the return of pianistimo; the battle for middle earth rages on

[thalberg]

I almost forgot--welcome back, pianistimo!

[prometheus]

If you believe in evolution then tell me. Which of your parents was an ape?  Your father or your mother?

Why?

You are the creationist. Not me. Why would I believe in miracles?



Anyway. You started making claims. Back them up or S T F U.



Arg, this is so extremely annoying. You know you are wrong but you were brainwashed and you can't let go. Stop using fallacies.

[thalberg]

When someone exhibits your degree of hostility, reason will never prevail regardless of who is right.

[pianistimo]

hello, again thalberg.  yes.  we meet again to fight another day.  but, how did you change the topic from 21 days gone to 'the battle for middle earth.'  and how exactly do you know we are in middle earth.  that's where the angels are. 

when i was gone - there was no transport to heaven like with muhammad.  i just sat and read the bible.  nothing big happened - excepting that peace that passes all understanding wafted about for a while.  now, that i'm back on pf - i'm wondering if it is bad for the health.  perhaps the main reason bob can't sleep at night and has general bodily soreness.

although, the last topic of bodily soreness seemed to be focused on a general area that people sit on for cycling.  how these topics digress.  although, come to think of it - my back gets sore when i sit at the computer too long.   

[thalbergmad]

now, that i'm back on pf - i'm wondering if it is bad for the health. 

Yours or ours?

[pianistimo]

probably both.  i get 'almost a headache' from laughing.  it's sort of a cry/laugh.  you know, this sort of pathetic - 'is that a joke?  but it's still funny.'  i could really use someone like you about 2 days out of the month.  maybe just for observation. (no, not that kind)

[thalbergmad]

i could really use someone like you about 2 days out of the month. 

You mean when Aunt Flo is paying a visit?

Thal

[pianistimo]

well, as a matter of fact - i have a fairly good looking aunt - -but she has been married a long time.   to a sick rabbit - as she calls him.

[thalbergmad]

Sorry, i thought you meant you needed me to cheer you up when you had "the red wedge".

Luv

Thal

[pianistimo]

you are also sick minded.  (put that in your signature too).  men use that excuse to ignore women - not pay attention to them. 

[thalbergmad]

you are also sick minded.  (put that in your signature too). 

Done

[thalberg]

hello, again thalberg.  yes.  we meet again to fight another day.  but, how did you change the topic from 21 days gone to 'the battle for middle earth.'  and how exactly do you know we are in middle earth.  that's where the angels are. 

How?  You go to your first post on the thread you started, hit 'modify,' and then just type in a new topic.

Middle Earth--comes from Lord of the Rings.  Middle Earth was the part of Earth that had been claimed neither by good nor by evil yet.  The angels are probably there to fight the battle.

[pianistimo]

i'm such a newb.  on both accounts. 

[pianochick93]

Welcome back Pianistimo. Despite people saying that you corrupt topics and turn them into religious debates, some people managed to do that without your help.

[pianistimo]

thank you, pianochick93!  viva la difference.  i don't want everyone to be exactly like me and have to even convince my children of that.  it's just that i think everyone has a right to be heard.  for both sides of a story or debate to be told.

[ahinton]

how exactly do you know we are in middle earth.  that's where the angels are. 

when i was gone - there was no transport to heaven like with muhammad.  i just sat and read the bible.  nothing big happened - excepting that peace that passes all understanding wafted about for a while.  now, that i'm back on pf - i'm wondering if it is bad for the health.

I might have joined those welcoming you back had you not expressed this doubt; also, why did it apparently not occur to you that it might be bad for the health while you were away from here? And you didn't spend all your time in the Philadelphian desert reading the Bible, surely?...

although, the last topic of bodily soreness seemed to be focused on a general area that people sit on for cycling.  how these topics digress.  although, come to think of it - my back gets sore when i sit at the computer too long.   

My brain gets sore when I start to read about your angels and Bible-reading and heaven and such (plus ça change - plus c'est la même chose?) although, to be fair, you have at least now given abit of non-pejorative space to "muhammad"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

you are also sick minded.  (put that in your signature too).  men use that excuse to ignore women - not pay attention to them. 

ALL men? You haven't turned into the man-hating variety of a feminist as well during your absence, have you?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

How?  You go to your first post on the thread you started, hit 'modify,' and then just type in a new topic.

Middle Earth--comes from Lord of the Rings.  Middle Earth was the part of Earth that had been claimed neither by good nor by evil yet.  The angels are probably there to fight the battle.

The temptation implicit in what you write here to compare Lord of the Rings to that Book of which Susan writes more often than anyone else here is great but, in the spirit of "lead us not into temptation" (or, in a preferable translation that I have heard, "leave us not when in temptation"), I have managed to resist. I wonder if Nils will award me an extra star for that?...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

i don't want everyone to be exactly like me

No, I'm sure you don't, but it would be rather difficult in any case, wouldn't you say?

and have to even convince my children of that.

