Two quick questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2016, 05:08 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 03:34 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  If you make points by making assertions about people you don't know then congratulations, you made your point. And thanks for informing us, without you and your informational posts I guess we'd all just be stuck here having a good time, whereas now we've got to take time out to tell you you're stupid.

Do you revere Carl Sagan morondog?

... I'm taking this time out of my busy day to tell you you're fucking stupid. Go fuck yourself.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 05:37 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 05:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:34 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Do you revere Carl Sagan morondog?

Morondog, want to bet against me? $5 says that he is going to imply that "revere" is defined in a way that's closer to the word "worship", rather than simply "admire", and will try to make a point about atheist saints or deference to people who are famous nonbelievers?

Come on, it's just $5. Tongue

Oh, and Reltzik... she texted me when she woke up in the middle of the night to breastfeed our infant son, since she knows my insomnia meant I'd probably be awake to answer and entertain her while she tried to stay awake.

So I asked her and we figured out that we do have one important difference. We both agree that feathers predate flight by quite a margin, but she thinks that flight evolved via the "top-down", or "trees down" model (gliding), and I think it was by the "bottom-up" model, where they used the feathers for short and ever lengthening hops in pursuit of prey, with the wings developing from arms that were getting more powerful in assisting with capture of prey-- the bigger predator theropods with feathers would be able to "steer" somewhat in pursuit of smaller, more nimble prey. However, just as with our (in-agreement) take on abiogenesis, we're waiting for more than the currently-scant evidence before we make any kinds of judgment on the issue, like all scientists do.

So there you go. I guess we don't entirely agree after all. Big Grin

Heh.

As I'm sure you realize, I just meant to poke a little fun at what seemed to me like an unintentional gaff in your literal wording.

But I'm glad I could spark a bit of conversation for you two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
16-11-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 10:42 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  The other tells us that geocentrism is God's truth, turns people who question it over to the Inquisition, and doesn't acknowledge that it was in the wrong for centuries after the case is settled.

I shall give them the comfy chair! Big Grin

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
16-11-2016, 06:21 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 05:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:34 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Do you revere Carl Sagan morondog?

Morondog, want to bet against me? $5 says that he is going to imply that "revere" is defined in a way that's closer to the word "worship", rather than simply "admire", and will try to make a point about atheist saints or deference to people who are famous nonbelievers?

Come on, it's just $5. Tongue

Yup. It's amazing how words like "respect" and "admire" suddenly equate to "worship".

"Science is just another religion."
"Richard Dawkins & Carl Sagan are prophets and saints."

Doesn't it bother theists, the realization that their arguments are lies?
That by their own definitions, religion and faith MUST include a supernatural element.

Idiots.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-11-2016, 06:28 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 05:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:34 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Do you revere Carl Sagan morondog?

Morondog, want to bet against me? $5 says that he is going to imply that "revere" is defined in a way that's closer to the word "worship", rather than simply "admire", and will try to make a point about atheist saints or deference to people who are famous nonbelievers?

Come on, it's just $5. Tongue

Sorry I missed your reply. This vapid dickhead seems to just find the right buttons to press with me. Like *every* fucking cliched load-of-shit argument that a theist has ever presented, except he claims he's not a theist. The thing that really makes me grind my teeth is the whole "I am so persecuted, why are you guys so rude" routine. Fucking troll.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
16-11-2016, 06:30 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 02:52 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The new testament actually alludes to many references to the happenings of the Jewish revolt.
...
I am not to keen on the First Jewish revolt, it claimed the lives of many inncoents, particularly the Greeks who were killed, but also the innocent Jews who were caught up in this war of zealots. It is a sad and tragic time in history.

You seem to contradict yourself:

(16-11-2016 03:11 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Now this might sound absurd to you, but wouldn't it be highly likely that the Palestinians are the ones descended from the ancient jews? How would you describe their position?

If you are so knowledgeable about that time period, you should be well aware of the racial differences between Palestinians and Jews and the consequences of the revolt.

(16-11-2016 02:52 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Science is not a religion, but that is how many atheists treat it, and that is the point I've been trying to make.

Unless you can back that up with examples, this statement is as meaningless and trolling as your other postings.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 07:05 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 05:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:34 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Do you revere Carl Sagan morondog?

Morondog, want to bet against me? $5 says that he is going to imply that "revere" is defined in a way that's closer to the word "worship", rather than simply "admire", and will try to make a point about atheist saints or deference to people who are famous nonbelievers?

I was going to say, that Carl Sagan would never call someone stupid, would never insult someone. But Richard Dawkins would.

I was going to say he should try to be more like Carl Sagan, and less like Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins who asserts that we should mock and ridicule the religious. Where as Carl Sagan might say we should take their hand gently and show them a different perspective and let them come to their own conclusion.

Sorry for the time it has taken me to respond, I have been watching the Forbidden Planet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 07:05 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Sorry for the time it has taken me to respond, I have been watching the Forbidden Planet.

Okay, I like this guy again.

Even if he is Lying for Jesus™, I take back my neg rep. Anyone who likes The Forbidden Planet is okay in my book.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 08:18 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 08:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 07:05 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Sorry for the time it has taken me to respond, I have been watching the Forbidden Planet.

Okay, I like this guy again.

Even if he is Lying for Jesus™, I take back my neg rep. Anyone who likes The Forbidden Planet is okay in my book.

It should have been a lot longer than what it was, everything felt so rushed, also kind of wish it had had a bigger budget that way it could have had more of an environment. I wonder why they didn't just use a desert arid climate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 08:28 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 08:18 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 08:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Okay, I like this guy again.

Even if he is Lying for Jesus™, I take back my neg rep. Anyone who likes The Forbidden Planet is okay in my book.

It should have been a lot longer than what it was, everything felt so rushed, also kind of wish it had had a bigger budget that way it could have had more of an environment. I wonder why they didn't just use a desert arid climate?

The 1950s. It was actually an astronomically (pun intended) big budget for a sci-fi film of its day. Production companies simply didn't invest big bucks into making that "weird" genre, science fiction... it was another 10 years before sci-fi was seriously represented on TV (and even then with a strangled budget and numerous social restrictions), and 21 years before Star Wars showed everyone that SF could be a blockbuster. But they spent more on Robbie the Robot than any other prop in history, if I recall correctly; it was a pretty big deal... it wasn't a guy in a suit!

My only real issue with the movie is that it's sexist as fuck (it WAS the 1950s) and that they made the sound effects so painful to the ears. But seeing a young, handsome Leslie Nielsen as the archetypal predecessor to Captain Kirk and the magnificent performance of Walter Pidgeon totally make up for the painful bits.

I also enjoy that the introductory scenes actually attempt to use the language of real astrophysics to describe the situation, worrying about things like G-forces during acceleration (instead of using techno-magic to cancel it out, as Star Trek did), speed as a percent of C, and describing the power meters in terms of "orders of magnitude", actually accepting that the audience was capable of handling the whole thing not being dumbed down. It almost counteracts the XO describing Robbie the Robot as "a housewife's dream", followed by a scripted chuckle. Tongue

But I love Star Trek and all that Sci-Fi represents, and it would not have been possible without this breakthrough movie, even with its 1950s-imposed flaws.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: