3,004 Forum Posts by "Peter-II"
At 10/4/06 01:09 PM, flamingsquirrel107 wrote: Okay, I really hate typing this out so much, but here goes.
I am not saying Evelutoin is true, and I am not saying Creatoinism is true, I am just showing somthing that disproves evelutoin as Darwin explained it.
"As Darwin explained it"...
The theory of evolution has since been refined.
Read up punctuated equilibrium and random genetic mutation.
At 10/3/06 06:30 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 10/3/06 11:26 AM, Peter-II wrote: I can't tell what level of sarcasm you're on.I can't tell why you seem so compelled to respond to my post when it was directed at Draconias.
You are on a forum, not an e-mail client.
Are you making fun of a complete lack of understanding of science, or do you really think that macroevolution states that a reptillian can turn into a bird?I don't know, you tell me. You might want to freshen up on the theories regarding the origins of birds.
I stand corrected. However, this does in no way invalidate macroevolution. Okay, the fossil record is incomplete. There is no evidence of a transitional stage between reptiles and birds. So what? This is still a fairly new theory. Furthermore, why do you think much of the scientific community now prefers punctuated equlibrium to phyletic gradualism given our current understanding of evolution?
At 10/4/06 01:28 AM, Integrity wrote:At 10/4/06 01:15 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:Be real. Oh wait…you guys can’t can you?Haha, how ironic. Religous people take the world for what it is, yet people like you wish it were part of your fantasy.
You haven't a clue, have you?
Immigration is important. Very few people seem to understand that.
Furthermore, there's a difference between an immigrant and an "illegal" immigrant.
At 10/3/06 12:15 AM, BanditByte wrote:At 10/2/06 06:11 PM, Draconias wrote: Macroevolution is a fact.Yeah, Guess that's why people have seen a mudskipper turn into a reptillian. Or a reptillian turn into a bird.
sarcasm
I can't tell what level of sarcasm you're on.
Are you making fun of a complete lack of understanding of science, or do you really think that macroevolution states that a reptillian can turn into a bird?
At 10/2/06 06:11 PM, Draconias wrote: There is no real difference between microevolution and macroevolution-- the seperation is almost entirely artificial and created by the opponents of evolution so they can partially justify their own position.
It depends on whether you're an advocate of phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium.
At 10/1/06 08:14 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 10/1/06 01:25 PM, Peter-II wrote: Hahaha, arrogant.Not when it's the truth.
Oh no, not a rhetoric
Anyway, IQ tests show nothing apart from how good you are at taking IQ tests. And yes, The Daily Mail is full of shit, and I haven't seen any other newspapers that have claimed the same thing so far.Really, how is the Daily Male anymore shit than the Boston Globe or New York Times?
I don't see why you decided to bring in the Boston Globe or the New York Times, as I have never advocated the distribution nor the the supreme quality of those newspapers. Hell, I've never even read an article from either of them.
Like I said, the only reason you try and discredit the newspaper is because you don't like the article in it. No factual evidence whatsoever, just pure conjecture.
No, I've always hated The Daily Mail. Do you really think that your argument was significant enough for me to claim my opinion to be something it isn't? Like I said, arrogant.
I really don't see how it can be claimed that either gender is smarter than the other, considering we're the same species.I can, gender determines alot about a person. Would it be taboo for me to say there's a physical difference, so why would it be bad to say there's a mental difference?
Because you're basing it off an article you saw in The Daily Mail.
So what about the countless studies that have been carried out showing that women are more intelligent than men, or that intelligence doesn't differ according to gender?
http://en.wikipedia...Sex_and_intelligence
Also, nice job there ignoring my point about how IQ tests show nothing apart from how good you are at taking IQ tests. In fact, I have a book - called Games For The Superintelligent which includes a guide on how to score high on an IQ test. Believe it or not, you can't improve your intelligence, only your knowledge and skills.
At 9/29/06 09:46 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 9/29/06 06:27 PM, ClottedCreamFudge wrote: Daily Mail or not, they didn't make up the story or the studies findings.Don't worry about, the guy couldn't refute my post, so he had to try and discredit my source.
The issue should be with the study itself, not the newspaper that reported it.
Hahaha, arrogant.
Anyway, IQ tests show nothing apart from how good you are at taking IQ tests. And yes, The Daily Mail is full of shit, and I haven't seen any other newspapers that have claimed the same thing so far.
I really don't see how it can be claimed that either gender is smarter than the other, considering we're the same species.
At 9/29/06 04:46 PM, BanditByte wrote: O rly? So says you. By the way, I'm pretty sure it's women who have emotions cloud their reasoning, not men.
