FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: mcdonaldliamp on May 02, 2012, 04:31:45 pm
-
Why are so many people offended by the Theory of Evolution? I'm not saying you have to believe it, but it's just the facts. It's the year 2012, and it just seems silly to believe that we literally came from Adam and Eve, and we were merely plopped here by God. Just look at how many fossils they've found over the years. This is not an anti-religious post. Thank you
-
Why are so many people offended by the Theory of Evolution?
The problem is that the ancient abrahamic religions are still unusually popular in the present and people still want these myths to be true (much like the overused example of children finding out santa is fake, but still cling to the idea). When scientists discover something that ends up contradicting mythology that people still believe in, it causes a ruckus among society. Scientists aren't out to disgard religions- they're just trying to get a better understanding of ourselves and the universe surrounding us. It's unfortunate that the evidences of what should be a completely positive facts are disregarded by ignorant people who prefer mythology over reality. Saying evolution is "just a theory" or that "we came from apes" shows an absurd amount of naivety on the subject.
tl;dnr version- The truth hurts sometimes, and that's why they get offended.
-
Why are so many people offended by the Theory of Evolution?
The problem is that the ancient abrahamic religions are still unusually popular in the present and people still want these myths to be true (much like the overused example of children finding out santa is fake, but still cling to the idea). When scientists discover something that ends up contradicting mythology that people still believe in, it causes a ruckus among society. Scientists aren't out to disgard religions- they're just trying to get a better understanding of ourselves and the universe surrounding us. It's unfortunate that the evidences of what should be a completely positive facts are disregarded by ignorant people who prefer mythology over reality. Saying evolution is "just a theory" or that "we came from apes" shows an absurd amount of naivety on the subject.
tl;dnr version- The truth hurts sometimes, and that's why they get offended.
Does that mean that few like to feel stupid and/or that some are just too stupid to know that they're too stupid to know this?
-
This is a tricky subject. There are a lot of scientific facts out there that evolution happened and is happening. Creatures evolve all the time. I am a believer in God, but I also pay attention to scientific facts. There are things that show that evolution isn't a theory. The people that are afraid of the theory of evolution are afraid because if they buy into evolution then they are afraid that it will completely disprove that God exist, but if they are strong in their faith then they shouldn't have to be afraid.
-
Does that mean that few like to feel stupid and/or that some are just too stupid to know that they're too stupid to know this?
Sry for the late reply- but I would vote for the second.
This is a tricky subject. There are a lot of scientific facts out there that evolution happened and is happening. Creatures evolve all the time. I am a believer in God, but I also pay attention to scientific facts. There are things that show that evolution isn't a theory. The people that are afraid of the theory of evolution are afraid because if they buy into evolution then they are afraid that it will completely disprove that God exist, but if they are strong in their faith then they shouldn't have to be afraid.
I'm glad you're intelligent enough to understand evolution, but I'm uncertain if you're a believer in religion as well (from how u worded this, maybe...agnostic?). I apologize in advance if I'm wrong for assuming that you're christian, but if this is so I'd like to ask you a question if this is the case-
If one believes in evolution and xtianity, you have to believe that mankind, in our current form, has been around for atleast 100,000 years. For the large majority of that time, there is no mention of the Abrahamic god anywhere. Human lifespan was extremely low, disease was rampant, infant-death rates were phenomenally bad, we were prone to predatory attacks, etc. This goes on for that long with no deity showing up, and then suddenly +/-10,000 years ago Yahweh suddenly shows up in a very barbaric and superstitious part of the world and no where else (Chinese cultures being completely left out for instance). Does this raise a few red flags in your mind? A god who disappears for that extraordinarily long period of time and then suddenly reappears in this one area and then starts doing stuff?
(Like you said, a tricky subject)
-
Does that mean that few like to feel stupid and/or that some are just too stupid to know that they're too stupid to know this?
Sry for the late reply- but I would vote for the second.
After due consideration, I'm going with a combination of both however, with the caveat that some of the first part may be more due to ignorance than overt stupidity.
This is a tricky subject. There are a lot of scientific facts out there that evolution happened and is happening. Creatures evolve all the time. I am a believer in God, but I also pay attention to scientific facts. There are things that show that evolution isn't a theory. The people that are afraid of the theory of evolution are afraid because if they buy into evolution then they are afraid that it will completely disprove that God exist, but if they are strong in their faith then they shouldn't have to be afraid.
I'm glad you're intelligent enough to understand evolution, but I'm uncertain if you're a believer in religion as well (from how u worded this, maybe...agnostic?). I apologize in advance if I'm wrong for assuming that you're christian, but if this is so I'd like to ask you a question if this is the case-
If one believes in evolution and xtianity, you have to believe that mankind, in our current form, has been around for atleast 100,000 years. In that time, there is no mention of the Abrahamic god anywhere. Human lifespan was extremely low, disease was rampant, infant-death rates were phenomenally bad, we were prone to predatory attacks, etc. This goes on for that long with no deity showing up, and then suddenly less than 10,000 years ago Yahweh suddenly shows up in a very barbaric and superstitious part of the world and no where else (Chinese cultures being completely left out for instance). Does this raise a few red flags in your mind? A god who disappears for that extraordinarily long period of time and then suddenly reappears in this one area and then starts doing stuff?
(Like you said, a tricky subject)
The Chinese precurser civilizations weren't the only ones who'd never heard of that particular monotheist "g-d". The ancient Aegyptians, Sumerians, norse Odinist nor Zoasterians never heard of that particular belief system before either. This is because the xtian religion began as a very obscure jewish cult, nearly 2,000 years ago. Others had alternate polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic and even 'oneg-d' belief systems in place thousands of years before that 'cult' sprouted up. Interestingly, when the judeo-xtian religion was establishing itself back then, its founders apparently decided to plaguarize other religious beliefs from that time period and beyond, (as xtianity began its 'absorb-and-assimulate' campaign against pagan religions worldwide). Such xtian 'absorb-and-assimulate' policies were active as recently as this century. Last century, such
'missionary' practices as soup kitchens, (absorb-and-assimulate, nominally redefined by xtians as 'convert the natives'), began shifting to a slightly less overt pogram of 'feed the starving poor' - not just food but, religious superstitions. Within the last two centuries, abundant evidence of xtians running a more overt absorb-assimulate-and-destroy native/indigenous cultures resulted in reservations and all that followed from "indian schools".
What does this all have to do with "evolution" you might ask? For one thing, history has shown that some religions 'evolve' while some don't and die-off. Even xtianity has 'evolved' in outer aspect, (while retaining an inner aspect of plaguarism, intolerance for other belief systems or, for those who lack a belief system), and deception by promoting self-deceptions such as 'blind faith'.
-
Carbon Dating is highly inaccurate
- Kirk Cameron (AKA Mike Seaver)
-
Carbon Dating is highly inaccurate
- Kirk Cameron (AKA Mike Seaver)
"Dating a non-carbon-based life-form is highly-unusual."
-- anon
-
I'm glad you're intelligent enough to understand evolution, but I'm uncertain if you're a believer in religion as well (from how u worded this, maybe...agnostic?). I apologize in advance if I'm wrong for assuming that you're christian, but if this is so I'd like to ask you a question if this is the case-
I am a Christian and believe in God and Jesus and what not. I am not an agnostic....I just know that there is more out there as well. My pastor is a scholar of theology. He knows the Bible forwards, backwards and inside out. He learned Greek, Hebrew and even Latin so that he could be a true scholar and be able to read the old texts that are in the original languages to help us understand it better. I have learned a lot from him since joining the church.