Really? You mean that if you omitted to make efforts to convince them of this, they'd believe that you DO want everyone else to be exactly like you? Susan - what have you done to your children? This sounds quite worrying...

it's just that i think everyone has a right to be heard.  for both sides of a story or debate to be told.

Indeed so - although one should be careful merely to present rather than force one's views. Discussions and debates need also to be and remain reasonably civilised and, whilst some people can inject some barbed wit into such things here from time to time, there is a borderline beyond whose transgression can result in unwarranted rudeness which is best ignored.

By the way, Susan, has it occurred to you that, if you give sufficient bons mots to Thal to add to his signature and he accepts them all, you could eventually be held indirectly responsible for his future posts being criticised for undue length? Maybe even Thal hasn't yet thought of that one...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Did anyone notice that marik and pianistimo both disappeared several weeks ago,  and have returned at almost the same time?

Perhaps they were working in depth on the

of the Spanish Rhapsody.

Welcome back to both of them..

Funniest comment in this thread

[thalberg]

The temptation implicit in what you write here to compare Lord of the Rings to that Book of which Susan writes more often than anyone else here is great but, in the spirit of "lead us not into temptation" (or, in a preferable translation that I have heard, "leave us not when in temptation"), I have managed to resist. I wonder if Nils will award me an extra star for that?...

Best,

Alistair

I hear you....

[soliloquy]

emos

[ahinton]

emos

Pardon?

Best,

Alistair

[pianochick93]

emos

Why?

[thalberg]

Pardon?

Best,

Alistair

Soliloquy was referring to a recent phenomenon among american youth.  I recommend looking the word up on urbandictionary.com to get an accurate description.  I think the second definition listed fits soliloquy's intentions best.

[ahinton]

Soliloquy was referring to a recent phenomenon among american youth.  I recommend looking the word up on urbandictionary.com to get an accurate description.  I think the second definition listed fits soliloquy's intentions best.

The second of no less than 257, indeed. Hmmm. Well, leaving aside for the moment that I have quite enough trouble with what one might call conventional English, to whom do you suppose soliloquy was referring by his use of the word with that definition?

Perhaps soliloquy himself will enlighten us rather than leaving us to speculate about it on his behalf.

In the meantime, I think that I'll stick to "emo" as the opening part of an older and longer word and its various derivatives...

Best,

Alistair

[mcgillcomposer]

Creationism is not sinister and dangerous.

Evolution is not scientific.  For something to be scientific, it needs to be observable and repeatable, which evolution is not.

Plus evolution flies in the face of two scientific laws--the law of entropy and the law of biogenesis.  Both are laws.  The theory of evolution breaks them both.

There is no "scientific" account of how the world began.  Every theory, whether creationism, evolution, or something else----EVERY THEORY is faith-based because you're trusting in something you can't prove.

Why do so many people fall into this trap? Evolution is scientific and it is not a theory. Either read some Richard Dawkins or watch this:

[thalberg]

Why do so many people fall into this trap? Evolution is scientific and it is not a theory. Either read some Richard Dawkins or watch this:

Okay, I watched it- how did you find that?  He says that evolution is a fact, and that it refers to how animals adapt to their environment.  He says that a creationist might call it micro-evolution. 

I think what he said is perfectly fine.  Species do change and adapt as time goes on.  The question is how far you want to take that, and whether you want to apply it to a grand scale or a small scale--for instance do horses just turn into better horses, or do they turn into something entirely different?

I think the more heated debates center around how the world began, and how life began.  He simply does not bring up that part of things.  Probably because we just don't have the science to back anything up--no one alive today was there to witness the beginning of the world, so we must speculate about it based on what is happening today.  The margin for error is enormous in that case.

[counterpoint]

Okay, I watched it- how did you find that?  He says that evolution is a fact, and that it refers to how animals adapt to their environment.  He says that a creationist might call it micro-evolution. 

The main dispute between evolutionists and creationists is, whether evolution is controlled by any sort of higher power or if it is just random. Darwin thought evolution is just random.

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Solving-Darwin-s-Dilemma-16248.shtml

[gerry]

Welcome back Pianistimo. Despite people saying that you corrupt topics and turn them into religious debates, some people managed to do that without your help.

...as witnessed by this entire thread.

[prometheus]

Why do so many people fall into this trap? Evolution is scientific and it is not a theory. Either read some Richard Dawkins or watch this:

It IS a theory. And that's good. Because that means it's science. And science WORKS.


No offense. But you just fell in his trap. Yes, I know. He is a sinister liar. And he tricked you.

[prometheus]

Darwin thought evolution is just random.

Darwin understood his own theory.

[jlh]

It IS a theory. And that's good. Because that means it's science. And science WORKS.


