Planet

[Kate]

Piss flaps

[anthonyjfuchs]

Xans wrote

As someone who simply lacks a belief in cosmo-evolution...

What is this bizarre thing that you keep calling "cosmo-evolution"? Merriam-Webster online has this to say about it: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."

Really: if you mean "cosmologist," say cosmologist. If you mean "biologist" -- those who deal most closely with the evolutionary model -- then say biologist. This unsightly hybrid you've fashioned is sort of like an "Islamichristian."

[Sternwallow]

myst7426 wrote

$45 for a pocket pal? why not get a cheap hooker?

$45 is pure equity. Once you use a hooker, you have to pay again for another session (and few hookers look as good as the fleshlight).

[Choobus]

Sternwallow wrote

....and few hookers look as good as the fleshlight.

not for $45 I'm sure

[Sternwallow]

Choobus wrote

not for $45 I'm sure

Exactly!

[Professor Chaos]

Xans wrote

It's only the astro-physicists who make cosmo-evolutionist claims that have some explaining to do. And I wish them all the luck in the universe.

If cosmo-evolutionists found a Nissan Skyline on a distant planet, I'm sure they'd study the situation and offer an explanation as to how the Nissan Skyline like feature on the planet slowly evolved over millions/billions of years. It would be quite an interesting and complicated story I'm sure. The explanation would most likely involve the introduction of "car matter". "Car matter" being similar to "dark matter" that takes the form of various car like shapes. "Car matter" is the ticket because it's impossible "someone" "put" the car like object there.

Nowhere that I'm aware. However neither the article nor my post mentions the Bible.

I thought JU Mike told you to go fuck yourself?

[Xans]

myst7426 wrote

What the hell is a cosmo-evolutionist? Oh wait, they only exist in the theists mind.

"Cosmo" short for cosmos meaning the universe. Evolutionist meaning one who asserts that a thing evolves. Evolve meaning to develop gradually. A "cosmo-evolutionist" is one who asserts the universe developed gradually. A bio-evolutionist is one who asserts life developed gradually. People who assert the universe developed gradually exist. There is no good reason for atheists to be intentionally obtuse on this matter as if you can't understand what "cosmo-evolution" means.

Please cite a cosmo-evolutionist Xans. Example: "Cosmo-evolutionist, Joe Blow, offers this explanation..."

Offer an explanation on how the universe developed gradually and I'll cite you as a cosmo-evolutionist.

While you are at it, look up the definition of evolution from a scientific dictionary. It has nothing to do with planets.

Irrelevant

Cosmos means universe. Evolve means develop gradually. Cosmic evolution is the universe developing gradually.

[Mog]

Xans wrote

"Cosmo" short for cosmos meaning the universe. Evolutionist meaning one who asserts that a thing evolves. Evolve meaning to develop gradually. A "cosmo-evolutionist" is one who asserts the universe developed gradually. A bio-evolutionist is one who asserts life developed gradually. People who assert the universe developed gradually exist. There is no good reason for atheists to be intentionally obtuse on this matter as if you can't understand what "cosmo-evolution" means.

Offer an explanation on how the universe developed gradually and I'll cite you as a cosmo-evolutionist.

Irrelevant

Cosmos means universe. Evolve means develop gradually. Cosmic evolution is the universe developing gradually.

And what evidence leads you to believe that the Universe started in a way contrary to "cosmo-evolution"?

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

"Cosmo" short for cosmos meaning the universe. Evolutionist meaning one who asserts that a thing evolves. Evolve meaning to develop gradually. A "cosmo-evolutionist" is one who asserts the universe developed gradually. A bio-evolutionist is one who asserts life developed gradually. People who assert the universe developed gradually exist. There is no good reason for atheists to be intentionally obtuse on this matter as if you can't understand what "cosmo-evolution" means.

Offer an explanation on how the universe developed gradually and I'll cite you as a cosmo-evolutionist.

Irrelevant

Cosmos means universe. Evolve means develop gradually. Cosmic evolution is the universe developing gradually.

Even though you insist on using words in ways that are not shared with normally literate people, I think we can push through this symantic barrier.