If one believes in evolution and xtianity, you have to believe that mankind, in our current form, has been around for atleast 100,000 years. For the large majority of that time, there is no mention of the Abrahamic god anywhere. Human lifespan was extremely low, disease was rampant, infant-death rates were phenomenally bad, we were prone to predatory attacks, etc. This goes on for that long with no deity showing up, and then suddenly +/-10,000 years ago Yahweh suddenly shows up in a very barbaric and superstitious part of the world and no where else (Chinese cultures being completely left out for instance). Does this raise a few red flags in your mind? A god who disappears for that extraordinarily long period of time and then suddenly reappears in this one area and then starts doing stuff?
(Like you said, a tricky subject)
No, that doesn't raise any red flags. Who knows why there were no accounts of Christianity back then. It was a different time and life was hard. People turned their backs on religion.
-
I am a Christian and believe in God and Jesus and what not. I am not an agnostic.
If one believes in evolution and xtianity, you have to believe that mankind, in our current form, has been around for atleast 100,000 years. For the large majority of that time, there is no mention of the Abrahamic god anywhere. This goes on for that long with no deity showing up, and then suddenly +/-10,000 years ago Yahweh suddenly shows up in a very barbaric and superstitious part of the world and no where else (Chinese cultures being completely left out for instance). Does this raise a few red flags in your mind? A god who disappears for that extraordinarily long period of time and then suddenly reappears in this one area and then starts doing stuff?
(Like you said, a tricky subject)
No, that doesn't raise any red flags. Who knows why there were no accounts of Christianity back then. It was a different time and life was hard. People turned their backs on religion.
What, you are unable to even consider that there was no mention of xtianity before 2,000-some-odd years ago because xtianity didn't exist before then?
It's neither rational nor logical to tacitly maintain that a religion which began as a 'cult' 2,000ish years ago can somehow 'retroactively' encompass the eons of time before that. A much more straight-forward application of Occam's Razor would mean that there was no religion of xtianity nor, a xtian deity until belief in such things began about 2,000 years ago. Further, it is extremely pretentious and presumptious of those holding such a 'retroactively-encompassing' belief to try and subsume other cultures and beliefs which never heard of xtianity pre-2000 years ago, (because it wasn't around yet).
Several cultures were extant 2,000 years ago and even further back. They had their own religious beliefs which were around for several thousand year longer than xtianity and none of them were remotely 'xtian' or concerned belief in any 'xtian deities'. The Aegyptians, (a culture that predated xtianity by several thousand years), were quote fond of carving lots of things they believed into stone, yet they don't mention a 'xtian deity' among their pantheon of neteru.
People who go around saying that their 'johnny-come-lately' "deity" was always around appear to have an umitigated gall and general inability to reason accurately. If the religion and religious beliefs of xtianity did not exist prior to 2,000 years ago, (and until evidence can be produced to fill the void of evidence stretching back 100,000+ years), then any claim which retroactively posits a religion/deity raises a huge red flag of :bs: , not only mere doubt.
-
Um, the earth is more than 2,000ish years old, Jesus was on the earth before 2, 000ish years ago. We are in 2012 AD....which is for after his death, right? But there is the before his death, BC, so unsure where you are getting the idea that I think the earth is only 2,000ish years old? Or am I misreading your post. But you know what, I don't have the answers, no one does. So I am not going to argue God and Christianity with you. This thread is about evolution, not relgion believes. So yes, I know that evolution is a real thing and can not explain why others are afriad of the theory of evolution. :dontknow:
-
Um, the earth is more than 2,000ish years old ...
Yes, there is substantial evidence to support that conclusion.
Jesus was on the earth before 2, 000ish years ago.
The has been no evidence whatsoever presented to substantiate that claim. Have you got any hidden away perhaps in your 'hope chest'?
But there is the before his death, BC ...
"B.C." is an archaic term meaning "before christ", which means in a time before such a concept existed, (and what that means is that, without a "christ", there was a time without subsequent xtians).
... unsure where you are getting the idea that I think the earth is only 2,000ish years old? Or am I misreading your post.
Since you don't quote, (or apparently, follow), context, it's nearly certain that you've misread my reply. Nothing about the _earth_ being "only 2,000ish years old" was stated. What was previously mentioned was that xitanity is no older than that.
But you know what, I don't have the answers, no one does.
Until you or anyone else can produce some evidence that xtianity and the hypothetical xtian deity were extant prior to circa two millenium ago, such claims that they were remain well beyond dubious. So, that's not the "answer" and neither is reason-blinding 'faith' the "answer".
So I am not going to argue God and Christianity with you.
Rather, you had begun arguing "g-d" and xtianity's origins with me and then decided to bail out once your arument began 'sustaining massive casualties'.
This thread is about evolution, not relgion believes.
The subject-drifts occurred because of various viewpoints which saw connections between the original subject and related tangents. That happens commonly enough that complaining when it does occur is somewhat futile. For instance, would you chastise your mother for seguing into another subject if the one you were talking about was related, (or even unrelated)? If not, then your point is moot and more likely results from in inability to defend or support your religious contentions.
So yes, I know that evolution is a real thing and can not explain why others are afriad of the theory of evolution. :dontknow:
It may be that the excuse, (not reason), others may be "afriad[sic] of the theory of evolution" is due to a related "fear" that this would mean no 'creator deity' would be needed if teh theory were true.
-
:BangHead: I don't understand why in varies threads you seem to be attacking me. :dontknow: You seem to think that I am some fanatic Christian is isn't willing to listen to other's opinions. I am not...I haven't pushed my religion on anyone in any of these threads. You seem to have a problem with me having faith, what is wrong with that? What did I do to make you think these things? I just don't get it. Maybe you are afraid or unsure of what might be out there and have decided to attack those of us that believe in something because of that fear. What is wrong with believing a higher power like God?
-
:BangHead: I don't understand why in varies threads you seem to be attacking me. :dontknow: You seem to think that I am some fanatic Christian is isn't willing to listen to other's opinions. I am not...I haven't pushed my religion on anyone in any of these threads. You seem to have a problem with me having faith, what is wrong with that? What did I do to make you think these things? I just don't get it. Maybe you are afraid or unsure of what might be out there and have decided to attack those of us that believe in something because of that fear. What is wrong with believing a higher power like God?
What's wrong with just keeping it to yourself? I am not atheist/agnostic, but I don't post about my beliefs.
Ones faith, beliefs and relationship with what ever higher power they subscribe to is a very personal one, why is that xtians feel the need to blab about it all over the place. Who are you really trying to convince?
-
:BangHead: I don't understand why in varies threads you seem to be attacking me.
I've replied, (not 'attacked'), to a few of your posts, (among several other replies to other posts in other threads), in exactly two threads. Why is it when a religious adherent is manifestly unable to support the empty assertions which they initiated by first posting them, that replies to those posts are characterized as "attacking"? Nominally, that would be a rhetorical question except for the common occurance of such false characterizations by religious adherents.
:dontknow: You seem to think that I am some fanatic Christian is isn't willing to listen to other's opinions. I am not...I haven't pushed my religion on anyone in any of these threads.
Unless the archived record of the posted exchanges is inaccurate, I haven't characterized you as a fanatic or a fundie, (as yet). The most I'd adjudge initially is that you're a religious adherent, (which is not an overtly derrogatory term).
You seem to have a problem with me having faith, what is wrong with that?
No, any such self-delusions are your specific choice. My objection is to mind-blinding "faith" in general, (which means, not specifically with yours). That practice is counter to reason and it's hypocritically-inconsistant to apply some reasoning to other aspects of one's life and not to any religious aspects of that same life.
What did I do to make you think these things? I just don't get it.
Obviously, you posted some "faith-based" religious opinions concerning a subject which I was already commenting on in this thread and I replied. It's as simple as that - no need to falsely impute such replies as "attacking" since you chose to respond to this thread, didn't you?
Maybe you are afraid or unsure of what might be out there and have decided to attack those of us that believe in something because of that fear.
Maybe you've chosen to randomly and incorrectly speculate? On second thought; no maybes about it.
What is wrong with believing a higher power like God?
Such specious beliefs perpetuate specious superstitions which divert energy and resources away from more viable pursuits. Also, they can and do negatively impact others who do not adhere to such religious beliefs.
-
What is wrong with believing a higher power like God?
What's wrong with just keeping it to yourself? I am not atheist/agnostic, but I don't post about my beliefs.
Ones faith, beliefs and relationship with what ever higher power they subscribe to is a very personal one, why is that xtians feel the need to blab about it all over the place. Who are you really trying to convince?
Exactly. Thanks, 'walks'. The point he's reiterating is that, were religious adherents to 'keep their beliefs to themselves', there'd be no opposing viewpoints concerning them expressed, (at least specifically). Once such religious beliefs are made public, it's pretty much open season on them as much bas on any posted opinion/assertion/pronouncement, (not just religious ones).
-
What is wrong with believing a higher power like God?
What's wrong with just keeping it to yourself? I am not atheist/agnostic, but I don't post about my beliefs.
Ones faith, beliefs and relationship with what ever higher power they subscribe to is a very personal one, why is that xtians feel the need to blab about it all over the place. Who are you really trying to convince?
Exactly. Thanks, 'walks'. The point he's reiterating is that, were religious adherents to 'keep their beliefs to themselves', they're be no opposing viewpoints concerning them expressed, (at least specifically). Once such religious beliefs are made public, it's pretty much open season on them as much bas on any posted opinion/assertion/pronouncement, (not just religious ones).
Funny how the op said this isn't an anti religious post but that's what it has turned into... I'm a Christian and anyone who argues evolution doesn't occur is wrong. I'm pretty educated and I studied this at college and it's not a topic to be discussed. Evolution happens and there is proof. The funny thing is if you would do research before arguing for or against the subject just go study it. Charles Darwin never once said anything about humans coming from monkeys and he was also a Christian and believed in God...
-
What is wrong with believing a higher power like God?
What's wrong with just keeping it to yourself? I am not atheist/agnostic, but I don't post about my beliefs.
Ones faith, beliefs and relationship with what ever higher power they subscribe to is a very personal one, why is that xtians feel the need to blab about it all over the place. Who are you really trying to convince?
Exactly. Thanks, 'walks'. The point he's reiterating is that, were religious adherents to 'keep their beliefs to themselves', they're be no opposing viewpoints concerning them expressed, (at least specifically). Once such religious beliefs are made public, it's pretty much open season on them as much bas on any posted opinion/assertion/pronouncement, (not just religious ones).
Funny how the op said this isn't an anti religious post but that's what it has turned into... I'm a Christian and anyone who argues evolution doesn't occur is wrong. I'm pretty educated and I studied this at college and it's not a topic to be discussed. Evolution happens and there is proof. The funny thing is if you would do research before arguing for or against the subject just go study it. Charles Darwin never once said anything about humans coming from monkeys and he was also a Christian and believed in God...
I'm going to type this REEEEAAAALLLYYYY slow so the rest of you have a chance for it to sink in. No one here really cares if you are christian....we just don't subscribe to it, are not interested in being assimilated, and don't care to hear about it constantly.
-
I am a Christian and believe in God and Jesus and what not. I am not an agnostic....I just know that there is more out there as well. My pastor is a scholar of theology. He knows the Bible forwards, backwards and inside out. He learned Greek, Hebrew and even Latin so that he could be a true scholar and be able to read the old texts that are in the original languages to help us understand it better. I have learned a lot from him since joining the church.
No, that doesn't raise any red flags. Who knows why there were no accounts of Christianity back then. It was a different time and life was hard. People turned their backs on religion.
This is simply false though as people needed explanations for the things around them and invented gods to answer these questions (rain gods, sun gods, emotional gods, etc.). Many outdate your arbrahamic beliefs as well (Hinduism for instance). How does this not raise any red flags? It seems to point towards a malevolent/uncaring god who just suddenly appears in a barbaric part of the world. If you believe evolution is true, it seems you must believe in a god who wasn't there for 95%+ of our current physical state. If you cannot answer this, could you run it by your pastor? I know it contrasts a bit of what Falcon9 and Walks are saying (as I mainly agree with them, but in this instance) I'm very interested in hearing what he has to say. Or if you do have an answer, please explain if you wish.
-
What does this all have to do with "evolution" you might ask? For one thing, history has shown that some religions 'evolve' while some don't and die-off. Even xtianity has 'evolved' in outer aspect, (while retaining an inner aspect of plaguarism, intolerance for other belief systems or, for those who lack a belief system), and deception by promoting self-deceptions such as 'blind faith'.
As we're all too-well acquainted with on this forum. Interesting parallel.
Charles Darwin never once said anything about humans coming from monkeys and he was also a Christian and believed in God...
True, but so was Isaac Newton. Newton was also an alchemist though. Does alchemy have any merit to it? Of course not. People believed in weird stuff in the past. If both of these individuals were alive today, it's almost a guarentee that neither would be religious due to the massive contradictions within their studies that can be proven.
-
What does this all have to do with "evolution" you might ask? For one thing, history has shown that some religions 'evolve' while some don't and die-off. Even xtianity has 'evolved' in outer aspect, (while retaining an inner aspect of plaguarism, intolerance for other belief systems or, for those who lack a belief system), and deception by promoting self-deceptions such as 'blind faith'.
As we're all too-well acquainted with on this forum. Interesting parallel.
Charles Darwin never once said anything about humans coming from monkeys and he was also a Christian and believed in God...
True, but so was Isaac Newton. Newton was also an alchemist though. Does alchemy have any merit to it? Of course not. People believed in weird stuff in the past. If both of these individuals were alive today, it's almost a guarentee that neither would be religious due to the massive contradictions within their studies that can be proven.
Ok so Christianty is a mystery and can't prove God exist just like you have no idea or can prove where the world came from guess we're in the same boat... I also find it quite comical you act like two of the smartest men in the world were "fooled" or believed in weird stuff back then but today your almost certain they wouldn't lol... ( impressive mr. Psychic) he believed in God back then cause he wanted to people believe in weird stuff today also ( like not believing in anything. Just thinking all this around us is a big ole coincidence)... Ole "stupid" Darwin believed in God that's a fact...
-
Ok so Christianty is a mystery and can't prove God exist just like you have no idea or can prove where the world came from guess we're in the same boat...
Christianity isn't a mystery though. It's mythology. You saying this shows you're a bit lacking in the faith department.
I also find it quite comical you act like two of the smartest men in the world were "fooled" or believed in weird stuff back then but today your almost certain they wouldn't lol... ( impressive mr. Psychic) he believed in God back then cause he wanted to people believe in weird stuff today also ( like not believing in anything. Just thinking all this around us is a big ole coincidence)... Ole "stupid" Darwin believed in God that's a fact...
Look at it this way-
Alchemy = nonsense. Gravity = evidence. Newton, if he were alive today, would not dabble in alchemy anymore as we now know it's pseudoscience. I'm sure both you and I could agree on this, correct? When you apply the same to religion and evolution, it could be seen as the same. Considering the vast majority of bioligists are not religious (or loosely religious if that), I'm sure these two would apply the many contradictions within biology and religious viewpoints. Even Darwin pointed out that he was an agnostic later in his lifetime after much of his research was done.
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, &c., &c., & from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."