Wow, that's a really credible source, The Daily Mail.
10. Little Ethnic Riding Hood
Muslim president is even further off.
lol, fried chicken
At 9/28/06 05:45 PM, TimeTrials wrote: It's like religion, you can't prove or disprove of it...
You can't prove anything except in mathematics. You can provide evidence, however.
but wait! What's this? it's mandatory in High School? Ironic...
Not really...there is a large amount of evidence for the big bang. Religion is faith - it has no evidence because it needs none.
I do, however, think that religious theories should be taught in high school, but in a Religious Studies class rather than a Science class.
Man, I better change my ways.
At 9/21/06 05:52 PM, defactoidZERO wrote: It's more of a question of topic structure than choice of words.
But he could at least have alternated "thus" and "therefore".
He did.
Therefore, education definately has a liberalizing effect on the population. Dont even try to deny this.
At 9/21/06 05:40 PM, BanditByte wrote: This topic starter used "Thus" too many times in his little thesis for me to take him seriously. I started counting them all and burst out laughing.
Number 3 eh...
I s'pose simple things impress simple minds.
Decent education my ass.
Would you prefer he used a thesaurus and instead used words such as whence and therefrom?
At 9/20/06 09:08 PM, velocitom wrote: The answer to all male vs female threads.
What a complete load of bullshit.
Figures it's The Daily Mail.
At 9/20/06 01:06 AM, Cajunspirit wrote: Broken homes.
This promiscuous element has also lead to STDs, depression and many a bastard..
LOL CONTRACEPTION?
Dude, who the hell actually needs a car at the age of sixteen?
I'm going to leave this topic because you obviously have all the logic of a brick wall. Consider yourself the debate victor, if you want.
Have fun stewing in your ignorance.
At 9/19/06 12:33 AM, DarkNati0nX wrote: Expanded on what exactly? Stealth bombers...?
So you ARE a selective reader.
But whats so wrong with a opinion as you said on PAGE 6 opinions dont matter.
That pretty much sums up your entire post.
Take your prozac, learn to be less of a retard, then try posting again.
At 9/18/06 05:16 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Oh, you didn't know?
Americans can't stand peace.
Yes, a public enemy #1 is always needed in order to keep the country functioning, or so we can assume.
1945 - Japanese
1970 - Communists
2006 - Terrorists
At 9/18/06 01:28 AM, DarkNati0nX wrote:At 9/17/06 09:07 AM, pretentious-asshat wrote: DarkNati0nX, you must have a complete total incapability of making a single useful post because you haven't said anything new in the last three or four posts you've made.Due to your arguements i had to.
Not really. All you did was reiterate things I've already refuted.
And every time I expanded on a new point, you either ignored it or said the same things over and over again.
That was your opinion wasnt it? I thought opinions didnt even matter to anything now?
No, all I said was that appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. Of course opinions matter, why do you think I post in this forum?
Example: Bush got voted into office twice, because he got the majority vote. Does that mean he's a more competent leader than Gore, Kerry or Nader?
JESUS CHRIST! Am I seeing what Iam seeing? Now you turned into a fucking hypocrite.
And you blame me?!
This is what pisses me off the most about your posts. You keep on making ambiguous statements without even backing them up with a single sentence.
1. Your paragraphs mean nothing as you argue the same thing over and over again.
Actually, I've tried to bring up new topics (which are still related to Area-51) a fair few times. Usually what you do in response to this is either say the same things you've already said, say I'm going off topic, claim that what I just said isn't worth responding to isn't worth talking about because I brought it up, or ignore it entirely.
2. Your a fucking idiot lets just deal with that.
I'd call you the same but that would be sinking to your level.
3.YOU were the first one to pick on my opinion that Area-51 was and is mysterious.
Yes. So what? What's wrong with bringing up a debate, in a politics forum no less?
4.All you did was say im simply stupid,wrong, and that Im using tactics to avoid you.
Yep, that's all I said. OH! Apart from everything else, that is. Silly you.
5. YOU FUCKING DID AVOID IT.
Avoid what?
Iam so hurt >_> <_<
I don't care...it wasn't meant to cause you any emotional pain.
Please improve your communications and then come back on the entire forums in 5 years, which probably wouldnt happen because of that thick skull of yours.
You've attacked my communication and understanding skills many times now, what I don't understand is why. Believe it or not, I've understood everything you've said thus far apart from when you say something that doesn't make grammatical or logical sense and so have unintelligable meanings, if any meanings at all.
