls***, if anything it's worse because the stuff shoudl be GM'd to stop bugs eating it and leaving s**t on it, organic food has bugs and stuff not worth mentioning on it because of this. evolution has had no evidence against it ever, especially not from creationism, so there is no logical reason to diebelieve it, creationism doesn't count as a logical reason, find me evidence that the world was made in 6 days and i'll rethink darwinism. global warming is probably true, you've got to look at who's funding all of the research that says it's false, the thing is, no one will ever do anything about it because it's not an immediate threat and politiciand don't like dealing with issues they don't need to immedaitely. true, there is lots of stuff science can't explain yet. emphasis on yet, in the future science will be able to explain all of those unsolved mysteries. (yet no one will ever explain why toast always falls butter-side-down) |
Actually, my sources all say that the chances of things happenning JUST SO in order for there to be life are extremely thin. Possible, but not very. The problem isn't the evidence against it, it's the lack of evidence itself. They've shown how a a bear can evolve into a red panda, but how do they know humans evolved from MONKIES? Maybe it's one of those speicies that died out when the Earth was covered with ash or debris or whatever it is. They're still missing a lot of things that make the teory of evolution a scientific fact. Here;'s something I found on the internetz. http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0102.pdf In "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution," Marcel P. Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, France, calculated the probability of evolution based on mutation and natural selection. Like many other noted scientists, he concluded that it was "not conceivable" because the probability of a chance process accomplishing this is zero: "...there is no chance ( |
think about it, the odds against life are thin, if the earth was made so it was uninhabitable, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we? only because life exists can we have this chat. anyway, there are billions of planets in the universe without life, why can't one planet in billions have life on it? the odds that 1 in billions will have life are pretty high. |
As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care what EXACTLY happened, nor will sientists ever know. All I know is that it's happened, and I'm glad it did, and dispite what people say, things always work out for the better. If evolution is true, then maybe it's nature's lesson to us about how imperfections can go from bad to amazing.  I'm done now. These types of conversation depress me. And I thik you're right. Just because scientsts say i's impossible, doesn;'t mean it isn't. That;'s two things evbolution teaches us: optimism and non-perfectionism. Want a cookie? |
About Darwin: first of all it's the biggest misunderstanding; Darwins interpretations was 'survival of the fittest' a selection pattern which makes certain species survive earlier then others; this selection pattern according to darwin doesn't have to fit extremely to the idea of evolution. Things might change, but it's not saying they get better, Darwin isn't specific in this part, he's not perfectionistic when it's evolving 'progress' as for example early vitalists; evolution as the slow progress towards perfection.Darwin's actual theory wasn't the extreme evolution theory as most of the people understand it. Second of all; there are a lot of fossiles found of predesseccors of humankind, according to different scientific tests on the bones they can track down how old the skeletons are. What is to be found of all the material found is diversing skeletons; from the earlier eras having more features of the ape (don't ask me what type) skeleton, slowly during time skeletons that have more resemblances of nowadays human. This is how the theory mankind evolved from the ape came up, and this is pretty much the closest toproof, people. I don't like the way people see humans evolving from apes seeing as a bad thing. I don't see the ape as a weaker creature, it just has different features. Why shouldn't we be glad evolving from the apes? According to Planet of the Apes we should even be happier; it's even an honour lol. Last thing;Mankind evolving from apesDOES have scientific proof (exactly these finds of human bones of predecessors), at least the part ofEuropean continent knows about that that knows how not to let science be interfeared with religion. ok, this is off topic, I know. So let me get back on topic for the next one. |
That's why I beleive in the Darwin Theory, but not the neo-darwin theory. But do you seriously want to beleive your GREEEEEEEAAAAAAT grandparent is a peice of algea? All those skulls show is that at onetime humans RESEMBLED monkies. Like at onetime horses RESEMBLED dogs. You know... just pointing that out. My point is, why does it HAVE to be evolution, a theory that hangs so clearly on faith that it's almost the equivalant of creationism. You know, the Bible's REALLY historically accurate, and scientist have been trying to disprove it for years to no avail. The world of the supernatural can not be exploreed by science. That's where a lot of scientists make their mistakes. Theories can not be disproved, only proved. Neo-darwinism has NOT been proved at all. Hence why it's still just a theory that is doubted by many renownd scientists... -withdraws to corner- I feel like I'm being scolded which is why I hate these things... |
sorry to continue huge off topic pyramid but i feel i must point out quite a large flaw in your argument, you say 'theories cannot be disproved, only proved', this is false, the reverse is true, the saying actually goes 'theories cannot be proved, only disproved' (einstein i think) also, a common misconception is that darwin created the theory of evolution, he didn't, his work was the foundations for the theory, but the actual theory was only thought of by his students, it's called darwinism because it was inspired by darwin, not made by him. also, it's true, there is very little proof for anything in the bible, the only biblical figure who has ever been proved to be real is a very minor character, nothing else in the bible has been proved, there is a fault line under the red sea, but that doesn't prove it was once parted by moshe, this is the only time i've ever heard of proof for the bible, and it doesn't even come close to actual proof, please get your facts right before you try to convince everyone the bible's view is correct. and again, sorry for reviving the off-topic pyramid. | ReflectTheStorm wrote: | | tomtitan wrote: | | giants are actually anti-gods in norse mythology that are destined to kill the gods in the end of the world (ragnarok), there are fire giants from the fiery realm of muspell lead by surt and frost giants from jotunheim, there are also regular giants. giants are wise and powerful beasts and they are the arch-enemies of the gods, they aren't a large race of savages that live in the mountains as some sources suggest. most gods had one parent who was a giant/ess, loki had 2 giants for parents, but was still considered an Aesir. |
Norse mythology ftw! My god has a huge hammer. |
lol, norse mythology FTW! mjolnir, can kill a giant and be used as a fashion accesory! |