- Darwin
This just goes to the old saying that if you were born in a different time or place and were not well educated with what we know now, the probability of you accepting the current popular religious beliefs would be extremely high.
Check out my blog to learn more about GPT sites and fusion cash! No - Kohler
Also, check your signature. Looks like Kohler left you a present.
-
That quite from Darwin says nothing about him being agnostic... That's how you interpreted it... Also that present from kholer is over a month old I just left it on there... Although I have made over 2000 from that blog in five months... Wish he'd let me keep it on my sig to grow my money more
-
Also that present from kholer is over a month old I just left it on there... Although I have made over 2000 from that blog in five months... Wish he'd let me keep it on my sig to grow my money more
Since that link is a violation of FC's Terms of Service, you're fortunate that you weren't banned for it, (and that FC apparently gives considerable leeway in general).
-
I've talked to the fc staff about you... They said they look at every post you write and monitor them (kinda like having to watch a kid?) and said many people have complained about you in the past that's why they watch your post... YOU be glad they haven't banned you lol
-
I've talked to the fc staff about you... They said they look at every post you write and monitor them (kinda like having to watch a kid?) and said many people have complained about you in the past that's why they watch your post... YOU be glad they haven't banned you lol
Snitch eh?(kinda like the watched kid?) If they watch every post he makes, and haven't banned him, perhaps that should tell you something, no? Just sayin'
-
I've talked to the gc staff about you...
Without an attribution context, the speculation is that you're referring to me, (although it's FC - not "gc").
They said they look at every post you write and monitor them (kinda like having to watch a kid) ...
No doubt the FC staff looks at posts from many of it's members, (including yours; with the "having to watch a kid" applying more accurately to your childish posts than to many of mine).
... and said many people have complained about you in the past...
Of course mind-blinded xtians have complained that I've questioned their assumptions and challenged their baseless claims; that's to be expected from those unable to substantiate their empty assertions. It's far easier for some to blame others for their own short-comings than it is to have enough courage of your convictions to debate & discuss them, (instead of 'running off to tell on them' like a child would).
YOU be glad they haven't banned you lol
Why would I; I'm not the one who's violated the FC ToS like you have, (at least twice ... once with posting a "calling out" thread and again, by posting a link for your own financial benefit)? Even with FC's tolerant patience, the third time may be the charm for you.
hth
-
I've talked to the gc staff about you...
Without an attribution context, the speculation is that you're referring to me, (although it's FC - not "gc").
They said they look at every post you write and monitor them (kinda like having to watch a kid) ...
No doubt the FC staff looks at posts from many of it's members, (including yours; with the "having to watch a kid" applying more accurately to your childish posts than to many of mine).
... and said many people have complained about you in the past...
Of course mind-blinded xtians have complained that I've questioned their assumptions and challenged their baseless claims; that's to be expected from those unable to substantiate their empty assertions. It's far easier for some to blame others for their own short-comings than it is to have enough courage of your convictions to debate & discuss them, (instead of 'running off to tell on them' like a child would).
YOU be glad they haven't banned you lol
Why would I; I'm not the one who's violated the FC ToS like you have, (at least twice ... once with posting a "calling out" thread and again, by posting a link for your own financial benefit)? Even with FC's tolerant patience, the third time may be the charm for you.
hth
Falcon, how many times have you failed to get the 3 bucks for being a valued contributer to the boards?
-
Falcon, how many times have you failed to get the 3 bucks for being a valued contributer to the boards?
Let's see ... since I'd begun submitted my 3 contributory posts for that bonus, they've qualified for it every single time without fail. Somehow, I've managed this feat without posting a "calling out" thread, (in violation of FC's ToS), nor a prohibited link or any 'warning' from FC staff concerning posted content.
Must be a 'coincidence', aye?
-
Falcon, how many times have you failed to get the 3 bucks for being a valued contributer to the boards?
Let's see ... since I'd begun submitted my 3 contributory posts for that bonus, they've qualified for it every single time without fail. Somehow, I've managed this feat without posting a "calling out" thread, (in violation of FC's ToS), nor a prohibited link or any 'warning' from FC staff concerning posted content.
Must be a 'coincidence', aye?
Ya think?
Ok, all you whiners can all go cry together in the kiddies corner some where....just do it QUIETLY!!!
-
Yeah I guess I am :icon_rr: and no they wouldn't ban someone bc he's making them money lol they're not stupid
-
Lol of coarse they look at everyone's post... The way they described it to me was having to watch you like a baby and babysit you... Just sayin... If it makes you feel good to put me in the same category as the are "watching my post" then go right ahead but noone besides maybe you or one of your simple minded not believing in nothin xthiest < lol that's comical... Has complained about my post.
-
Yeah I guess I am :icon_rr:
Am what, a "whiner crying in the kiddie's corner"? Does that comfort you or, merely emphasize your immaturity?
... and no they wouldn't ban someone bc he's making them money lol they're not stupid
They don't ban someone for helping them to make money; they'd potentially ban someone for repeated violations of FC policies and their ToS, (like you've done, for instance).
-
Yeah I guess I am :icon_rr:
Am what, a "whiner crying in the kiddie's corner"? Does that comfort you or, merely emphasize your immaturity?
... and no they wouldn't ban someone bc he's making them money lol they're not stupid
They don't ban someone for helping them to make money; they'd potentially ban someone for repeated violations of FC policies and their ToS, (like you've done, for instance).
If they were going to bann someone, they would have banned me long ago....and still may considering they don't make a dime from me being here.
-
Lol of coarse they look at everyone's post...
Somehow, I doubt FC staff looks at posts in the "coarse" way which you do.
The way they described it to me was having to watch you like a baby and babysit you... Just sayin...
Surprisingly enough, I don't believe your mere assertion of this and without external evidence, suspect it's a self-serving 'interpretation' instead.
If it makes you feel good to put me in the same category as the are "watching my post" then go right ahead but ...
But nothing; if you want to believe that FC staff isn't watching your posts for a third violation of their ToS and policies, you are indeed 'mind-blind'.
... maybe you or one of your simple minded not believing in nothin xthiest < lol that's comical...
There's nothing humorous about your semi-illiteracy, (which is not accounted for by a dumb use of a smartphone).
... noone Has complained about my post.
You've guessed incorrectly there too.
-
If they were going to bann someone, they would have banned me long ago....and still may considering they don't make a dime from me being here.
Unless you've violated FC's ToS or policies repeatedly, (like "Cubboo" has done), I doubt FC would ban you for simply participating here without making either you or they much money.
-
That quite from Darwin says nothing about him being agnostic... That's how you interpreted it...
Is it? I do not see how it could be interpreted any other way (unless you can show he was dabbling in other major religions?). Because he blatantly denounces the Abrahamic god and the bible right there. No doubt that means he does not believe in such a tyrannical god (as he put it). That would make anyone assume he is agnostic. Unless you can refute this claim after he did all of his research? To drive my point home though-
"“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”
“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic"
- Darwin, 1880
Please explain how I'm not interpreting these correctly as well.
Also that present from kholer is over a month old I just left it on there... Although I have made over 2000 from that blog in five months... Wish he'd let me keep it on my sig to grow my money more
Impressive! Though unfortunately against the rules. I just wanted to point out it was there so you could remove it. That's all.
-
Now that's a different post and no other way to interpret that... Guess he changed his mind which he has the right to do. And thanks but nah he took it off a while back guess I shoulda read more into the extent Of content i could put on my sig
And falcon9 they def wouldn't ban you from fc... Possibly from the forum... But they haven't banned me so I'm sure I'm good. And I highly doubt they are as you lean toward "sitting around waiting for me to make a third TOS mistake" and believe it if you want to or not lol I care less but they told me that if you don't believe me sen them an email and ask them... Post the ACTUAL RESPONSE ON HERE... If you think I'm lying
-
And falcon9 they def wouldn't ban you from fc... Possibly from the forum...