LOL! Ok then whenever I see you in other threads, you disagree completely with other people, and argue your "right".
That's the point of political discussion. Arguing your case against an opposing case.
Then gee, Einstein's opinion didnt matter eh?
Excuse me?
Hitler? Stalin? Il-sung? George Washington? everyone else?
What?
Then I will take your word NOBODY'S OPINIONS MATTER WHICH MEANS THEIR STORIES,LIFE, AND ETC DOESNT MATTER.
For the last time, saying appeal to majority is a logical fallacy is not the same as saying people's opinions don't matter. All it means is that the amount of people who have a given opinion doesn't have a causal relationship with how accurate that opinion is. Get it now?
1. Alot of people saying something is sometimes are NOT accurate.
So now you're agreeing with me?
2. Im referring just to simply ask most of the BBS users was Area-51 mysterious.
And your point is?
3. When I was asking you to ask them, I didnt mean any smug butthole comment like yours.
Yes, I know. But if they think that Area-51 is mysterious, that doesn't make that thought true.
4. Your paragraphs go off topic.
No they don't, in fact they're all directly related to Area-51. Hence the topic title being "Area 51".
5. No one likes you (and your going to state "personalattack" "meaningless rethoric")
Yes, because it is a personal attack, and a meaningless one at that.
However, it's good to know you're capable of knowing more about me and my life than I do from a single debate. Those are awesome psychoanalytical skills, I didn't even know that was possible.
6. Your communications and the lack of understanding fails to cooperate with other people saying something completely opposite what theyre saying.
I notice you haven't said ANYTHING about Area-51 in this post.
ALSO I had no god damn idea why YOU picked on my opinion specifically.
Are you aware that in your first post in this topic, you literally invited people to argue with you?
"This is real information please feel free to argue."
http://newgrounds.co..id=512097&page=3
AND I conclude that the moment you wrote the first arguement to my reply, you triggered a arguement that would be the same AND which directs to insulting.
That is no fault of mine. It is you that turned the debate into little more than a flame war.
A hippie is someone who lives entirely off the land, away from society. The vast majority of hippies died out in the early seventies when it became mainstream and lost all of its original meaning. So no, they don't want everything handed to them without offering anything in return, in fact they give and take nothing from society.
What a hippie is referred to nowadays is a left-wing stoner with long hair that wears beads and goes on about saving the trees. They too are a minority, and so aren't a huge infringement on any society.
Not really a topic worth discussing, especially considering the gross amount of stereotypes thrown around when people discuss hippies.
At 9/17/06 04:49 PM, jlwelch wrote: Homosexuality is wrong because it is an abomination and an afront to God's Creation.
End.
Sarcasm, right?
DarkNati0nX, you must have a complete total incapability of making a single useful post because you haven't said anything new in the last three or four posts you've made. Every single one of these posts all you've done is repeated the same arguments over and over again - and before you say it, these are the points I've already refuted - and write stupid rhetorics. That last post you made was particularly atrocious. There was no bulk to your post whatsoever, and all you seemed to do was say things like "you're wrong, that is true" or "you're wrong, that is false" without providing any evidence for your statements. What's the point in debating if you can't back up anything you say? And why is it you're such a goddamned selective reader? You have ignored entire paragraphs I've written, claiming that I'm either avoiding the issue or that everything I've said is simply "wrong". And why? Because you say so, apparently. To be perfectly honest, your arguments belong in General...and that's being generous.
Study critical thinking or something, and come back to the politics forum in a year.
And, for the record, no I don't consider myself to be the most intelligent member of the NG BBS. It still stands that appeal to majority is a logical fallacy - a lot of people saying something doesn't make that thing true.
At 9/17/06 03:44 AM, Idyes wrote:At 9/16/06 12:52 PM, pretentious-asshat wrote: Sentience is a result of natural selection as it gives us a severe advantage over animals that don't have it.Sentience is not the same as consciousness. By consciousness, I think that Durin413 was referring to "experience." A computer can have sentience, but there is a good question as to whether or not it actually experiences anything.
You are technically correct. I said sentience because that's what I thought he meant by consciousness.
The same applies to consciousness, anyway.
At 9/17/06 01:21 AM, DarkNati0nX wrote: I just HAD to reply to this dumbass's reply.
Well that was kind of redundant. Why revive an old topic when you haven't even made any new points?
My point being is that it didn't even challenge anyone.
You still failed to back it up. You are posting in a politics forum.
P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S
AS IN DEBATING
LIKE POLITICIANS AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS DO
Jesus motherfucking Christ.
Did I say the craters were mysterious?
