Prev: How small must the chance of error be before we accept something as true and certain?
Next: Moonless Night
From: |-|ercules on 3 Aug 2010 04:01
"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill(a)gmail.com> wrote ...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:58:47 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>According to atheists, we PERCEIVE it as sweet so our ancestors were
>>more likely to consume it for energy to pass on their genes!
>>
>>But that would mean chicken, lamb, mustard and every taste is purely
>>manufactured by our brains to give it some functional relevance.
>>
>>Either that or it's a just a COINCIDENCE that the simplest most available
>>food chemical has this wonderful sweet taste sensation.
>>
>>It's just one of MILLIONS of coincidences.
>>
>>Another example: If the Earth was 50% smaller, we would have no atmosphere
>>like Mars. If Earth was 50% bigger our muscles would be too weak to carry a
>>big brain, crabs would be the dominant lifeform and nobody would be able
>>to ponder the existence of the Universe!
>>
>>Or water, H20. It's the only chemical of it's type that is liquid at around 300 Kelvin,
>>It's unique Hydrogen bond giving the characteristic bend in the molecule alters it's
>>properties so that there are liquid oceans on livable planets. No liquid water, no life!
>>
>>Speaking of water, osmosis! This function is absolutely critical for life to exist, except
>>maybe phsophorous life forms. No osmosis, no life.
>>
>>There are THOUSANDS of narrow windows of opportunity and life depends on every
>>single one. The best argument AGAINST a creator was written by Rich Dawk!
>>
>>Yet according to the atheist it's just a bit of luck! Wait a few billion years and the strongest
>>survive QED.
>
> Yeah dope. Wait a few billion years, on many billion planets, in many
> billions of galaxies, and eventually one, or two, or a hundred, will
> develop life in the way ours did.
>
> On the other hand... there will be billions and billions of planets that
> are, too small, too big, too far from their star, too close to their star,
> not have the right gasses, elements, proteins...
>
> No one lives on the failures to notice they are failures.
>
> Are you really that dumb? You sometimes seem smarter.
>


I was wondering what inane counter argument some atheist would come up with.

Herc

From: Mark Murray on 3 Aug 2010 04:05
On 03/08/2010 02:58, |-|ercules wrote:
> According to atheists, we PERCEIVE it as sweet so our ancestors were
> more likely to consume it for energy to pass on their genes!

The truth can be revealed!

The sugar cartel have engineered it to be desirable so that the
sheeple will buy it in vast quantities. This means PROFIT!

Its a conspiracy, I tell you.

Don't tell anyone.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Government Shill #2 on 3 Aug 2010 04:27
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:01:56 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill(a)gmail.com> wrote ...
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:58:47 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>According to atheists, we PERCEIVE it as sweet so our ancestors were
>>>more likely to consume it for energy to pass on their genes!
>>>
>>>But that would mean chicken, lamb, mustard and every taste is purely
>>>manufactured by our brains to give it some functional relevance.
>>>
>>>Either that or it's a just a COINCIDENCE that the simplest most available
>>>food chemical has this wonderful sweet taste sensation.
>>>
>>>It's just one of MILLIONS of coincidences.
>>>
>>>Another example: If the Earth was 50% smaller, we would have no atmosphere
>>>like Mars. If Earth was 50% bigger our muscles would be too weak to carry a
>>>big brain, crabs would be the dominant lifeform and nobody would be able
>>>to ponder the existence of the Universe!
>>>
>>>Or water, H20. It's the only chemical of it's type that is liquid at around 300 Kelvin,
>>>It's unique Hydrogen bond giving the characteristic bend in the molecule alters it's
>>>properties so that there are liquid oceans on livable planets. No liquid water, no life!
>>>
>>>Speaking of water, osmosis! This function is absolutely critical for life to exist, except
>>>maybe phsophorous life forms. No osmosis, no life.
>>>
>>>There are THOUSANDS of narrow windows of opportunity and life depends on every
>>>single one. The best argument AGAINST a creator was written by Rich Dawk!
>>>
>>>Yet according to the atheist it's just a bit of luck! Wait a few billion years and the strongest
>>>survive QED.
>>
>> Yeah dope. Wait a few billion years, on many billion planets, in many
>> billions of galaxies, and eventually one, or two, or a hundred, will
>> develop life in the way ours did.
>>
>> On the other hand... there will be billions and billions of planets that
>> are, too small, too big, too far from their star, too close to their star,
>> not have the right gasses, elements, proteins...
>>
>> No one lives on the failures to notice they are failures.
>>
>> Are you really that dumb? You sometimes seem smarter.
>>
>
>
>I was wondering what inane counter argument some atheist would come up with.