Since I haven't violated any FC posting policies, (such as the one where you posted a "calling out" thread), why would they ban me from the forums? They don't ban a member just because another member doesn't like what others post, (that's even mentioned in the FC disclaimer).
But they haven't banned me so I'm sure I'm good.
In this instance, that's exactly what I'd prefer you'd believe. Everything is just peachy and you're definitely not whipping along at 95 m.p.h. on black ice, nope.
And I highly doubt they are as you lean toward "sitting around waiting for me to make a third TOS mistake"
You could test that hypothesis by making a third ToS or policy violation if you truly believed that, (of course, I'd estimate that you lack the same courage of your convictions as you do in other subject matters).
I care less but they told me that if you don't believe me sen them an email and ask them... Post the ACTUAL RESPONSE ON HERE... If you think I'm lying
Regarding that whole burden of proof concept mentioned in another thread, (curiously not replied to after you initiated that particular exchange, as well as previously claiming to having "ignored" my posts); in a post in this thread you initially claimed that "The way they described it to me was having to watch you like a baby and babysit you ..." - message ID 543843. If you wanted to provide evidence to support your claim, you'd post "the actual response on here" to back it up, otherwise some may wonder whether or not you're lying.
-
So you're saying you think I'm lying but you won't ask for yourself? That what you're saying? See as the world works people that are scared of an outcome don't really want to find the outcome out they simply ignore it and put it on someone else to prove it. Burden of proof isn't on me you're the one saying its false. Email them and ask if you not a scared little
-
So you're saying you think I'm lying but you won't ask for yourself? That what you're saying?
No, however you've just provided additional evidence of your propensity for 'loosely interpreting' data. That's why I mentioned that the burden of proof for making your claim lies with you, (which may indicate whether or not you lied - any 'assurances' you make to the contrary do not constitute evidence to the contrary).
See as the world works people that are scared of an outcome don't really want to find the outcome out they simply ignore it and put it on someone else to prove it.
Your speculations are specious unless you're applying them to yourself. You made the initial claim; that means the initial burden of proof is on you, (much as you might try weaseling out of that responsibility).
Burden of proof isn't on me you're the one saying its false.
To reiterate; you made the claim concerning "talking to FC" and asserted the content. That places the burden of proof on you as the claimant, (not on me for challenging your claim by doubting it). You claimed it; prove it or withdraw it, (or you can keep trying to shift your responsibility onto me).
Email them and ask if you not a scared little
Produce evidence supporting your claim under the burden of proof responsibility, unless you're irresponsible as well as willfully illogical.
-
Nah no need to prove it I know the truth I'd just watch what I posted bud cause it looks like they're watching every post... You dispicable Xthiest you :bootyshake:
-
Btw how much have you earned in ur two years here?
-
Nah no need to prove it I know the truth ...
Since you've demonstrated before that you and the truth are strangers, your avoidence of providing evidence to support your claim under the burden of proof emphasizes a unwillingness to take responsibility for the accuracy of what you claimed. It's a quite simple matter; you claimed something for which evidence can be made available under the burden of proof, (backing up your specious assertions), but, apparently refuse to do so and instead, are engaging in shallow dodgings. Those very avoidance manuever attempts of yours merely draw attention To that which you are trying to draw attention away from. This casts doubt on your claim since your 'word' is without value in this instance.
-
Btw how much have you earned in ur two years here?
What's that got to do with either evolution or, your having the burden of proof to supply evidence which would substantiate, (or, falsify), your initial claim? Since you've already indicated that no such evidence will be forthcoming, your claim is a de facto unsupported one and disregarded as specious on that basis.
-
Ok off subject question. How much have you earned in your TWO years on her. Should be a pretty good bit
-
Ok off subject question. How much have you earned in your TWO years on her. Should be a pretty good bit
On "her"? She doesn't pay me to be on her; should she? I don't pay her though. Hrmm ... somehow, being a gigalo never occurred to me before, (probably because she'd have a difficult time not giving me a difficult time were I to suggest such a 'career' move).
As an aside, if your question doesn't regard the subject of this thread, (or the context of the subject-drift so far), why not post it in a new off topic thread?
-
Exactly... Lol that's what I thought
-
If evolution is true, then why did it stop? I haven't seen any apes in the process of changing into a man. Also, the bible doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old, only that the Adamic peoples were created then. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years to man (2 Peter 3:8). God made man and woman on the 6th day and gave them curtain duties to fulfil, then he rested on the 7th day. On the 8th day he discovered that he hadn't created a husbandman (A farmer), so he created a different man and called him, in the Hebrew tongue, The Man Adam. So all races did not come from Adam. That is why Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. One more thing, the bible discusses the first world age (The time before humans were flesh) in the book of Job, beginning in chapter 38. In chapter 40 verse 15, God tells Job about the dinosaur, which is called the behemoth. Read the description of the behemoth. It had a tail as long as a cedar tree and bones as strong as brass. The bible and science do not conflict with each other, if you read the scriptures with understanding.
-
"Why did it stop"....you're kidding, right? ::)
-
Falcon you remind me of an animal... Ummm lets see maybe a cat... Or a dog... A female...
-
If evolution is true, then why did it stop? I haven't seen any apes in the process of changing into a man.
I highly urge you to take an elementary biology class if you're asking "why evolution stopped". To answer your question- it hasn't. It's happening every second.
A day with the Lord is as a thousand years to man
Where does it say that specifically? Is there a conversion chart of god-time to man-time?
In chapter 40 verse 15, God tells Job about the dinosaur, which is called the behemoth
Okay, now you're just making things up. The bible does not mention dinosaurs. However if you think it does, may I remind you that it talks about unicorns in the previous chapter (Job 39:9)
, if you read the scriptures with understanding.
Judging from your post, this sentence should be reworded to-
"The bible and science do not conflict with each other. If you read the scriptures, cherry-pick, and make stuff up, it fits reality however you want it to."
-
Wth, Cubboo? Be nice! Falcon9 never did anything but debate with you in a debate forum. If you're getting offended by a debate, just leave. There's no need to throw personal attacks at eachother unless you're just joking.
-
Okay, someone show me an ape that is currently in the process of changing into a man. I want to see this hybrid beast! Procreation hasn't stopped, I know, because I can go outside and see the animals procreating all day long. Second of all, the King James does indeed say unicorn, but in the Hebrew language it is wild ox. 2 Peter chapter 3 v 8 will tell you that a day with God is as a thousand years with man. Also, there is no Hebrew word for dinosaur, that is why it was translated behemoth. The original manuscripts were not written in English, but in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Open your mind a little and you may be able to see things a bit clearer.
-
I've asked this question many times.Why are there STILL monkeys around if evolution is true.Some of the little buggers just unlucky? :dontknow:
The usual answer I get is " ::) " No real explanation given.
-
"Why did it stop"....you're kidding, right? ::)
Ah! I see someone has already given you the stock atheist answer.
-
I'm not closed minded, but seriously, where are these hulking, monstrous half-man, half-apes? I listen to scientists, and they will make a claim, then a few years later they change their minds and say something else. They don't know how life began, but they sure wouldn't acknowledge that maybe a divine being had something to do with it.
-
Suffice to say there are NO actual transitional fossils found that haven't proved to be false.The missing link hasn't been found in nearly 200 years.It's time to put little Darwin's theory to rest at last.
-
Amen to that!
-
Exactly... Lol that's what I thought
There is insufficient evidence to support that claim.
