True, but after eating a rotisserie chicken and you don't make a stock, well, then you deserve to be poor.

#5 | Posted by oneironaut

Haven't bought chicken or veggie stock from a store in ages for this exact reason.

My favorite is using carcasses from smoked chickens to give just a hint of cherry and apple smoke smell and flavor.

No. Veggie scraps.

I save and use the carcasses and scraps to get everything I can out of the food I buy and cook.

But yes, that wasn't particularly well written.

Understandably. Veggie stock from chicken a carcass definitely is no honest.

I hear the immigration line into Somalia is short these days.

#57 | Posted by boazreborn

That literally has nothing to do with anything, dumbf*&^.

But since we're on this terarded line of "thinking," why didn't you and every other MAGA cuck leave when Biden was in office?

An interesting way of slamming one person's hopes and beliefs as he can, and turn it into a punch line.
Because ridicule is a terrible thing to waste.

#47 | Posted by A_Friend

He needs to steer the narrative towards a place where he can C&P you to death with arguments that don't or marginally apply to what you've said.

His is little more than mental ------------ on his part to justify his "faith." Nothing else.

In any case, why is this argument even occurring on a thread about government officials arguing about rotisserie chicken?

where you need DNA to get a living cell, and you need a living cell to get DNA; the biggest of all chicken and egg problems.

It's always painful when lay people try to be all sciencey.

And while the Bible doesn't record Him singling out homosexuality the way some people do today, that doesn't mean He would have approved of the behavior either.

No, but if you're going to cling to your Bronze Age goat herder myths with any level of rigor or good faith, you'll not insert your personal beliefs when ambiguity is present and will limit your statements to what is explicitly stated in the text.

I'm watching Corky's youtube video.

Not even 2:30 in and I'm already getting LOLz.

Aaaaaaand less than ten minutes in and they're already saying myths in genesis are "confirmed" by the Big Bang Theory.

LOL I can't believe these people are saying this with a straight face.

Those 3 people have more science and math doctorates than you have toes.

#91 | POSTED BY CORKY

The only people who care are people who can't form a cogent argument but want to feel justified and "intellectual" about religion.

- people who can't form a cogent argument

Post "LOLz!" instead.

#98 | Posted by Corky

Would it be better if I used words like LULz and prolly? Because you do regularly, which is probably why you think the number of degrees is meaningful to a discussion that went as far as "The fact that they found the big bag supports genesis because it says there was a beginning!"

Really hard hitting stuff, cork. Super insightful and persuasive.

You're pushing a concept similar to Michael Beehee's irreducible complexity.

Which is garbage once actual science is introduced.

It's not a whataboutism.

You're literally pushing the same idea, just under a different name.

And it's not an obscure idea as it was central to anti-evolution arguments pushed by The Discovery Institute for years when they tried to force Creationism into schools and biology textbooks.

Michael Behe is a biochemist by training and he wrote an entire book about it called Darwin's Black Box.

Werks. But LOLz is comment worthy, eh?

Of course, I don't know "exactly" how it works.

Difference is some of us continue to work on it while others simply declare "God did it!"

Which is yet another common Creationist argument - the God of the Gaps.

how some interest group used it is beside the point.

Behe? He's a fellow at The Discover Institute LOL still pushing "Intelligent Design" nonsense.

Like I said, all you really have is ad hominem.

Accurate statement of fact isn't an ad hominem.

More 'smart people believe like me, so I'm smart!' level thinking. Your fav.

Fact of the matter is that ID, Creationism, whatever your pushing in parallel...none of it has actual real, objective evidence. It lives in the uncertainty and unanswered questions scientists have yet to solve, an ever smaller and smaller space to stake a claim on.

And my biggest problem with it is that you want to stand on the same stage as real, objective science as if you're equals, meanwhile you and your side always start with a conclusion and contrive evidence to support it. It's the complete opposite of real science.

But the result, while extraordinarily improbable, is ultimately possible.

#126 | Posted by Danforth

I was trying to remember the name of that fallacy/bias.

The example I always see is with cards, where the given chances of any sequence of a given number of cards (say 5) is extremely unlikely (for five cards, it's 1 out of 311, 875, 200). But yet, if you lay five cards randomly on a table, you've hit those odds.

"We are stardust" from the Woodstock song is literally true. That's where the material around us comes from. Burned up stars. To get elements heavier than iron, which are required for life, stars have to go supernova. The biology and the physics can't be denied on this front.

Years ago, the BBC released a program called Wonders of the Universe with Brian Cox that had an episode entitled Stardust that went into details about stellar fusion, its importance in our existence and, further, how supernova play a role in our day to day existence. Great series. Now that I remember it, I might have to dig out the DVD I have of it to watch with my son who is super into space right now.

Watching more of that video, I can see where corkandpaste gets his argument style from.

Also, I just realized one of the panelists is a higher up at the Discovery Institute and is an ardent Intelligent Design proponent.

Corky, are you a proponent of Intelligent Design?

#129 | Posted by Corky

So what? Not at all relevant that people living in the 16th and 17th centuries were religious. Everybody was religious.

It represents a "triumphalism" that assumes progress has rendered past generations, traditions, and beliefs obsolete and inferior.

When it better explains the world and allows for faster or increased progress in understanding it does exactly that.

He believes science does not rule out a creator

Again, not at all relevant.

None of your logical fallacies are. That's why they're logical fallacies.

Labeling is SO juvenile.

Or it's, you know, using language to communicate and understand. Why are you afraid of the label?

Let me ask you, when you see a new model car on the street, what is your assumption?
Do you assume that it was the result of hundred of billions of years of molecular shenanigans in a mindless process, or do you assume there was a car designer and builder?

Do you not understand the biological underpinnings of evolution? Because only in that context could you ask this question with a straight face.

Snoofers is right about the Universe, btw. We really haven't a clue... current debates in astrophysics include does matter really exist, does dark matter exist?
What about gravity, how does that really work?

You're playing God of the Gaps. BTW they just directly measured dark matter.

And science has a really low bar, btw... if we find phenomena that we can attribute to an even semi-plausible source, then that assumed source... some effect that we see... it becomes a working theory.

No, it doesn't. Don't throw around the lay usage of the word theory and expect to be taken seriously.

So, I take into account all sorts of information when I consider my opinions, which, also btw, I know are opinions rather than confusing them with facts.

#135 | Posted by Corky

So, all of that just to avoid saying yes, you are an intelligent design proponent. Got it.

Yes, there was indirect evidence that led physicists to seek direct detection in the first place.

Direct detection confirms its existence and gives us the physical characteristics of it.

God of the Gaps! God of the Gaps! God of the Gaps!
Ya gotta lotta lotta gaps... more and more each year it seems.

Do you have any idea how foolish you look shrugging off your intellectually lazy logical fallacy? It completely belies your supposed quest for truth.

And no, there aren't more every year. Just more questions once we get some answers, as good science always goes.

I could go on.... we gotta a lotta Gaps!

#144 | Posted by Corky

Like a good little trained monkey, you centralize your God of the Gaps nonsense around the admittedly most perplexing and difficult to support scientific idea. Meanwhile, your crusty old man discussion went super deep with the insight that the Big Bang supports Genesis because it says...there is a beginning...

Wow. Super solid, paradigm shifting work there. Holy. S*&^.

You know what else it supports then? Every other God damn origins myth ever to come from a human's brain.

Glad you found a box to put me in... we wouldn't want you going around all confused.
#145 | Posted by Corky

Confused? No. But it did clarify several things, like why you have zero arguments. Ever. Why you throw around logical fallacies like it's your job. Always. Why you fundamentally misunderstand the science you purport to know. Also always. What you've learned is through a distorted lens of charlatans and pseudointellectuals who came to a conclusion first and use the non-existence of answers to their loaded questions as answers, all while producing zilch as far as knowledge of actual usefulness and substance.

"We don't know why anything exists at all. Nine things we still can't explain about the Universe" (2/26)

Clearly, must be God then...

you opine that it does.

Nope.

I know you love to shadowbox by labeling everyone a "neoatheist," but I don't claim to know.

All I claim is that attributing things to God because we don't currently have an answer is intellectually lazy. It's throwing in the towel.

That's it.

More descriptive claims, no arguments.

You just don't like my arguments because you can't C%P your way out of it.

Cutesy wordplay is your tell.

Just slink off and stop trying to have the last word.