Pointless to argue with creationists

quote:

---

And there is no evidence that matter has this ability to create thought and reason.

---

Really? Then I presume that I did not develop from a zygote by natural processes. My thoughts are not electrical processes in my brain. I must remember this!You see, the thing is, on the one side we have Funkmasterfreaky, who admits he doesn't know much about science, telling me that there are "gargantuan holes" in evolution (although one of the 'holes' he mentions has nothing to do with evolution at all). On the other hand, there are millions of practicing scientists (who presumably do know about science) who do not find these "gargantuan holes" such a problem. Now, who is most likely to be right?[This message has been edited by Karl, 11-27-2002]

Forgive me yet again I am wrong. Again . Your incredible brilliance has put lil ol me in my place again. So i don't have thoughts just short circuiting electricity all over. So we are just exchanging electrical explosions on here. That thought then has no substance it's just an electrical current. Guess i'm just wired different.------------------
saved by grace

For a guy who is pointless to argue with i sure draw some attention. ------------------
saved by grace

From a purely scientific frame of reference, yes, thought is just electrical signals.Have you any evidence that it isn't?

Hi Gene90,You said-
People are executed when a preponderance of evidence supports that they are guilty, even with no surviving witnesses.I say-
That was the most ignorant statement I've yet to see on this board. As patently false as your statement is, my question to you is simply, are you man enough to admit it? It will be difficult since you obviously have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about, and sadder still that erroneous beliefs such as above form the basis of your alleged understanding of life. Say goodbye to your credibility, you've impeached yourself!Peace,Ten-sai

Perhaps before you "impeach" my credibility, you can prove me wrong.I am curious about what you feel is better than a "preponderance of evidence" in a criminal court. Persuasive speech? If that is the case I am rather glad to be involved in science, rather than sophistry.Thanks.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-29-2002]

"That was the most ignorant statement I've yet to see on this board. As patently false as your statement is, my question to you is simply, are you man enough to admit it?"
--You know you have a tendancy to spout your assertions every which way, they are, however, rarely supported by a latter sentance. Maybe when you do this you might obtain some credibility, hm?

Why is the US railroad gauge 4ft, 8.5 inches, this may take the awhile for you to comprehend the significance of this proposition.

^^^
because they're stuck in a rut?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rmj28:
Why is the US railroad gauge 4ft, 8.5 inches, this may take the awhile for you to comprehend the significance of this proposition.

---

Because that was the width of 2 horses arses.....Actually you started that one half way through, it usually starts with the diameter of the SRM`s used by NASA, they had too fit through a railway tunnell....And the rails were that far apart because wheels had been made that far apart since the days of wagons in Europe. If an "olde English" wagon had wheels at a different spacing they would miss the ruts in the road and the whole contrivance would shake itself apart....And the ruts? They were made by Roman chariots. Why was the wheel spacing 4'8 1/2"? Because that was the width that fit two of the aforementioned horses arses....

Hmmm. Something doesn't measure up here. Isn't the European width, where there were once upon a time Roman chariots, different from the US width? And wouldn't that make the European width different from that of Roman chariots, thereby contradicting your rationale for how rail widths were established?And wouldn't it be an enourmous coincidence for the US width to match that of Roman chariots, since the Romans never quite made it this far west?I'm no expert on railroads, I'm just going by my recollection, or perhaps I misunderstand part of the discussion...--Percy

Not sure myself Percy I`m just repeating something that I heard a while back....I think Chara has heard it too from her comment...

I think the US system is designed that way because the first railroads in the US were build by Brit expats - and that was the system in England at the time. Once you make the cross-oceanic leap, then the rest of the story back to Roman military specs makes sense. IMO, it's much more interesting to speculate on why the Russian/East European rail system is on a completely different guage from the rest of Europe - any ideas?

And, never being one to hide the fact I've been an idiot - it appears the whole story is an urban legend. Read the real scoop here and here and finally, if you'd like the real history of rail gauges, from railroad.org. Sigh - I guess that shows even rational people can be gullible.