-
Falcon you remind me of an animal... Ummm lets see maybe a cat... Or a dog... A female...
So, your response to the burden of proof challenge lying with you is to huck-up an implicit ad hominem in your continued efforts to divert, avoid and dodge that responsibility?
-
Wth, Cubboo? Be nice! Falcon9 never did anything but debate with you in a debate forum. If you're getting offended by a debate, just leave. There's no need to throw personal attacks at eachother unless you're just joking.
Although I probably ought not to be reciprocating in response when 'lil "Cubboo" throws ad homs my way, it should be noted that it isn't 'libel/slander/ad hominem' if it's substantiated by evidence, (which is nominally the case the few times I've done it and never the case the several times "Cubboo" has done it). It may be a subtle enough difference for a forum moderator however, it wouldn't be in a civil case.
-
Also, the bible doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old, only that the Adamic peoples were created then. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years to man (2 Peter 3:8).
The 'biblical' claim remains that alleges a 'creation' process which took six of "g-d's" days/six thousand of man's. This means that galaxies and stars which are older than 6,000 years cannot exist. The only trouble with that notion is that there is extensive evidence available that they do.
On the 8th day he discovered that he hadn't created a husbandman (A farmer), so he created a different man and called him, in the Hebrew tongue, The Man Adam. So all races did not come from Adam. That is why Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife.
An inconsistancy immediately arises with a failure to mention where the non-Adamic people, (such as were already extant "in the land of Nod" and elsewhere), came from. If 'g-d' created them too, that minor matter apparently deserved no mention. If not, their presence predated
"Adam" and his alleged descendants and their pre-existing presence was due to another process altogether.
"The Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema,[9] and their over-riding purpose was to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[10]"
[9] - Sarna 1997, p. 50
[10] -Leeming 2004.
-
In the begining God created the heaven and earth, period. It doesn't say when He created it. God created all of the races on the 6th day and it was good, very good. On the 8th day he created Adam, which began the lineage of Christ. The bible is basically about Adam's lineage and those who come into contact with them. Through Adam would come Christ, which saves all peoples, not matter what their race. And you're right, the Israelites did get influenced by Babylon, which caused their downfall. As far as when the stars and galaxies were created, once again, the earth is older than 6,000 years, and the bible does not dispute that claim, however, the human age, my words, probably began about 8000-10,000 years ago. The bible speaks of the foundations of the world, and in the greek the word foundations usually means age, or epoch. I think in the book of Peter it mentions 3 earth ages: the first was when the dinosaur and older mammals were here, then mankind would be the second age, and the third will be the time that Christ reigns on the earth. Good debate.
-
There's a place in Nebraska called Ash Falls State park, and there you will find the remains of animals that you would find in Africa. About 14,000 years ago a volcano erupted and wiped out these animals. Now, in the second verse of Genesis, it states that the earth was without form, and void. If you take the word "was" and look it up in the hebrew (1961 in the Strong's Concordance, Hebrew dictionary) that word should have been translated "became". The earth became void and without form. That is why I believe that around 14,000 years ago the first (age) foundation of the earth had ended, and the second had begun.
-
In the begining God created the heaven and earth, period. It doesn't say when He created it.
You just said it was "in the beginning", which would be the vague "when". Evenso, "The Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema,[9] and their over-riding purpose was to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[10]"
-[9] - Sarna 1997, p. 50
-[10] -Leeming 2004.
God created all of the races on the 6th day ...
So, under that timeline, "all the races" were "created" 5,000 years, (five "g-d" days), after the earth was. The problem with that being there's ample evidence that the earth evolved from a molten state to form a solid crust over far longer a time period than 5,000 years. Anyone 'spontaneuosly-created' at that time would have spontaneuosly-combusted in the worldwide lavaflow.
And you're right, the Israelites did get influenced by Babylon, which caused their downfall. As far as when the stars and galaxies were created, once again, the earth is older than 6,000 years, and the bible does not dispute that claim ...
The alleged time interval between the "second day", (2,000 years into the genesis myth), and "... on the sixth day, g-d made man ..." is 4,000 years. We're back to the geological disparity of molten lava and people being 'spontaneuosly-created' in the middle of that.
...however, the human age, my words, probably began about 8000-10,000 years ago.
Your contention conflicts with the biblical timeline of "genesis" but, there is carbon-14 dated evidence, (along with geological fossil and other evidence), of the existence of older human presence on earth than 8-10,000 years ago. This isn't even counting such evidence for pre-homosapiens extant prior to 100-150,000 years ago.
-
There's a place in Nebraska called Ash Falls State park, and there you will find the remains of animals that you would find in Africa. About 14,000 years ago a volcano erupted and wiped out these animals.
Previous to somewhat more than 14,000 years ago, there were some connective continental routes which allowed for such migrations of animals and early humans to other continental land masses. Once those connections no longer existed, animals could no longer migrate to places like Australia, (where certain species now exist which exist on no other continent, unless they're been introduced by importing them). Further, there was a rather large asteroidal impact some 65 million years ago in the Yucatan Peninsula which significantly altered the biosphere, (initiating tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, massive ash-clouds and mass extinctions of many species).
-
"Why did it stop"....you're kidding, right? ::)
Ah! I see someone has already given you the stock atheist answer.
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g228/walksalone11/Shutup.jpg)
-
Suffice to say there are NO actual transitional fossils found that haven't proved to be false.The missing link hasn't been found in nearly 200 years.It's time to put little Darwin's theory to rest at last.
Quick fact- every fossil found is a transitional fossil. And you're a completely uneducated fool for thinking evolution should be put to rest. Without it, you should kiss medicine goodbye too. I guess you'll want to put the little theory of gravity to rest afterwards as well. Open a book sometime. You're a friggin' joke. :angry7:
-
I believe you're right about human existence on the earth more than 10,000 years ago, because there is evidence of it. But with the eruptions of super volcanoes, worldwide floods, the ice age and the other major disasters which happened, these people had to have been destroyed. The new human race had to have been created or placed here somehow. Where did they come from? Which comes back to evolution. Some people believe that the human race had evolved from apes, but why did these apes evolve into so many different races? Why didn't they just evolve into one race of man? I think only a divine being would consider creating so many different people of different colors and different customs. Maybe humans evolved because of climate, but when a race migrates to another climate, wouldn't their skin color also change? And again, I've never seen a half-man, half-ape creature. As for the first chapter of Genesis, I admit, it has baffled many scholars, but as a Christian I have to believe that God intends to reveal all mysteries to us someday. Maybe that's part of the reward for living a good life.
-
I believe you're right about human existence on the earth more than 10,000 years ago, because there is evidence of it.
Cool, were you also aware of the fact that these early human populations had rudimentary, progressing through advanced religions", (animism through polytheism, etc.), which had never heard of the xtian "g-d"? These people went about the business of survival, attributed 'natural' events to various deital forms, ("thunder gods", "moon goddeses", "spirits", etc.), all well before xtianity suddenly popped-up as a 'cult' about 2,000 years ago. The Aegyptians of that time period had a very elaborate religious mythology which encompassed many "neteru" - none of which were the xtian one. It's not very honest of a religion to retroactive claim that their "g-d" preceded other ones which their adherents had been adhering to thousands of years before xtianity popped-up.
But with the eruptions of super volcanoes, worldwide floods, the ice age and the other major disasters which happened, these people had to have been destroyed.
Unless such events were worldwide extinction level events, (ELEs), there have always been plant and animal survivers after the occurance of such disasters. If not everyone had died out, then your conclusion rests upon an inaccurate premise. In order for your premise to be valid, evidence of a worldwide-no-survivors ELE would have to be presented, rather than presented an assuption.
Some people believe that the human race had evolved from apes, but why did these apes evolve into so many different races?
