This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Noodle
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ... 85
961
« on: December 10, 2010, 12:39:33 PM »
Unless you're in the third grade, being fat has almost nothing to do with whether or not your bullied. I am trying to help him. Is that a bad thing? Not every one are ass holes like you. Some do care for others.
Helping him would be addressing the truth of the matter, not sugar-coating it.
962
« on: December 10, 2010, 12:34:02 PM »
Idea: if you act half as emo and annoying as you are acting now, maybe that's why the kids don't like you.
Plus, if you're an introverted sociopath, people are gonna think you're a pushover.
963
« on: December 10, 2010, 12:22:10 PM »
 Wahhh!! My life is awful and meaningless! People don't like me at school! I tried to make my life meaningful and you ruined it!! For ****s sake GTM is beginning to sound like a broken record.
964
« on: December 09, 2010, 12:25:44 PM »
...important worldwide events, such as ... the Coronation of Elizabeth II
>implying the royal family is important
965
« on: December 08, 2010, 04:30:25 PM »
Holy crap that was intense! Good round, Gazea.
966
« on: December 07, 2010, 03:16:51 PM »
99% of skaters are just attention whores who wanna show off and look like punks in public.
967
« on: December 07, 2010, 03:04:12 PM »
Skating = 4fags
968
« on: December 04, 2010, 01:51:45 PM »
969
« on: December 03, 2010, 10:21:44 PM »
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ME HANGING OUT WITH MY FRIENDS.
But there is something wrong with posting pointless annoying videos.
970
« on: December 03, 2010, 06:33:52 PM »
It's monkeys and typewriters, basically. Eventually they'll write Shakespeare through random chance. And eventually abiogenesis will bring about a replicating combination of amino acids through random chance. There's more chance of abiogenesis than some kind of all-powerful deity, in my view.
It is just like the philosophical random generator that spits out nothing but 3. No matter how many 3 it spits out you can never disprove that it's not a random generator.
Have you guy ever consider that both of them can be wrong? That in 20 years we probably move to another popular theory?
Yes, I did. As a matter of fact, it's almost certain that the theory of abiogensis will be at least changed if it isn't discarded. The reason I choose abiogenesis over 'god makes creatures' is that abiogensis makes a lot more sense.
971
« on: December 03, 2010, 12:57:06 PM »
I won't even say that this means abiogenesis couldn't have happened, I'll just say that you can't say that your beliefs make any more sense than mine.
I agree. People draw way too much conclusions out of the obvious lack of information.
Arguing for "Random chance" is really no better than "God". They are both philosophically unfalsifiable and indistinguishable.
That's a load of crap. Yes, the scientific community isn't 100% sure about abiogensis yet, but it's held up well to testing so far. The big difference between the two is that abiogenesis can be tested. As our knowledge and equipment improves, we will continue to perform more and more experiments and discover more and more facts. If our observations contradict the current theory of abiogensis and prove it wrong, we can modify it or replace it with another theory to suit our observations. The concept of a god is, by nature, not testable. You can't prove if it is real or unreal, and it ends there. If you choose to believe in a god, you can't do it based on factual evidence.
972
« on: December 03, 2010, 12:44:32 AM »
Alright, but 1/500,000,000,000 are much better odds than1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Which is greater than the age of the universe.
First of all, it was just an example. Second of all, I want to know where you're getting this number. I won't even say that this means abiogenesis couldn't have happened, I'll just say that you can't say that your beliefs make any more sense than mine.
Abiogenesis is really just a variation of spontaneous generation, which was disproved by Lois Pasteur. The only real difference is abiogenesis uses the convenient explanation that anything can happen if you wait long enough, ****ing miracles.
You're right about Pasteur disproving spontaneous generation, but aside from that you couldn't be more wrong. There's a significant difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation states that organisms can simply come into existence for no reason whatsoever. According to spontaneous generation, complex microorganisms can simply create themselves from nothing as if it was an everyday occurrence. Abiogenesis states that life can be created from inanimate matter only if a certain set of rare criteria are met. Put simply... ...according to spontaneous generation, a streptococcus can appear for almost no reason at all and infect your throat. ...according to abiogenesis, that streptococcus cell can only come about after a precise set of circumstances are met and a simple organism is created which reproduces and over millions of years of evolution it becomes streptococcus. The main difference between the two is circumstances. It's not just a matter of how long you wait.
973
« on: December 02, 2010, 03:50:09 PM »
Guys, in terms of this thread, Quantum theory, and the words of Supertramp:
'We have no reason to fight,
'cos we both know that we're right.'
If only it was that simple.
974
« on: December 01, 2010, 08:57:54 PM »
Waaaait!
Do not advertise this site, or else you'll bring the knife of 1000 n00bs down right on us!
Edit: as in they'll all join
Too late. 
975
« on: December 01, 2010, 02:17:31 PM »
They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
Well no crap the odds were against it, but it happened anyway. It's a pretty rare occurrence, we're (and by that I mean the human race) the only documented case. Just because the odds were against it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's kinda like this story I head about a woman who's parked car got hit by a meteor about the size of a baseball. Now the surface of the earth is roughly 510,072,000km 2, and lets say the car was about 2 meters wide and 5 meters long (an area of 10m 2). That means that there was about a one in five hundred billion chance that the meteor could have hit anywhere on that car, and there's a much lower chance for hitting the particular area that it did. Despite the 1/ 500,000,000,000 chance of it happening, the car got hit by the meteor anyway.
976
« on: December 01, 2010, 01:07:43 PM »
I just listened to 20 seconds of BrokenCYDE's "Freaxxx".
I HAVE A NEW LEAST FAVORITE ARTIST
there is still worse but seriously, those guys fail. they thy something that just doesn't work.
At least they are trying something different. Instead of regurgitating the same generic songs repeatedly.
Trying something different doesn't count for much when the result is an ear-raping abomination.
977
« on: November 30, 2010, 06:03:53 PM »
No, it is
Fa la la la la
laa laa laa laaaaaa
=8 la's
No, it's fa ra ra ra ra, ra ra ra ra
978
« on: November 30, 2010, 06:01:53 PM »
I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
979
« on: November 30, 2010, 03:36:39 PM »
It seems likely that life was created by random chance to be honest. It makes more sense than having a God/Deity.
Back when the asteroid hit infant Earth, it seems by random chance that life forms were made, maybe during the collision the moisture and the various debris were colliding.
Early life came about from a chemical mixture. A lot of the elements and such in this chemical mixture were brought to Earth by an asteroid/asteroids.
980
« on: November 30, 2010, 12:34:37 PM »
In other words ... life started somehow.
Not just somehow. We have narrowed down the likely conditions of the start of life.
We? Are you a biologist?
I don't see you holding any scientific degrees. If what you're saying refutes his statement, then by nature everything you've said over the course of this entire thread in regards to science can't be taken seriously either.
Did I say I was refuting his statement? I was simply venting on one of my pet peeves of English usage.
His statement does not require refuting.
Well that petty nit-picking was pretty pointless.
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ... 85
|
Show Posts