You linked to a site which showed craters from WWII, claiming it proved that Area-51 is getting more mysterious. That's good enough for me.
Your understanding skills suck.I beg to differ.They do.
All available evidence suggests otherwise.
I said the "PEOPLES' OPINIONS!" not the fucking seceret shit file, what do I have to do to get through that god damn thick skull of yours?!?
Okay okay whatever just keep your god damn opinion.
Incredible, now you're trying to take the intellectual highground? Since when did people's opinions prove anything, other than the fact that they have those opinions?
I'm fully aware of why governments lie, and that's irrelevant.I doubt it.Why?Because you didn't know it at first.
What on earth makes you think that? You think I don't know anything about politics? Why do you think I post in this forum?
You seem to think that the "you're changing the topic" card will work in every part of every argument,Yet again another avoidance tactic. Oh my god im gonna say "youre changing the topic" over and over again! Yeah it really works thanks for pointing it out that I only used it once.
presumably when you don't have a refutation to the point that was just made.
But I refuted all your points.
Oh no the civilized one gave me the benefit of doubt, thanks for the sympathy.
Meaningless rhetoric
I said "ONLY SOME SCIENTISTS NOT EVERY FUCKING GOD DAMN ONE!" Did I say the government could shut the scientists up? NO. Did I say every scientist that good works for Area-51? NO. YOU stated that. NOT ME. YOUR giving those god damn opinions of yours to me which I didnt even claim!
I know that I'm the one that brought it up. What's your point? The fact that it would be impossible for the government to shut up every particle physicist that knows that it's possible to do shit like make an entire aircraft immediately appear in a different place to where it was before it evidence against Area-51 being as mysterious as you and Anti_Noob say.
'Skimmed' it? Have you even READ every last word instead of missing a sentence or two? If you have INDEED read it, then notice that almost all of your points were made.If you insist...I really don't care. Are you trying to use a psychological tactic to keep me from arguing or something?Are you?
Meaningless rhetoric
You'll notice that "bullshit you did" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. It may not be the most elegant way of saying "I don't believe you", but it's aon a quite a different level of offence to "you're retarded". That was the only quote you took from mine and Anti_Noob's debate, so why specifically that part? Not only did it contribute nothing, but it also introduced argumentative logical fallacies into what was a perfectly civil debate.Oh it did contribute to your statement how you TRY to be civilized. Why do I specifically point that part out? What you want me to skim through ALL your past posts?
I do try to be civilised, it's true. But when people display incredible amounts of stupidity like you're doing, it's very diificult not to curse. But I rarely insult people personally.
You're not making the slightest bit of sense. You claim that I'm avoiding the question, yet I have already answered it, and I've already said where my response is. If anything, you're avoiding my response with argumentative fallacies (such as "you're avoiding the issue, teh lol" when I am clearly not).Your doing it right now..
Stupid, meaningless rhetoric
Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. Almost everyone on the BBS? O rly? Do you have a statistical analysis to back this up? How about arguing for yourself for once?Please ask almost everyone even the idiots, and they will say area-51 was mysterious.
Is it me or are you unwillingly trying to accept it?
Selective reading, anyone?
APPEAL TO MAJORITY IS A LOGICAL FALLACY
Get it now?
Even Wikipedia says it has been mysterious for quite a while on the discussion page!WellOh wow, a site similar to one of my "Bullshit" sites. Thanks alot.
You know I was originally linked to that site by Anti_Noob, right?
I very much doubt your even smarter than one of the idiotic wikipedia writers.Yet another personal attack.Yet another dumbass remark.
Wow...yet ANOTHER personal attack. You're simply adorable.
Iam tired of arguing with you because its trying to talk to a idiot with no sense of anything.Meaningless hypocritical personal attack.Please prove im a hypocrite...
"Idiot with no sense of anything"...
Ring a bell?
If you're going to revive a topic, at least try and contribute something new. That post was truly useless.
At 9/16/06 04:40 PM, DR5150 wrote: I have that exact situation at my school, our biology teacher used to be a Reverend, but now hes a father, and he knows everything about both bio and religion, so I know that that situation is kinda weird, considering he has to teach evolution. I don't know what his whole standpoint is though.
Evolution and theism are not, never have been, and never will be mutually exclusive.
Why are people even denying this? Since when did politicians care about the individual losses above their own ratings?
At 9/16/06 12:28 PM, Durin413 wrote: There is one HUGE GIGANTIC thing that science and evolution has not been able to touch. Human consciousness. Where is sciences explanation for THAT???
Sentience is a result of natural selection as it gives us a severe advantage over animals that don't have it.