Some people posit that the evolution began with lemurs, or earlier - apes aren't the start of that theory's process. Evidence of several different species of hominids/'mankind' have been found, (variously but not inclusively; australopithecus afarensis, cro-magnon and homo-sapiens). If each branch of these species further evolved into variations of the homo-sapien hominid forms we see extant even today, then the proponents of the theory of evolution would have to account for this process by way of evidence.
-
Falcon have you ever been in a fight in your life? Not a keyboard fight like a real fight
-
I believe in God and in evolution. Who do you think caused the 'Big Bang' and started the whole thing?
I have read the bible and I think a lot as been put in simple terms for man (& woman) to understand. Consequently, the meaning may have been distorted. Example: God created Adam and Eve and now we are all decendents of one man and one woman. How many of you know Adam means men and Eve means women. I believe Adam and Eve are a race of men and women that evolved for thousands of years. Starting from the animal that first came out of the ocean to finally become an Ape then man. And I believed God made it all happen. I have an Aunt who is a nun and it may surprise many of you that she believes in evolution also.
This is my opion and I don't mean to upset or offend anyone.
-
I believe in God and in evolution. Who do you think caused the 'Big Bang' and started the whole thing?
There is no inherent reason that the cause of such a postulated event is required to be a "who". If it was a result of a process, (or emergent phenomenon, for instance), there was no "who" involved.
I believe Adam and Eve are a race of men and women that evolved for thousands of years. Starting from the animal that first came out of the ocean to finally become an Ape then man. And I believed God made it all happen.
This is my opion and I don't mean to upset or offend anyone.
While I've seen such a 'hybrid' opinion which combines evolution with religious beliefs before, it remains that no evidence has been presented which supports the religious contention that "g-d made it all happen", (which is nominally based upon 'faith' and faith does not constitute evidence being that it means "belief without evidence"). Thank you for your opinion regarding this subject, (the reasoning used to challenge it is not an 'opinion' since I'm not making a claim but, am merely challenging yours).
It is a logical fallacy to assume that if one portion of a multi-part assertion, (e.g., "evolution"), is valid then the other parts are also valid, (conflation fallacy and others apply). Since there is no extant evidence to support an assertion attributing effects to a 'g-d' cause, that portion of the assertion cannot be applied.
-
Falcon have you ever been in a fight in your life? Not a keyboard fight like a real fight
He proudly served in our Air Force. What have you done???
-
Falcon have you ever been in a fight in your life? Not a keyboard fight like a real fight
Yep. What's that got to do with debating online?
He proudly served in our Air Force.
Served, received unarmed and armed combat training and fought for "Cubboo's" 'right' to spout nonsense and implicit 'threats'.
What have you done???
Based upon his FC record alone, he's started a "calling out" thread specifically in violation of FC policies and ToS; engaged in extensive ad hominem 'attacks' rather than substantive debate/discussion and generally whined when he's been refuted. As for any implication of his having "been in a fight", he'd have to comment on that.
-
Dude I don't care if u served in the airforce I'm talkin about a fist fight?
-
Dude I don't care if u served in the airforce I'm talkin about a fist fight?
Then it may be that you failed to understand what 'unarmed combat' can consist of.
Why do you ask?
-
Can is your main word there, u didn't fight no one lol and I was just curious u seem like a sissy. An btw any punk can join the military... That's where most people go as a last option
-
Can is your main word there ...
No, "can" was used there because fist-fighting is not inclusive of all that unarmed combat consists of. Thank you, however for providing further evidence here of your inability to parse, (look it up, if you're curious).
u didn't fight no one lol and I was just curious u seem like a sissy.
Both of your assumptions are false. Although no evidence can be provided either way for the former, the latter is not substantiated by any evidence whatsoever, (keeping in mind that your baseless ad hominem does not constitute evidence in the least).
An btw any punk can join the military... That's where most people go as a last option
False. For example, "any punk" with a criminal record cannot join the U.S. military. Further, some people join the military to protect the freedoms of ungrateful, immature 'punks' like you, (along with those of other people who don't cast baseless aspersions just because they dimly- perceive others are more intelligent/stronger/articulate than they are).
Maybe I joined the military in an expectation of being able to visit foreign lands, meet new people like you and assist them in sacrifiing their lives for their specious beliefs. Then again, maybe not, (least that be dimly-perceived as some kind of 'threat', unlike your tacit threats made by inquiring about "fist fights").
-
Lol you can't join the military if you have a criminal record? Lol you're stupid and I mean that... And no it was a simple question if you had ever been in a fist fight which you avoid just as other question that make you uncomfortable I've asked. I think you're a sissy that's my opinion of (although I believe many more people do to LOL) but like I said any sissy punk can serve in the military that doesn't impress me a bit... I own my own business does that impress you? I'm sure not... So like Ive said you can be unimpressed by me and I'll keep thinking you are a sissy punk :) btw were you kicked out of the airforce for bein a sissy?
-
Lol you can't join the military if you have a criminal record? Lol you're stupid and I mean that... And no it was a simple question if you had ever been in a fist fight which you avoid just as other question that make you uncomfortable I've asked. I think you're a sissy that's my opinion of (although I believe many more people do to LOL) but like I said any sissy punk can serve in the military that doesn't impress me a bit... I own my own business does that impress you? I'm sure not... So like Ive said you can be unimpressed by me and I'll keep thinking you are a sissy punk btw were you kicked out of the airforce for bein a sissy?
Reported to moderator.
Cubboo- I'm sorry I had to do this, but this topic is about evolution. We should be discussing the topic, and not trying to pick a fight like some immature highschooler. FLAG POLE! 20 MINUTES!
-
As many fights as falcon9 has picked on here? And how do u know I'm not in high school. Also as said by fc you can ignore any poster you would like and you won't have to worry about it
-
Also go back and look you're the first one to say an off comment topic besides evolution in this thread which you comment (sarcasticly and skeemishly) on my sig where kholer had corrected me... That's where it got off topic so I will have to report that as well to show where it got off topic sorry
-
Lol you can't join the military if you have a criminal record? Lol you're stupid and I mean that...
Your continued ad hominems aside; my general statement could have been more specific. You cannot join the military if you are intoxicated during the enlistment process, serving a sentence or have committed any offense the military believes cannot be waived. This means that the potential enlistee can try to obtain an enlistment waiver for offenses which they were convicted of, (criminal record). It is then incumbent upon the recruiter, (or a further evaluation process concerning waivers), to either permit or, deny such enlistment.
And no it was a simple question if you had ever been in a fist fight ...
In turn, I asked why you're asking that since it's unrelated to and out of context with not only this thread but, any tangential subject-drift, (until you randomly brought it up). So once again, instead of dodging that simple question, why do you ask?
... which you avoid just as other question that make you uncomfortable I've asked.
Since I answered the question without avoiding it, you've lied. No questions you've asked have caused me the least bit of discomfort, (although I will admit to a certain degree of exasperation with someone so unsuited to thinking clearly as your posts depict you to be).
I think you're a sissy that's my opinion of...
Fortunately, the baseless opinion of some random person on a forum has no value whatsoever to me. So, thanks for nothing.
(although I believe many more people do to LOL)
Resorting to the appeal to popularity fallacy certainly supports your opinion, doesn't it?
but like I said any sissy punk can serve in the military that doesn't impress me a bit...
To expand on the previous refutation of that "opinion"; depending upon what a "sissy punk" is doing in the military, (such as a non-combat function), they'd be unlikely to function well during combat operations. That means that, if you tried to join and managed to get waivers for any criminal offenses which you were convicted of (and somehow succeeded), you could serve in logistics or in some other behind-the-lines capacity so that no one would know how much of a "sissy" you might turn out to be.
I own my own business does that impress you? I'm sure not... So like Ive said you can be unimpressed by me ...
What does owning a business have to do with either "fist-fighting" or being a "sissy punk", (unless you happen to own a martial arts dojo - in which case, I'd be happy to determine whether or not you know any martial arts, in a congenial and non-hostile manner of course).
I'll keep thinking you are a sissy punk :) btw were you kicked out of the airforce for bein a sissy?
Again, the baseless opinion of some random person on a forum has no value whatsoever to me. So, thanks once again for nothing.
Your last ad hominem question will be answered elsewhere.
-
As many fights as falcon9 has picked on here? And how do u know I'm not in high school. Also as said by fc you can ignore any poster you would like and you won't have to worry about it
Arguments of forums are not equivalent to the "fist fights" you implicitly threatened, (whether you're in high school or not, such 'threats' violate FC's posting policies).
The remark about ignoring a poster or not applies equally to you.
-
Also go back and look you're the first one to say an off comment topic besides evolution in this thread which you comment (sarcasticly and skeemishly) on my sig where kholer had corrected me... That's where it got off topic so I will have to report that as well to show where it got off topic sorry
A reply is being made to the intention of speciously reporting that a topic went off topic in the Off Topic subforum of d+d. This notation is being made so that the one abusing the "report to moderator" function cannot delete his post without an undeleted record of it being made and to emphasize that any 'lying' to the FC moderators can be handled by those moderators, (as in Message ID: 535014).
-
Like so many people have stated this a tricky topic there are many who believe that we all came from adam and eve I to am a believer in Heaven and hell But there are many who believe in the fact we evolved from apes. This is a debate that will never be solved
-
Why would I delete my post? I have nothing to hide lol? I told you my opinion of you. Im just not one that you're going to bully around like other people. As you told a woman she might scare people wearing a bathing suit. Not very nice of you was it. And I'm sure you've never seen her so you were making baseless assumptions hmmmm
-
Like so many people have stated this a tricky topic there are many who believe that we all came from adam and eve I to am a believer in Heaven and hell But there are many who believe in the fact we evolved from apes. This is a debate that will never be solved
With such an attitude, nothing would ever "be solved". Fortunately, some people continue pursuing the actual answers to a great many questions instead of lazily attributing such things to supernatural beings.
-
Why would I delete my post? I have nothing to hide lol?
Good. The evidence will remain nonethless should you change position.
-
Your saying in unmeaningful sentences? I said I wouldn't delete it therefore no reason to state the obvious outcome if I have no intentions of deleting it. That's like stating if you saw off a leg of a table it will fall over and states that to someone who said they don't own a saw. It's pointless to state the obvious don't u agree sb
-
As many fights as falcon9 has picked on here?
Those aren't fights, man. They're catalysts for debate. Big difference.
And how do u know I'm not in high school. Also as said by fc you can ignore any poster you would like and you won't have to worry about it
I was just assuming from your posts and your willingness to attack like an irrational highschooler. C'mon! Play nice! If you don't like what Falcon9 has to say, you can always just press ignore or forget about it.
Also go back and look you're the first one to say an off comment topic besides evolution in this thread which you comment (sarcasticly and skeemishly) on my sig where kholer had corrected me... That's where it got off topic so I will have to report that as well to show where it got off topic sorry
Nooooonononono...I was informing you as it seemed you were unaware. Kind of like a guy informing another that your fly isn't zipped up. lol if you thought I was being mean, you should have asked me about it earlier. I meant no harm.
-
Yeah I knew about it but appreciate it but as I saw the other day I saw falcon say to a woman if she went out in a bathing suit then she might frighten people by her looks... That's not very nice and she took great offense to it... I just don't like people pickin on people so I have him a lil taste of his medicine. And also when he rebuts thats fine but talking down on people isn't the way to do it and I can show you about 100 post where he has implied the poster was ignorant and even called them that. Now why must he do that? Simply rebut your response and be done... And obviously you don't like people pickin on people bc you took offense to my comments to falcon. So you ought to have a talking with him about it... But naw it's all fun and games tel falcon to not get his panties in a wad about it
-
Your saying in unmeaningful sentences?
Even garbled sentences like your have some meaning; although they may require more parsing than others, (like yours above).
I said I wouldn't delete it therefore no reason to state the obvious outcome if I have no intentions of deleting it. That's like stating if you saw off a leg of a table it will fall over and states that to someone who said they don't own a saw. It's pointless to state the obvious don't u agree sb
Such an outcome isn't a parallel with sawing off a table-leg, nor as "obvious" since it isn't a given like a severed piece of furniture would be.
-
Sigh... I love when people report and then do not ignore the person and continue arguing. No one is getting a warning or a ban. Good luck with your plan though.
-
Sigh... I love when people report and then do not ignore the person and continue arguing. No one is getting a warning or a ban. Good luck with your plan though.
No doubt some parties involved will each consider your remarks applying to anyone but themselves however, since I didn't have a plan in this regard ... thank you for observations, Kohler.
-
We have an ignore button - reporting someone's every thread or comment just because you do not like them is no grounds for me to do anything. Ignore them and move on.
-
What would happen if they reported themselves?
-
What would happen if they reported themselves?
Obviously, they'd have the option to ignore themselves.
-
We have an ignore button - reporting someone's every thread or comment just because you do not like them is no grounds for me to do anything.
Your logic is impeccable, sir.
Ignore them and move on.
Some have apparently chosen to ignore while not ignoring or, not ignore and move on too, (just to mention other options). Have a good week, Kohler - another Monday is nearly history.
-
As long as we address evolution as a theory, there is no problem with me. It's only an unproven science. The Bible, on the other hand, is absolute truth.
-
As long as we address evolution as a theory, there is no problem with me. It's only an unproven science. The Bible, on the other hand, is absolute truth.
Unless you're being sarcastic, your assertion concerningan "absolute" is an unproven one, (keeping in mind that 'faith-without-evidence' does not constitute proof). There are lots of theories and hypotheses; the 'bible' doesn't even make it to "theory" and remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis to this day.
-
As long as we address evolution as a theory, there is no problem with me. It's only an unproven science. The Bible, on the other hand, is absolute truth.
LOL, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Man, great comment.
-
As long as we address evolution as a theory, there is no problem with me. It's only an unproven science. The Bible, on the other hand, is absolute truth.
LOL, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Man, great comment.
Even with the strong probability that it was unintentionally-funny, there sure is a lot of competition out there for comedians, (and/or 'source material' for one's act?).
-
As long as we address evolution as a theory, there is no problem with me. It's only an unproven science. The Bible, on the other hand, is absolute truth.
This is what I read:
"As long as we address gravity as a theory, there is not problem with me. It's only an unproven science. The ancient book full of superstitious myths, on the other hand, is absolute truth."
-
This is what I read:
"As long as we address gravity as a theory, there is not problem with me. It's only an unproven science. The ancient book full of superstitious myths, on the other hand, is absolute truth."
There's a none-to-subtle difference in conceptions though. While there can be, (and are), different testable theories extant to account for the existing phenomenon attributed to "gravity", there are no testable religious 'theories' to account for the same
gravitational phenomenon. Religious beliefs are not testable theories, (being faith-based declarations lacking any evidentiary basis), and therefore are not on par with 'scientific' theories. We've got evidence that gravitational phenomenon exists; we don't have similar evidence that substantiates the superstitious claims of religious myths therefore, such claims cannot be considered as absolutely truthful, (or even partially truthful ... or, remotely truthful ... let's face it; such claims have never met the "truth" and wouldn't know it if it bit them on the :bootyshake:).