Many things change over time, galaxies, mountains, rivers, trees, bacteria and man. There is an important difference between the changes in non-living things and living things. It is that there is replication of living things which gives rise to the accumulation of beneficial variations. When discussing living things, then, we distinguish their kind of change as the Theory of Evolution or just Evolution. A mountain, being worn down by the rain, cannot spawn a new mountain slightly better able to withstand erosion.

So, for our immediate discussion, I can accept your term "cosmo-evolutionist" as one who has evidence that the cosmos has changed and does change over time. Further that the term "evolution" in your unique sense means nothing but change while "Evolution" means the morphological change in organisms due to variation and selection under environmental pressure.

Having established this specialized glossary, do you have evidence that the cosmos is less than, say, 100,000,000 years old? Do you deny that 90% or more of the species that ever existed are now extinct? What is your objection to there being a series of chemical reactions leading from complex organic chemicals (known to exist in nature and able to be synthesized from inorganics and carbon) to a replicating chemical?

Are you prepared to deal with "evolution"(change) in parts of the universe as not the same as "Evolution" (replication/variation/selection) of lifeforms?

[Xans]

myst7426 wrote

Xans, your argument is pathetic. I know of a way better unexplained planetary property you could use. The creationists and IDiots would love to use it as evidence of a creator. Too bad they don't know about. I have never seen them cite it. It even exists in our solar system. Can you guess what I am talking about?

Nope, and I offered no argument.

nkb wrote

1. There is no such thing as cosmo-evolution. No matter how many times you say it, it will not make it true. If you're using this made-up term to try to get a rise out of people here, all you are accomplishing is to reinforce what a retarded Christ-puncher you really are.

This Christ-puncher calls you a cosmo-evolutionist as well as a hypocrite.

2. You are trying to equate believing in the accuracy of a scientific theory, based on available evidence, with believing in a deity, with absolutely no evidence. Sorry, that's not going to fly.
The difference is that no scientist believes dogmatically in anything scientific, because the door is always open to new evidence. If the new evidence contradicts an earlier theory, then it will be adjusted, as necessary.
Can you say that about your God belief?

I have no reason to make claims about my God belief to atheists since I can't even prove God exists. That in no way lets atheists off the hook in regard to their beliefs.

3. You can sit back and demand all you want, you self-centered, egotistical prick.

And you can do the same as well, hypocrite.

What has been painfully obvious from your very first post, and you reinforce daily, is that you really don't have the first clue about science, do you?

Cosmo-evolutionists should take a tip from Christ-puncher creationists and expect the unexpected. If the universe was created for the most part as is by God, you will not be able to expect what you'll find out there.

[Xans]

Mog wrote

And what evidence leads you to believe that the Universe started in a way contrary to "cosmo-evolution"?

I offer no evidence nor is the burden of proof on me to do so.

[Mog]

Xans wrote

I offer no evidence nor is the burden of proof on me to do so.

Thats baloney and you know it, Xans. We have evidence for being as you say "cosmo-evolutionists". If you wish to think otherwise, you have to have a good reason for doing so, otherwise your position makes as much sense as believing there are invisible leprechauns at every corner.

[Xans]

Mog wrote

Thats baloney and you know it, Xans. We have evidence for being as you say "cosmo-evolutionists". If you wish to think otherwise, you have to have a good reason for doing so, otherwise your position makes as much sense as believing there are invisible leprechauns at every corner.

I may think otherwise but I don't claim otherwise. As far as you're concerned, I simply lack a belief in cosmic evolution.

What you fail to understand is that the burden of proof is on you, the cosmic evolutionist, to explain how this planet evolved. You have some "esplainin" to do.

[Mog]

Xans wrote

I may think otherwise but I don't claim otherwise. As far as you're concerned, I simply lack a belief in cosmic evolution.

What you fail to understand is that the burden of proof is on you, the cosmic evolutionist, to explain how this planet evolved. You have some "esplainin" to do.

You are the one with the failure to understand, Xans. End of discussion. You've demonstrated that your beliefs are not based on logic but on your own desires.