Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL


  • Primate

atinymonkey's Achievements


Primate (9/13)



  1. Take it as meaning 'probably', because it's the word I used to describe it. It was a nice way of saying 'I don't think your approach is appropriate'. How I choose to continue my posts is not up for critique when it fall inside the forum rules. You like to pick argument when anyone disagrees with your opinion, which is your problem and not mine. I flatly refuse to enter into this sort of childish arena with you, on the forum or in real life. If you don't agree with me, fine, suck it up and move on or continue in concentric semantic arguments until you disappear up your own arse. I'm not trying to steal your power, or undermine the hallow opinion you spew forth, but in all honesty I am not changing my opinions simply because you take issue with them. I'm not making a damn argument. I'm presenting my viewpoint. You are the one arguing about this, I don't think anyone else cares. My view is that there is no testable or tangible evidence in academic history, which makes referencing somewhat moot. It may, but this is not a fourm for historical debate. It's the idle musings of a bunch of people the majority of which have only have a passing contact with the processes involoved during academic Historical Research. And yet, you are taking it oh-so-seriously. By all means, carry on picking apart everything I've written, but don't expect to gain any kudos from me or anyone else. You are being offensive, arrogant, defensive and rude. I don't like it. I know full well you'll take offense at this, and somehow it will be my fault for not acceding to your opinion, but I'm damn tired of this shit. You can lord it over the forum all you like, I'm not coming back, I'm dog tired of your attitude. Even though I'll miss reading the comments of other members, it's not worth it. You need to have a word with yourself, and sort your attitude out.
  2. The term 'intelligent design' simply means that evolution happened exactly as biologists and paleontologists have said, but it was 'guided' but the hand of God. There is no proof for or against this, and it's not a factor that's important in the theories of evolution. If you want to believe that God guided evolution, then that should not mean you need to dismiss evolution as a concept. You need to work on your terminology, as you are obviously confused as to the difference between Intelligent Design and Literal Creationism. Perhaps if you understood the difference, you would not feel the need to argue against evolution. Then we would all be happy:- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html Look, it's really simple. Literal Creationism has been dismissed by every major religion, Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhism, Hindus, etc, etc. Pope John Paul even published a statement calling on the Church to accept the Theories of Evolution as the most likely method of life developing. http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm You are in a backwards minority, who ignore the facts and propagate what is generally seen as mistruth. You have no merit behind your arguments, and no substanciation. You have no major religions who agree with you and no academics. You searched for a science forum and posed what you knew would be inflamatory comments, and antagonised people by skipping past counter arguments to raise disconnected points and not debate the issue at hand. It is not suprising that people are being rude to you at this point, as you are dismissing all counterports and actually looking to attack anyone with a counter veiwpoint. Your not here to discuss, you are here to preach. Mokele was being very patient with you, and trying to explain why your view is simply not factual or correct, and he got a little exasparated. That's no need to play the martyr card, you are not a martyr; you are an idiot.
  3. Well, that's the rub really. The argument, as in it's not propagated or supported. It's not even seriously credible. Answers in Genesis serve but one purpose, to sooth the Creationists when they are presented with the harsh realities of life outside the cosseted church. A return to the Dark Age will not be forthcoming, the draconian attitudes of the backward creationists is an embarrassment to Christians and the accepted Christian Churches. Have a word with yourself, sort your head out. O_o
  4. In exactly the same way that ID applies to the Bible. No Christian contests that the hand of God guided the creation of the Bible, no Christian should contest that the hand of God is present in Evolution. How it happened is immaterial compared to why* it happened. Now, stop ignoring the important points that have been brought up. Do you acknowledge that there is a transitional fossil record that is fully supported, that is being intentionally dismissed out of hand? *The will of God
  5. It happens every week. The fossil record is amended, restructured, added to, reordered, re-examined, and rethought all the time. That's why paleontologists have jobs. Sometimes the changes are far reaching, most times minor, but they are always ongoing. Paleontologists hope to find a change to the fossil record, it would make them famous and quite a bit richer. By the way, calling paleontologists 'evolution scientists' is quite ignorant, even for you. If you are going to pretend to know the subject, use the correct terminology, No, you are hugely confused. Monumentally confused, in fact. People who believe in intelligent design have absolutely no issue with the fossil record. Almost all Christians believe in intelligent design, a very small minority believe in Literal Creationism. People who believe in Literal Creationism dismiss the fossil record using unsubstanicated mistruth, lies, misrepresentation and rather sad biblical references. If you are saying you believe in intelligent design, then that's fine and nobody has issue with you. If you continue to confuse intelligent design with Literal Creationism, you will offend Christian and Agnostics alike with your innane interpritations. I think it's high time you state, clearly and without equivocation, which Church you are a member of. Then at least we will be able to see when you are moving the goalposts.
  6. No, but I did see a clip of penguins hurling over the weekend which was ace. I'm not sure how they hold the stick though.
  7. Which they are free to do. But it does not mean that there is lack of significant evidence of transitionals in the fossil record, it only means that Literal Creationists don't accept the evidence. Now, if evidence is being rejected in order to sustain belief then you can hardly hope scientists will agree with that position.
  8. Unless you want to count the founders of the United States of America as a bunch of terrorists, you might what to rephrase that opinion to cover civil war
  9. Oedipus complex, based on the greek myth of Oedipus who killed his father and married his mother.
  10. No, it proves that JKCinema likes to mock people like you. At least you could have read his 'about' page before distributing his spoof as evidence: - http://www.jkcinema.com/about.asp He. Makes. Them. For. Fun. His website is full of them, if you want to have a look: - http://www.jkcinema.com/gamesmov.asp?type=5
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.