Did Margaret Thatcher change the world for the better?
Yes, but socialism won in the end.
No, but she might inspire the next generation.
Other (please explain)
Total votes: 20
Take-Down of a Pomowanker
Submitted by Robert on Fri, 2011-01-21 05:54
[Lifted from the Rand/Darwin thread, which Baade, that would be odious if it weren't pathetic, has hijacked with its not-so-smart smart-assery in pursuit of its goblinite agenda, asking what it thinks are clever "questions." Scientist Robert's KASS response on that thread, below, deserves to be up in lights in its own right—Linz.]
No, they are coffee-house day-dreaming bullshit and a complete waste of time.
Any half-wit with a library card and a will can answer these questions by simply understanding what a propeller and a wheel require to function in the manner you are prescribing.
A propeller is a means for turning rotational motion into vectored thrust. For it to work in water, the axle providing the rotational motion must be coupled to a gearing system to efficiently change the propeller's angular momentum.
Fish don't have propellers because they aren't equipped with combustion engines or drive shafts or gearing. What they actually have is far lighter, far more effective and less likely to cause predator-attracting cavitation when traveling at maximum speed.
As for 'wheels.' Anyone with a modicum of curiosity would realize that four-wheel drive systems consist of more than just a pair of flat round disks with an outer layer of rubber.
They would then realize that four legs is a far lighter, far more efficient means of all-terrain drive, with the added advantage of being a fairly decent close-combat system.
But before all of this, the curious man would soon realize that you are just being an annoying cunt.
Gasp! How can I be so crude? Whence do I derive the authority to issue such an inflammatory judgement?
Because I realize that the questions that you are proposing are intentionally tangential to the nub of the matter: God vs Evolution.
I realize that you have crafted your argument so because you seek to diminish the power of the ample actual, physical evidence to support the ascent of modern species by evolution whilst simultaneously distracting your opponents from the lack of evidence supporting your own position that God intelligently designed it all.
I realize that you have intentionally incorrectly conflated the theory of evolution (which deals with the mechanism by which many species have arisen from a few that, according to archeology, used to exist) with the origin of the universe or the manner in which that original self-replicating organism came into being. These are things about which evolution and its author are mute. Dawkins has postulated a mechanism by which the first self-replicating organism came into being. But his postulates are just that—postulates. There isn't even a means to test them scientifically, and when that means becomes available, doubtless those postulates will need refining, as has every other scientific theory known to man.
But you've deliberately chosen to raise Dawkins' ideas to the level of accepted scientific theory (which they are not) in order to build yourself a flimsy straw man in the hope that the spectacle of your destroying it (look, there is no evidence! Three physicists from lower Zambotoo disagree! Evolution is dead! Religion rules!) will distract people from examining the glaring fucking hole in your argument.
You see, for God to have designed everything, he must first be shown to have existed in the first place. You haven't offered any proof of that. You have merely posed a stream of inane questions about why animals don't use Yokohama Tires, McPherson strut-suspension and Rotol four-bladed variable-pitch aluminum propellers.
You masquerade as an innocent seeker of knowledge wishing to seek out the truth in the God-vs-evolution argument. But for your opponents to buy that crap they'd have to presume (incorrectly as it happens) that you have conceded that reality exists and that man has the ability to perceive it correctly.
From that, the debaters would then need to prove the existence of a means to get from a bundle of molecules to a single-celled organism to ourselves. And that means would have to be bound in the natural, provable world as opposed to ill-defined (and for the purposes of your strategy for winning any debate: pliable) parameters that exist in the world of your imagination.
And now you know why I consider this argument to be coffee-House bullshit. When you slip the ties to reality, then there is no serious scientific debate to be had. There is only imaginary fictional crap where God can give light by a single word and 'magic' is the only explanation that is required because you have faith. Harking back to the necessity of stipulating the supremacy of reality above; if I hadn't made that stipulation, I'd then be forced to accept 'magic' as a mechanistic explanation of the Intelligently designed universe. Why? Because in a system that is detached from reality, magic actually IS something.
I hasten to add that I couldn't give a rat's arse if you want to spend your time dreaming about being a wizard, a druid or just a God-addled day-dreaming waste of space. But don't accuse me of lacking intellectual curiosity because I've got better fucking things to do with my life.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. You aren't here to debate the merits of theology, the existence of wizards, warlocks, ghosts or a God, let alone an intelligently designed explanation of the origin of the universe. You are here to graffiti this site.
That's why you have never and never will accept that (or even enter into debate that) reality is what it is, A=A, and that reality is ALL that there is.
Because if you did and lost (as you must surely do, because if there is more than reality you would have to PROVE it for the claim to stand), your God-centered argument would fall on its arse and you wouldn't have anything to poke Objectivists with any more.
Thus, I'm not suffering from a lack of intellectual curiosity. I've looked at the evidence and concluded that you are merely being a smart-Alec and a cunt—as per usual.
More SOLO Store
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand