Posted on 10/27/2009 12:31:30 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
LOL!
You are correct. I should’ve wrote 5’9”.
I liked being taller there for a sec.
“More important than diet and exercise is will. As long as little Johnnie just sits and wags his thumbs above the game controller, he ain’t about to develop the will”
However lazy and fat, put Little Johnnie face to face with a neanderthal and Johnnie will prevail. So long as he gets to bring along a gun, that is. Just to be fair, we’ll let Ogg bring his culture’s best weapon. A bone-tipped spear, or whatever. I bet on the gun.
Right.
So which was Adam or Noah?
Cro-Magnon man or Neanderthal?
No fallacy ever is.
"Man arose, not because he was the strongest, or the fastest, or had the sharpest teeth and claws, it was because he was the smartest and that allowed him to adapt to every ecosystem on the planet and dominate in the competition for food and mates."
Fallacy of affirming the consequent noted.
You do know how type is determined, correct?
You do realize it is impossible to determine, correct?
You knew that before you posted, correct?
Does Rampage Jackson or Shogun Rua ring a bell? d:op
And then there's the Obama voters.
I'd even go you one better:
Give Johnnie NOTHING but a one-month time to prepare, and the odds are, Johnnie will have some kind of killing machine ready that will make the Neanderthal either A) die or B) Bow down in worship.
Even a sword would kill a Neanderthal..... and most of us know about saltpeter/sulphur/charcoal. Saltpeter can be harvested from any bat cave, sulphur is abundant around any volcanically active area, and it's a cinch to make charcoal. Not too much after that, you have either a gun or a series of bombs.
Boy, that was illuminating....not. Either bring something to the conversation or sit quietly while the grown-ups talk.
Were they Neanderthals or Cro-Mags or what?
“Simple fallacy. There’s no meaning there. Just self-referencing, circular definitions.”
It can’t be both a fallacy and a tautology at the same time. What it proves may be trivial, but it’s true. And at one point, it was revelatory. As for “meaning,” it may not say much, but that’s not the point. The point is to shoot down fools who write articles about how humans aren’t as strong as they used to be, and imply that somehow evolution isn’t working anymore.
But that’s never what Natural Selection has been about. Organisms aren’t always getting stronger, faster, smarter, more complex, or whatever it is we obsess about. Things do evolve from “lower” to “higher” forms, but lower forms persist, and often are more reproductively successful than their more complex alternatives.
The thing is, evolution is about what makes it through to the next generation. It’s about the genes, not the organism. Whatever genes survive were the best at surviving, for whatever reason. There’s no more “meaning” in this than there needs to be. What sort of meaning are you looking for, anyway, in a world where humans and slugs live side by side, each perpetuating their type about as effectively as the other?
You mean pointing out that you object to fallacy and then immediately engage in fallacy yourself didn't cause any neurons to fire?
"Either bring something to the conversation or sit quietly while the grown-ups talk."
Fallacy of begging the question noted.
could wipe the floor with Jackson or Shogun IMHO.
What if the contestants had to make their own weapons?
I watched him get wooped by a little Japanese dude in Pride. Ya never know what’s gonna happen in MMA.
Fallacy of false dilemma noted.
"Noah was Adam's grandson as I recall. First and third generation."
You are wrong about that too.
Whew! THAT was close.
For a sentence or two I thought he might say that man has EVOLVED to adapt to our changing enviroment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.