Theory about life on earth

Post Reply New Topic

To hell with the hijack - we just need a beer thread... what are ya drinking? *laugh* Good shot; I think I'm on there a few pages earlier, although I'm in no hurry to find my visage again. *shakes head* Look forward to the next excerpt on the Taoist thread, then!

Blech... hot, muggy - and I'm not even to Atlanta yet.


M.

LOL!!

Okay, ignoring the blatant racism. What makes you (OP) think that humans brains are better than other brains? The short version of my argument is that humans' brains are adapted to human life, monkeys' brains adapted to monkey life.

^good point

You really should give this up for your own good. If you are going to try and debate you need first to be able to comprehend what has been said. Just to help I will break up my statement so that you can understand it.

1. In my opinion your views are revolting. - as you have pointed out I do have a right to free speech and I am exercising it here.

2. Because there is no demand that you refrain from speaking your mind the inference should be taken that I am acknowleding your right to free speech even though I find it revolting

3. I find oscuria to have replied in a remarkably polite manner considering your beliefs, once again the inference should be taken that because she has the right to free speech she could have been far nastier.

Oh and by the way an Idea without evidence is not a Theory it is a Hypothesis

Now onto something far more intelligent, Averick what types of beer do you like n I really like British Real Ale. Unfortunatly I am stuck upside down in the Antipodes and can only get Lager

I think I've dealt with enough posts by grain and field in the past that I'm entitled to a cold one about now. But first...

Well, you're kinda pullin' the ol' switcheroo on 'em. "Better" is a highly subjective term which involves a value judgment, so you're question amounts to "why do you believe this word has this definition rather than this one", which is much less interesting than the internet wants you to think.

I was not trying to make an argument of semantics. Let me try again.

Every thing has many characteristics. To say something is better than another thing is to basically take these characteristics and quantify them. Many times, it is apples and oranges. Which is worth more, black hair or red hair? That's a question that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Is a nectarine better than a cheetah? Again, it's sort of nonsensical. In order to make any meaningful judgment about two objects or individuals, you have to highly specify the criteria. I was talking about this on another thread, the Are Aspies Superior? thread in general discussion. I took more time, and made more sense. Anyway, a brush might be better than a spoon for painting. That does not make the brush better than the spoon, only more useful in that instance. A cheetah is good at running down its prey, and a giraffe is tall enough to reach its food. The cheetah is the better hunter, but the giraffe is just as well adapted to its niche.

Did I explain that better? I'll clarify something if need be.

If there's no real evidence, then it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

A theory, in the context of the scientific method, requires the backing of rigorous evidence. So, if there is no evidence, why do you feel that whites are "more evolved" than other races?

And how do you get 'more evolved?' Things evolve and change into other things (gross oversimplification, I know) but evolution works on all things. It doesn't work more or less on things. Sometimes evolution pressures make species stay the same, like sharks, for ages. Does more evolved mean there have been more changes in the evolutionary history? In that sense, then a human is more evolved than a shark. That still doesn't seem right, or meaningful. I think we need to define our terms better.

Or Malsane could realize this is a troll, and fail trolls fail. I'm probably talking to a wall.

Regardless, even though I find your views to be disgusting and centuries out of date, and think you're probably trolling, I am willing to debate this topic civilly.

It seems that this obviously black guy, grain-and-field, suffers from an extraordinary inferiority complex and is trying to justify it on a genetic basis. I would advise him that black people have been unjustly persecuted throughout the centuries and exploited in horrible ways so their problems are not genetic, merely the result of bad treatment. There is a very slow change in social attitudes towards black people and opportunities are arising. If Obama becomes US president he will obviously be held responsible for the entrenched social mess created by the Republicans and this may strike an unjust blow against blacks but perhaps he is clever enough to do something about it. But the controlling elite in the USA is probably too powerful to permit this. Nevertheless I would encourage grain-and-field that many very talented black people have, against great odds, done great things. Admittedly it's tough but possible.

No doubt grain-in-field will deny he is black but anybody with any sense at all can see through that.

Hmmmm... I didn't catch on to that..

So, are you?

Nor did I. I assumed grain-and-field would launch into Stormfront rhetoric eventually. I assumed he is Caucasian, like me.

Tricky fellow.

If he is a fellow.

I have heard disturbing reports about flying saucers lately. Do you think...?

It's certainly possible...