Prev: How small must the chance of error be before we accept something as true and certain?
Next: Moonless Night
From: Jimbo on 3 Aug 2010 08:03
On Aug 2, 11:02 pm, "Edmond H. Wollmann" <arcturian...(a)earthlink.net>
wrote:
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:35d49815-ac94-4b41-8d64-001c0043dcc7(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 9:58 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!
> > Did you even take a science class during your time in reform school?
>
> Did you ever figure out what's on God's mind?

What god?

>
> sugar is part of it, it's The law of expansion.

From: Excognito on 3 Aug 2010 08:32
On Aug 3, 12:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

1a. to appeal to macho types, giving them greater chick appeal.
1b. to eliminate the stupid by:
- 1b1 direct elimination of those who can't take a hint from the
plant's defences (although it has failed to take out at least one
stupido before it bred - tabasco & habenero sandwiches, lovely grub)
- 1b2 signalling to chicks that the potential mate is either grossly
insensitive or lacks the intellectual tools necessary to avoid
unnecessary pain.

2. to allow the chicks to disguise the taste of unpalatable food
(eg, rotting meat or fresh vegetables (tricksy hobbitses can keep
nasty cabbage)) and giving the macho types no choice but to eat it
(else they be accused of wimpishness)
From: Ben Kaufman on 3 Aug 2010 13:17
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:54:49 -0700, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
<arcturianone(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"livvy" <gode3(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:89fad588-869c-4982-b496-d7d64339a9bc(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 2, 11:02 pm, "Edmond H. Wollmann" <arcturian...(a)earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:35d49815-ac94-4b41-8d64-001c0043dcc7(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 2, 9:58 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!
>> > Did you even take a science class during your time in reform school?
>>
>> Did you ever figure out what's on God's mind?
>>
>> sugar is part of it, it's The law of expansion.
>
>> God's fine....this is your discussion...you have some expectation?
>> What is it you want, what is it you want to end?
>
>What part of your confusion would you like me to help Dumbass?
>
>Don't cha know Sugar is made for you to like it in order to gain energy.
>All humans want energy, therefore this design is God's design to populate
>human on earth dipshit, still don't get it?
>

If that is so then why did "God" give us cancer and why do cancer cells love
sugar so much it's how we spot them on PET scans.
From: Ben Kaufman on 3 Aug 2010 13:23
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:48:57 -0700 (PDT), "nuny(a)bid.nes" <alien8752(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>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

To spice up Matzos but the Passover that this was to be revealed the whole Jesus
thing took front stage.

Ben
From: Smiler. on 3 Aug 2010 22:27
|-|ercules wrote:
> "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.

That's another Irony Meter you owe me, Jerc.

--
Smiler
The godless one.
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly
fit the prejudices of their believers.


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