I am sad to see that science escapes you.

Apparently religion keeps you locked into ignorance.


--
Shill #2

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)
From: |-|ercules on 3 Aug 2010 06:04
"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill(a)gmail.com> wrote ...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:01:56 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill(a)gmail.com> wrote ...
>>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:58:47 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>According to atheists, we PERCEIVE it as sweet so our ancestors were
>>>>more likely to consume it for energy to pass on their genes!
>>>>
>>>>But that would mean chicken, lamb, mustard and every taste is purely
>>>>manufactured by our brains to give it some functional relevance.
>>>>
>>>>Either that or it's a just a COINCIDENCE that the simplest most available
>>>>food chemical has this wonderful sweet taste sensation.
>>>>
>>>>It's just one of MILLIONS of coincidences.
>>>>
>>>>Another example: If the Earth was 50% smaller, we would have no atmosphere
>>>>like Mars. If Earth was 50% bigger our muscles would be too weak to carry a
>>>>big brain, crabs would be the dominant lifeform and nobody would be able
>>>>to ponder the existence of the Universe!
>>>>
>>>>Or water, H20. It's the only chemical of it's type that is liquid at around 300 Kelvin,
>>>>It's unique Hydrogen bond giving the characteristic bend in the molecule alters it's
>>>>properties so that there are liquid oceans on livable planets. No liquid water, no life!
>>>>
>>>>Speaking of water, osmosis! This function is absolutely critical for life to exist, except
>>>>maybe phsophorous life forms. No osmosis, no life.
>>>>
>>>>There are THOUSANDS of narrow windows of opportunity and life depends on every
>>>>single one. The best argument AGAINST a creator was written by Rich Dawk!
>>>>
>>>>Yet according to the atheist it's just a bit of luck! Wait a few billion years and the strongest
>>>>survive QED.
>>>
>>> Yeah dope. Wait a few billion years, on many billion planets, in many
>>> billions of galaxies, and eventually one, or two, or a hundred, will
>>> develop life in the way ours did.
>>>
>>> On the other hand... there will be billions and billions of planets that
>>> are, too small, too big, too far from their star, too close to their star,
>>> not have the right gasses, elements, proteins...
>>>
>>> No one lives on the failures to notice they are failures.
>>>
>>> Are you really that dumb? You sometimes seem smarter.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I was wondering what inane counter argument some atheist would come up with.
>
> I am sad to see that science escapes you.
>
> Apparently religion keeps you locked into ignorance.
>

At least it answers why sugar is sweet. Unlike scanning a post for keywords
and making the best fitting cliche response and spouting that it answers the question.

Herc
From: nuny on 3 Aug 2010 07:48
On Aug 2, 6:58 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to atheists, we PERCEIVE it as sweet so our ancestors were
> more likely to consume it for energy to pass on their genes!
>
> But that would mean chicken, lamb, mustard and every taste is purely
> manufactured by our brains to give it some functional relevance.

Why do you believe hot peppers are "hot"? Many people, including me,
make a point of eating them not because they're nutritious (they
happen to be extremely so) but because we like the heat.

(froups trimmed randomly coz stoopit Google Gropes only allows xposts
to five at a time)

Mark L. Fergerson
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: How small must the chance of error be before we accept something as true and certain?
Next: Moonless Night