A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
P.S. Good job on the Re: line.

I appreciate it. Re lines are a lost art.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't have to hold a degree in physics to believe that the gravitational pull between 2 bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

If the attraction between bodies were that simple, how come after sex your sister wants to cuddle and i just want to go watch TV?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If the attraction between bodies were that simple, how come after sex how your sister wants to cuddle and i just want to go watch TV?

One possible answer, and this is just a theory, is that the distance between your 2 bodies is very small - hence, very low gravitational pull . . .

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
One possible answer, and this is just a theory, is that the distance between your 2 bodies is very small - hence, very low gravitational pull . . .

Uh, inversely proportional.

I think it is likely that they are both just very very tiny people.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, inversely proportional.

I think it is likely that they are both just very very tiny people.

and neither knows how to cuddle on a couch in front of the tv.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If the attraction between bodies were that simple, how come after sex your sister wants to cuddle and i just want to go watch TV?

Of course density plays a part, explaining your many light-bending posts.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My rant started with someone taking a potshot at another poster who claimed to be a creationist- the potshoter (AG maybe?) took a superior attitude like he KNEW the creationist was full of shit- So I took it upon myself to take him down a peg- since then I'm stuck with doing this over and over---

when most people say evolution they mean natural selection as a way of changing species plus some scientific basis to the beginnings of life (ie god didn't do it). You really can't intelligently argue that NS causes species to evolve, and that is what has been proven to the extent any part of evolution can be proven- I accept this part- okay- bob moths et al.

But on the "how did things start" part there are huge gaps- how did the first cell start? there are at least theories on this, although most people in ths field will tell you its a billion to one shot- okay the world has been around for billions of years so that's possible.

But there are other parts where I can't even find a theory- how did those single celled animals become multi- celled? How did an organism with a few cells develop organ systems? Early organisms simply split- how did sexual reproduction come from that?

sidd- google your ass off you'll not find any explaination for any of that. My only point ever has been don't be smug when someone doesn't believe in your science because your science is incomplete.

Maybe science started it- maybe an intergallactic cruise ship emptied it waste here and we sprung from that or maybe it was "god."

I don't know and I only pick on people who think they do when they pick on others who think they do, but different.

Okay -- this makes sense. You wanted to tell people who say that creationism is purely based on faith that their own belief in evolution is also based on faith. There is some room for debate there -- I think the extent to which the basis is on faith differs, and I think that one is relying on the Bible or priests or whatever, while the other is relying on the consensus of the scientific community, and does so not just with regard to evolution but to a whole host of things.

But, I missed (or have forgetten) the original conversation, and in your more recent posts on this issue your tone is a bit... well, different. Basically, you sound like a scientist-bashing Christian rightist who firmly believes in creationism and the Noahnic flood and all that, and thinks anyone who doesn't is stupid. Perhaps that's not your intent, but it's the image you've begun to portray.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, inversely proportional.

I think it is likely that they are both just very very tiny people.

Physics is hard

Actually, it's the only way it worked with my obviously failed attempt at a small dick joke.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
One possible answer, and this is just a theory, is that the distance between your 2 bodies is very small - hence, very low gravitational pull . . .

You have this backwards, but it's a common mistake. Remember, it's the inverse, not the perverse.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Okay -- this makes sense. You wanted to tell people who say that creationism is purely based on faith that their own belief in evolution is also based on faith. There is some room for debate there -- I think the extent to which the basis is on faith differs, and I think that one is relying on the Bible or priests or whatever, while the other is relying on the consensus of the scientific community, and does so not just with regard to evolution but to a whole host of things.

But, I missed (or have forgetten) the original conversation, and in your more recent posts on this issue your tone is a bit... well, different. Basically, you sound like a scientist-bashing Christian rightist who firmly believes in creationism and the Noahnic flood and all that, and thinks anyone who doesn't is stupid. Perhaps that's not your intent, but it's the image you've begun to portray.

My tone comes from not having the energy to do the long post i just did for you (as a token of respect) for everyone who comes here and calls me dumb for taking the perceived position.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the original position.

Great. Here comes the Rawls debate.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Great. Here comes the Rawls debate.

I said it before, and I'll say it again -- there is no debate. Simply put, Lou Rawls kicks ass.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when most people say evolution they mean natural selection as a way of changing species plus some scientific basis to the beginnings of life (ie god didn't do it). You really can't intelligently argue that NS causes species to evolve, and that is what has been proven to the extent any part of evolution can be proven- I accept this part- okay- bob moths et al.

But on the "how did things start" part there are huge gaps- how did the first cell start? there are at least theories on this, although most people in ths field will tell you its a billion to one shot- okay the world has been around for billions of years so that's possible.

But there are other parts where I can't even find a theory- how did those single celled animals become multi- celled? How did an organism with a few cells develop organ systems? Early organisms simply split- how did sexual reproduction come from that?

I was gone for just a little bit and look what happens. For the last time I am not Penske and my first post was yesterday. I am sorry but you are way off here.

1)You are correct that "natural selection" does not cause species to evolve. Natural phenomena favors certain mutations leading to change. No cause. It just happens.

2) There are people that think the earth is flat. There are people that think that the sun revolves around the earth. There are creationists. All of these people are really arguing from the same irrational position.

3) How did the first cell start? Are you kidding? In nature almost every step in this evolutionary chain still exist. Proteins to quasi- cells to simple cells to complex cells. The million to one shot was the lightning that struck the primoridial soup creating protein chains.

4) Single celled to mulitcelled - Again -are you kidding? Again in nature there is an example of every step of the way. From cooperating cells, to causally linked cells, to connected cells etc. There are strong theories on all these developments.

etft -- t.s.

[Spanky]

The first three paragraphs of that entry were meant to be quoted. Sorry. I still have not learned the system very well yet.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
The first three paragraphs of that entry were meant to be quoted. Sorry. I still have not learned the system very well yet.

Have you read Clarke's book?