No offense. But you just fell in his trap. Yes, I know. He is a sinister liar. And he tricked you.

You just don't stop do you?  Lies!  They're all LIES I say! 

 

[mcgillcomposer]

It IS a theory. And that's good. Because that means it's science. And science WORKS.


No offense. But you just fell in his trap. Yes, I know. He is a sinister liar. And he tricked you.

Fell into a trap? OK, I admit that the guy on Youtube doesn't explain the distinction very well, but any scientist will tell you that evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is something different.

It's everywhere in Dawkins and Gould's work.

[leahcim]

for instance do horses just turn into better horses, or do they turn into something entirely different?

Well, neither, surely. AFAICT, there's no animal on earth entirely different from another in the context of evolution / creation. Secondly, without context, there's no absolute from which to determine a "better" horse from one that's supposedly "worse" is there?

As for heated debate, I'd say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong is probably the main cause.

[pianistimo]

What about minute genetic changes (ie - dropping a characteristic or piece of dna entirely - and never to regain it again as happens with mtDNA)?  How can we be sure that we are ADDING them?  Genetics are entirely different than bacteria/fungus and are surprisingly often compared - even though bacteria are basically something that grows but does not become an animal or human.  It's bacteria.  But, according to evolutionists - there's some connection.  It doesn't have blood, though.  Unless it feeds off of something that has blood.

Also, what do people say to this: https://www.carewinnipeg.com/DinosandManTogetherinSouthCarolina.html  The recent findings (reuter's) of a tapir that was half-eaten is suddenly called a dinosaur because they find similarities but not the whole carcass.  In fact, I would daresay - THE HEAD IS MISSING.  Of course, they take it to a lab - and then, profess more pictures.  Why can't they give a picture of the head first?  Maybe it's a tapir.  Just an idea.

Tapirs were found in this 18" shallow bone field in South Carolina and so many dinosaurs and mammals (some extinct now) - ALL TOGETHER - that it completely foils any sort of geological column and rather supports them all dying together at the same time.  Could these animals have existed with man?  I tend to think so.  Of course, this discourse will now 'flame.'  But, as I see it - this is the other side of the story.  What do you want?  Only one side?  That is dishonest to any 'science.'

[thalbergmad]

Tapirs were found in this 18" shallow bone field in South Carolina and so many dinosaurs and mammals (some extinct now) - ALL TOGETHER - that it completely foils any sort of geological column and rather supports them all dying together at the same time.  Could these animals have existed with man?  I tend to think so.  Of course, this discourse will now 'flame.'  But, as I see it - this is the other side of the story.  What do you want?  Only one side?  That is dishonest to any 'science.'

And when would you date the death of this poor little Tapir.

I am not asking for an exact year, just an estimate as to when you think that it died.

Just a short answer is required and it does not need to be engulfed within pages of rubbish.

Please answer in a straight forward simple manner.

Thanks

[thalberg]

Well, neither, surely. AFAICT, there's no animal on earth entirely different from another in the context of evolution / creation. Secondly, without context, there's no absolute from which to determine a "better" horse from one that's supposedly "worse" is there?

As for heated debate, I'd say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong is probably the main cause.

Interesting.  "Not even wrong."  I like it.  I wish I were still a teacher so I could use it on my students.  No, wait, I'm too nice for that.

No animals entirely different from each other?  Well, again, it depends how far you want to take it.  I personally think horses are different from monkeys and elephants are different from giraffes.  But you can certainly always find a lot of common ground.  My own opinion, though, is that if evolution were as true as extremists say, then the world would be full of "in between" type animals and it would be hard to tell one species from another.  The world would look very disorganized.  As it is, most types of animals and vegetation tend to be recognizable as distinct types.

[pianistimo]

Dear Thalbergmad,

Well, this Reuter's article says 67 million years ago.  https://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN0237309520071203

But, many things have been mummified before this point.  Shoe leather has been inaccurately dated in SD also.  Do you know how long it takes to fossilize?  Not long at all when the weather is hot and dry.  Maybe 30 years.  You know these processes can speed up depending upon conditions. 

All I'm saying is that in NCarolina we see all these dinosaurs having lived approximately at the same time instead of this huge geological column.  Mastadons with tapirs, etc.  Why call a tapir a dinosaur?  I'm just asking.  Some things are obviously extinct now - but when the bones look similar - why call them 'early man.'  Frankly, some of the horses that lived in ancient china have dna similar to some wild horses found in the mid-west.  What does that tell you?  Maybe dna takes a long time to really do much of anything except deteriorate.  Nothing is improving.

Show me some species that has drastically improved - even over kazillions of years.  I bet giraffes are shorter than they used to be.  That's just one example.  Although - I did see on some network the other night - the world's tallest man.  He's just inexplicable.  He complained that he probably was still growing - but if that happened it might be fatal.  Not sure if it was the ceilings he was worried about or something else.

Have you tasted any of that genetically modified fruit/vegetables from europe lately?  There's no seeds in it - and it tastes bland.  Sure - you can make a watermelon the size of a cantelope.  But, what does it taste like?  Sure - you can make person into a snowman - but what has he/she got in his/her head?  And, normally - in the wild - would a typical person be attracted to a snowman?  What did they have to do to get their genes together?

[thalbergmad]

for instance do horses just turn into better horses, or do they turn into something entirely different?

They turn into something different.

As soon as i place a bet, they turn into 3 legged nags.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Dear Thalbergmad,

Well, this Reuter's article says 67 million years ago.  https://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN0237309520071203

I am not interested in what Reuters say, i am interested in what YOU say. You have already enlightened us with your geological expertise, so this question should not strain you too much.

I am not interested in snowmen, watermelons and pathetic rambling.

Simple question, WHEN DO YOU THINK THAT THE TAPIR DIED?

Answer me.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Hertz rental cars?

When did it die.  Hmm.  Maybe when the grand canyon was formed.  Less than 5 thousand years ago.  I mean - it still has some kind of fossilized flesh and was probably put under some dirt and debre to be fossilized in the first place.  These animals didn't die and just lay there for a while.  Otherwise, there would be nothing left of the flesh.  Some catastrophe had to happen. 

Scientists typically say 'ice age.'  OK. But, what caused so much water to freeze and/or the temperatures to change so drastically.  To have basically found palm trees under some of the frozen ice at the poles.  How could the poles have been so different.  A huge catastrophe of some kind had to happen.  And, these animals - tapirs - aren't typically here anymores.  So we know the weather had to be different at that time.

[thalbergmad]

Is that your answer to my simple question or have you taken leave of what senses you have left?

Thal

[pianistimo]

Thal, was the ice-age 20 thousand years ago?  Prove it to me.  10 sounds closer but, still off, imo.  Do you know why?  Because FINALLY finally now the ice caps are melting.  How long (we can count, you know) does it take for this ice to melt?  Millions of years?  Our oceans would have been already filled many many times from these cycles.

[general disarray]

Sure - you can make person into a snowman - but what has he/she got in his/her head?  And, normally - in the wild - would a typical person be attracted to a snowman?  What did they have to do to get their genes together?

"Get their genes together?"  It's called snow-balling.

[pianistimo]

I like that.  OK.  Snowballing it is.

[thalbergmad]

When did it die.  Hmm.  Maybe when the grand canyon was formed.  Less than 5 thousand years ago. 

That is priceless.

I will not waste further words on trying to prove to you when the ice age occured. You are too thick to understand it and your opinions are already fully formed.

Besides, i find it very difficult to type when laughing and i expect to still be laughing in 2 hours time at your latest batch of crap.

Thal

[pianistimo]

What?!  Did a volcano do the animal in then?  It had to be buried.  How do these things get buried?  Catastrophe.  So when was the latest and greatest one?  I think the flood.  Nothing funny about that.  and, you haven't answered me about the climate that was different when these animals walked around.  Did the climate change HAVE to be so much earlier?  How do we know when we only live 70+ or - years?  You don't know any more than me.

Catastrophe can be sudden and quite catastrophic.  Many of the layers of the grand canyon were laid down at once - as proven by some of those layers that bend together.  Also, if one believes in a Creator and creation - how do we know in what condition and setting the earth was made?  We don't. We just know it was created - and the earth was divided (whatever that means) in the days of peleg.  Whether this was a continental rift or a dividing of people after the tower of babel - the earth and various people's were divided. 

I still don't follow the ideas in typical HS science textbooks that tout the one-land-mass idea (forget what you call it) - and that suddenly the earth became like a balloon and massive water pressure pushed the continents apart.  It's much more believeable to say God made the oceans and dry land.  That there are connective ridges from continent to continent.  People just believe textbooks without doubting anything.  I used to think - 'how do they know?'

[thalbergmad]

Just google "dating the ice age" or something similar. You will find a wealth of evidence to disprove your warped and deluded views. I refuse to waste time on mentally retarded idiots like you, when you can do research youself.

Put your Bible away for a few days, open your feeble mind to other possibilities and get a basic education.

Hope this helps.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Thal, prove to me that the ice-age was even 10,000 years ago - and I will show you proof that it was closer to 6,000 years - exactly what the bible says.  And, possibly some of it after the noatian flood - which was less than that. 

The polar ice-caps are melting and revealing much truth.  Date something under the ice-cap.  SIMPLE AS THAT.  and, you already know this.  and, these animals found had grass in their bellies?  Suddenly taken away?!  By what?  Only climate change?

HOW LONG DOES ICE TAKE TO MELT.  not that long in the right conditions.  It was just another proof of how much water covered the entire earth.