atinymonkey

I ask you if you disagree with my previously stated position, and you respond "probably" (which I take to mean "yes", seeing as the reply goes on), despite the fact that you yourself stated that the conventional practice is to refer to evidence.

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'.

You then proceed to talk about seeing the diametric opposite of source reconciliation as being more important. Stop being inconsistent.

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.

Not really sure how it's relevant to the case in hand, given the circumstances that led to this discussion. The idea that historians 'might use rubbish references' is not a reason to expect no supporting evidence for any given claim, no matter how you dress up the argument.

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.

Which, one might reasonably expect, might lead to situations where - while discussing historical events - the provider of a claim is asked for reliable evidence.

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.

I rather thought I was.

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.

Heh, its stuck in my head now.

There is also the piece that was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" The Proceedings is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

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

I suppose it's more entertaining for you and the others to just call them "crack-pots"? Seems rather juvenile. So I suppose if all else fails, make personal attacks to better qualify your credentials and belittle those you don't agree with. I fail to see the effectiveness in that. I hope your family members and friends don't disagree with very often, for their own sake.

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.

I wouldn't be so quick to propose this' date=' at least 400 scientist's have gone on the record as expressing doubts about Darwin's theory.

[/quote']

What's that got to do with anything? Darwin's many theories on evolution were outdated even before he died. We don't still hold up Newton as the Lord High Ruler of Physics, and we don't give a flying monkey about Darwin's theories.

 

Pay attention to what's being said, don't stray off in tangents. Focus, man, for Gods sake focus

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

Please explain to me how abiogenesis, natural selection and random mutation equate intelligent design. When and how does ID begin to work with these?

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

No.

Darwin has a missing thread.

One: All life loves to live.

Two: All life must necessarily' date=' adapt towards a longer lifespan.[/quote']

Oh I love to love - but my baby just loves to dance, she wants to dance, she loves to dance, she’s got to dance. Oh I love to love - but my baby just loves to dance ......

 

Oh I love to love, but there’s no time for right romance no, no, no. Oh I love to love - but my baby just loves to dance.

 

The minute the band begins to swing it. She’s on her feet to dig it. And dance the night awaaaay.......

 

Stop! I’m spinning like a top. We’ll dance until we drop. But if I had my waaaaayyy.........

 

 

Oh I love to love - but my baby just loves to dance, she wants to dance, she loves to dance, she’s got to dance. Oh I love to love - but my baby just loves to dance. Oh I love to love, but she won’t give a love a chance no, no, no. Oh I love to love - but my baby just loves to dance

 

 

Stop! I’m spinning like a top. We’ll dance until we drop. But if I had my waaaaayyy.........

 

 

Stop! (Stop!) Instead of going Down Town. We’ll stay at home and get down

to what I try to say.

 

I love to love - but my baby just loves to dance, yeah, yeah

Why would most evolution scientists agree to anything that might, in any way, discredit their interpretation of the fossil record evidence[/i']? LOL!

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,

The fossil record evidence which you aledge IDists are rejecting is the same evidence IDists accept[/i'] and interpret as showing the absence of sufficient transitional stages of evolution.

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.

they dont weigh the same the pound of feathers weighs more because gold and feathers are not weighed using the same measurement.

Are you drunk?

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.

IDists believe the fossil record significantly lacks evidence of evolution in both quantity and in transional stages of evolution.

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.

No matter how badly you and Michael Moore wish it' date=' the insurgents of Iraq will never be "Freedom Fighters". One simple difference alone is enough to make the distinction: Freedom fighters don't slaughter their own people to get what they want.

 

And the fact that you don't understand that is [i']why[/i] you don't have anything interesting to add to this discussion.

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

Oedipus complex, based on the greek myth of Oedipus who killed his father and married his mother.

I just found a ghost video online. It is at http://www.wimp.com/proof[/url'] and it may take a little while to load. .............. Doesn't this prove that ghosts are real?

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

Er, it didn't 'grow'. But hey ho, if you want it to be a monster then a monster it is.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and rots away like a duck, then ninety five percent of the oceans must contain monsters

I'm probably wrong about what it actually is, but I'm guessing it was a common fish before it started to rot and look weird.

Kim So Yeon. A Koren actress.

Natural gas is mainly composed of methane.

Mmmmm. It's also got propane, butane, ethane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen mixed in there. Tasty. If you ingested enough, the carbon dioxide might produce some ill effects (not before you suffered from the loss of oxygen tho).

The worst Gas can do is starve cells of oxygen if it is inhaled, it's not toxic any more than coal is. You can't 'smell' or 'taste' the natural gas, you can smell the additive that's put into it so it's not odourless. I doubt you can taste it either, that's probably psychosomatic.

You probabably pick up more harmfull chemicals from microwaving food in plastic containers, or eating processed food, than you do from the occasional whiff of gas. Mind you, there's no need to go all Howard Hughes over it.

Oh God. What in the infinite name of the granulated bones of Christ are you doing?

I beg to differ.

Really. You think that Evolution came from secularist thought?

The basis of Genetics was Gregor Mendel:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

It was his studies, which show Darwin's work, which proved Natural Selection and Evolution to occur. He was an Augustinian monk, not a secularist.

Darwin himself was a Christian, and remained so for a considerable amount of time after publishing his theories.

You'd like to think that it's dirty 'secularist' thought that's tainting the world, but it's not. It's just scientific progress, which occurs without Religious bias. No matter how much you hate it, Evolution is a fact. It's supported by almost all churches, and you can either live with it or bury your head in the sand.

WOOT, thats 1337 'The page cannot be displayed'. Ha ha ha..........

Oh yes. Personally I think Bob Geldof is a hypocritical millionaire faux hippy who can afford to preach from an overtly moral position simply because he has the support of pop stars who don't have the intelligence to realise the absurdity of a group of multi millionaire loafers campaigning for taxpayers to pay off African poverty.

And as for Mr Bono, 'Cui bono' is latin for 'who benefits?'. Apt for an ailing billionaire pop singer who thinks that dropping a corrupt third world governments debt will somehow magically alleviate all the problems in Africa.

But, that's just my view I guess.

I think it's safe to say almost every member of the forum has their own web page/forum/discussion group etc. Unless you have a group of people who you know will come to the forum before you set it up, there isn't much point setting it up. What you've done is set up a forum for your learner drivers, and they should start using it if you tell them you'll answer questions if they post in it. After a while the questions will propagate onto google and people will see them when they search.