Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

Cold Warrior

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Current location: London, UK
Member since: Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:49 AM
Number of posts: 12,953

Journal Archives

Revelation Song

https://m.
Posted by Cold Warrior | Sat Mar 2, 2019, 08:07 PM (2 replies)

Another Pleasant Hill Valley Sunday

https://m.

For Christians Only

“You are a bigoted asshole, I'm calling you out faggot.”
DI member sobek

Is the term “faggot” appropriate as an insult to be used by good Christians?

Too bad Richie Rich wasn't one of the fellers in Tubby's Clubhouse

Or was he?

https://m.

A Common Core-ish Question

In a recent math-related thread, a poster presented a Common Core video showing how to teach a second grader how to solve:

8 + 5 = ?

The method was to increase one factor to 10 (8+2) and to reduce the other factor to 3 (5-2) and transform the equation to an easier one:

10 + 3 = ?

While I am not prepared to argue the appropriateness of this method for second graders, isn’t this the way you do math — transforming factors to base 10 as much as possible? For example, when solving:

28 x 7 = ?

Don’t you transform it to:

20 x 7 = 140
8 x 7 = 56
140 + 56 = 196

BTW, I’m far too old to have gone through a CC curriculum. And yes, I have a smartphone.

It is a shame that scientists who are attempting to understand the evolution of

haplogroups via statistical analysis of rare genetic markers over hundreds of thousands of years cannot present their findings in language that a fifth grade math failure can understand. So sad,

Oh wait. Here’s an explanation that everyone can understand. Yahweh did it and you weren’t there.

Defining mtEve and the flexibility of the Creationist

In a thread started by our colleague ABOUT mtEve, he “understands” the scientific definition of mtEve as:

“Evolution mtEve would have been the first true homo (whether erectus, neandertal sapien) someone had to be the first! “
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32101

When it is pointed out that this is not correct and that mtEve is scientifically defined as the Most Recent Common (Matrilineal) Ancestor (MRCA), he objects and attempts to deflect away from THE THREAD TOPIC (mtEve):

“well as I am not dealing with MCRA
your post is irrelavent
evolutionists talk more than just MRCA they also talking of when lines diverged (like ape and men)
If you want to talk about MRCA let me know
do try to keep up”
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32129

“try to keep up” indeed! And he continues to deflect:

“Just a reminder
MRCA is a generic term that context determines meaning. “
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32161

Indeed, “context determines meaning.” And the context is a THREAD THAT OUR COLLEAGE STARTED ABOUT mtEVE! A pretty well-defined context. Move now to a thread wherein he is provided with multiple versions of the MRCA definition of mtEve from Yale, from Stanford, and elsewhere and his response is:

“Well mt Eve aqnd Biblical Eve are one and the same!
...
And to repeat again I have no problem at all with any of those definitions you put up! Do you???”
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32195

Note his extreme “flexibility” in definitions as he pretends to have agreed with in the past but clearly did not. However, the sad part is that he still doesn’t UNDERSTAND the definition.

Even if every word of Yahweh’s Big Book were literally true, the Biblical Eve would not fit the definition of mtEve. Biblical Eve’s descendants (except for 8) were all destroyed during Yahweh’s Big Genocide. Under a literal interpretation wherein Pork Chop, Scam, and Ring Starr were the proginitors of the races, the argument could be made that Noah’s wife would/could be mtEve.

Note that this is a simplistic interpretation that assumes the three branches did not intermingle. But when one is discussing fairy tales, a little latitude is required. In any case, under no circumstances could Biblical Eve fit the definition of mtEve.

Who was Mitochondrial Eve OR Thats the Way Creationists Roll

Those secular EVILutionists are pretty clear in their definition of Mitochondrial Eve:

“In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.”
- Wiki

“In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans...”
- National Center for Science Education

“Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam — two individuals who passed down a portion of their genomes to the vast expanse of humanity — are known as our most recent common ancestors, or MRCAs”
- Stanford University

“For example, ‘mitochondrial Eve’ is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) when ancestry is defined only through maternal lines”
- Yale University

But those EVILutionists clearly don’t know what they’re talking about! Clearly, Mitochondrial Eve and Biblical Eve must be the same, the FIRST, not MOST RECENT (whatever that means) Ancestor of mankind. This is easy to prove:

1. The Bible says so
2. They are both named Eve

Take that, EVILutionists!

But how can we Creationists convince the scientifically and Biblically illiterate of this self-evident proposition? Here’s how!!!

1. Redefine the EVILutionists’ definition to something more suitable to our argument. For example, we could change the EVILutionist definition to “the FIRST (what is with that ‘most recent’ crap, anywho) fully hominid woman.”

2. When the EVILutionists object to this changed definition come back with this is the competing definition that many EVILutionists themselves hold.

3. When the EVILutionists ask for proof of that, cut-and-paste lots of UNCITED text from a Creationist website that talk about EVILutionists’ views on Mitochondrial Eve in contexts not related to the definition. Minimally, the word count of these uncited quotes should be 90% Creationist and 10% EVILutionist, but the closer you can approach 95% Creationist, the better.

4. When you are constructing (3), be sure to tag the text with a phrase like “From the EVILutionists’ own mouths:”

5. Once you have thereby established your own definition of Mitochondrial Eve, it becomes easy to argue against that definition.

What, you say, “Isn’t that dishonest?” Hey, that’s the way we Creationists roll!!

Is Borat the Anti-Christ

In a recent thread wherein a poster flattered me by calling me a “bigoted asshole” and a “faggot” (no bigotry there ), the same poster made this rather unusual comment:

“I went over the top but his remarks went unnoticed. Someone has to check him or you end up with Borat in your forum.” (the “his” in the quote refers to me).
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1015&pid=1945529

Now I’ve not paid all that much attention to Borat (I watched his first movie and thought it rather silly). But, evidently, amongst our religious colleagues, he’s fairly important (or notorious). Can anyone explain the significance?

For all our colleagues who are bad ass Karate Kid fans

https://m.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »