 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RevJP wrote: | | SDMD wrote: | | Likely because I know what it actually is, as compared to most of the people who post against it, |
I'm impressed with your superior intellect, thank you for pointing it out to all of us. |
Your snideness is NOT welcome. Most of the people who post AGAINST Evolution simply does not know what Evolution is, they have no clue of the science or the evidence. Are you DENYING this?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I am a Christian and I have no problem at all accepting Evolution |
Define 'christian', as you use it. |
I have the Faith that Jesus Christ is the savior, the Messiah. I have Faith that God speaks to us through the Bible.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | people who post against it, and who shows an astonishing ignorance |
A demonstration of your intellect perhaps? |
No, a demonstration of the ignorance of Evolution among those who speak against it. Are there any other attitudes, opinions or views you want to ascribe me that I do not hold? Can I assume that you are doing this for snideness without any intention of taking any of this serious?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I don't see Genesis 1 as a literal science text book. I don't see the Bible at all as a textbook in what happened or how it happened. |
At least there is something we can agree on.
| Quote: | | I see creationism as weak faith, as faith that can not be sustained without physical evidence of God. |
How do you define 'faith' exactly? Could you explain why faith would require physical evidence to be sustained? |
I define faith as the personal knowledge of God's existence, of Jesus as the Messiah. Faith does NOT require physical evidence, you merely hold the Faith you hold. For some creationists, their faith seems threatened by their idea of what Evolution is, and they insist that evidence is evidence for God. That those people's faith can't withstand scientific evidence, findings and facts, that shows their need for a physical tangible evidence for God's existence.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | but we and other apes definitely descended from an apelike ancestor.
Isn't this the main bone of contention between TOE and Creationism? TOE claims evolution from a common apelike ancestor and creationism sustains that humankind was created as is. |
That is such a tiny, minimal part of the Scientific theory of Evolution. If you are claiming an entire Scientific Theory false based on one single point like this, particularly with the evidence in existence of hominid evolution, then I must conclude that your argument is contrived. I must conclude that it is based not on what Evolution findings actually are, but rather that it solely is based on NOT being creationism, regardless of what Evolution then is instead.
| Quote: | | As you said earlier, the origin of life is irrelevant in this debate, |
As that would be Abiogenesis, yes. Abiogenesis is a different scientific field than Evolution or biology.
| Quote: | | but macroevolution is the real issue. Creationists deny it, |
Creationists have a hard time coming up with what it means. Presumably again because it is based not on knowledge of Evolution, but rather only on knowing that it isn't creationism. Creationists are trying to speak the Scientific language without making a lick of sense when doing so.
Generally, what happens is that creationists claim "macro evolution" to be the starting of new species. They claim it has never been witnessed or documented, and therefore macro evolution is false and Evolution is wrong in its contradiction to creationism.
Then, when direct evidence is presented of the many examples of speciation directly observed both in lab and in nature, then the argument changes from 'species" to "kind" or "Class" or "Order" or even the biological "Kingdoms."
Sorry for my cynicism in doubting the honesty of creationists who use the word "macro evolution,” but it is my direct experience that it is a contrived term with no real meaning to a creationist other than "The next step beyond what you provide evidence for."
Once I have been through 3-4 rounds of the creationist shifting the limit of what macro-evolution is after having been presented evidence contradicting the original claim, then it is obvious that the creationist doesn't know what macro-evolution is, other than "that next step that disproves evolution because it hasn't been documented." Sorry, but such dishonesty and bearing False Witness is deeply offensive to me, and it is the main reason I find creationists offensive, that lack of honesty that my experience has shown me.
Now, if you want to show me otherwise, if you want to show me that you mean what you say when you say it, and that you actually know the subject you argue against, then that would be a welcome change from the usual interaction with creationists.
| Quote: | | evolutionist worship it, |
That is a misrepresentation. I see you as bearing false witness here.
| Quote: | | and both are left with only their belief without one honest shred of proof. |
AH, but the Scientific Theory of Evolution is based on the data and evidence, not on "belief." So your claim is a misrepresentation.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SDMD wrote: | | Your snideness is NOT welcome |
Sorry a taste of your own medicine displeases you. You don't care for my 'tone' I take it? Then perhaps you would do well to change yours when posting to me and others on this site.
| Quote: | | Most of the people who post AGAINST Evolution simply does not know what Evolution is |
, Most of the people.... simply do not know...
| Quote: | | No, a demonstration of the ignorance of Evolution among those who speak against it. |
Actually I was referring to your grammar...
| Quote: | | people who post against it, and who shows an astonishing ignorance |
... and who show astonishing ignorance...
| Quote: | | Can I assume that you are doing this for snideness without any intention of taking any of this serious? |
No. I am doing this to demonstrate to you that the way you address people and the way you address them is unpleasant. Perhaps my demonstration will help you realize this and you will make an effort to be less snide, rude, and/or hostile.
You say this: | Quote: | | Faith does NOT require physical evidence, you merely hold the Faith you hold. |
and this: | Quote: | | I see creationism as weak faith, as faith that can not be sustained without physical evidence of God. |
Granted, I may not understand your meaning, but it seems contradictory.
| Quote: | | That those people's faith can't withstand scientific evidence, findings and facts, that shows their need for a physical tangible evidence for God's existence. |
I don't think that is the issue for the majority. I think the umbrage is expressed because most of TOE supporters deny God in their support of TOE. It is not so much a threat to faith as it is a defense of the existence of God.
| Quote: | | That is such a tiny, minimal part of the Scientific theory of Evolution. If you are claiming an entire Scientific Theory false based on one single point like this, particularly with the evidence in existence of hominid evolution, then I must conclude that your argument is contrived. |
I never claimed the entire Theory of evolution is falsed based on that one element of the theory, so thank you for not building an entire argument based on an erroneous assumption. I simply stated that in my opinion, the major bone of contention with TOE is the assumption of humanity's evolution from an apelike ancestor - or as some have slyly said: goo-to-you...
| Quote: | | Then, when direct evidence is presented of the many examples of speciation directly observed both in lab and in nature, then the argument changes from 'species" to "kind" or "Class" or "Order" or even the biological "Kingdoms." |
I agree. I have seen this phenomenon many times on this board, although everytime I have seen it is from those supporting TOE when trying to defend macro-evolution. It seems their definitions of macroevolution and speciation, and what constitutes it changes whenever faced with opposition to their claims.
| Quote: | | Sorry for my cynicism in doubting the honesty of creationists who use the word "macro evolution,” but it is my direct experience that it is a contrived term with no real meaning to a creationist other than "The next step beyond what you provide evidence for." |
hmmm.. who coined the term 'macro-evolution'?
| Quote: | | Then, when direct evidence is presented of the many examples of speciation directly observed both in lab and in nature, then the argument changes from 'species" to "kind" or "Class" or "Order" or even the biological "Kingdoms." |
What has speciation given us other than subspecies? Is there evidence for something other than the whole donkey/mule, or different fly from a another fly? There still remains a huge gap in proof between speciation and the acceptance that humans evolved from an ameoba.
| Quote: | | That is a misrepresentation. I see you as bearing false witness here. |
I see you as judging my brother in Christ. It is my opinion based on experience with many supporters of TOE that they hold the theory in very high regard, religiously actually. So it is my considered opinion that evolutionists worship the theory.
Bearing false witness? I suppose you know my thoughts and feelings better than I that you can judge me as lying about them.
| Quote: | | AH, but the Scientific Theory of Evolution is based on the data and evidence, not on "belief." So your claim is a misrepresentation. |
Not at all. Your selection of part of my post is a misrepresentation of what I actually said. Take a moment to pull the plank out of your eye and perhaps you would address what I actually said instead of casting aspersions, or as you like to say.... bearing false witness.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | SDMD wrote: | | Your snideness is NOT welcome |
Sorry a taste of your own medicine displeases you. |
What do you mean?
| Quote: | | You don't care for my 'tone' I take it? |
I couldn’t care less, but if I give back, you just ban me. I am fully aware of that tendency.
| Quote: | | Then perhaps you would do well to change yours when posting to me and others on this site. |
The moment creationists stop posting falsehoods about the Science, I will stop pointing out the falsehoods. I am sure you are not FOR the bearing of False Witness, right?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Most of the people who post AGAINST Evolution simply does not know what Evolution is |
, Most of the people.... simply do not know... |
Oh, wow, you are right. I didn’t bother with the spell-check, so everything I post must be wrong. How incredibly lame, this personal attack of yours. Does that mean you have to be banned for a week, instigating personal attacks and detracting from the tone in the forum? You see the solution NOT as staring avoiding posting falsehoods, but instead to attack me when I point out the flasehoods? Yeah, way to go.
Well, gotta run. I will get back to this later.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Isn't this the main bone of contention between TOE and Creationism? TOE claims evolution from a common apelike ancestor and creationism sustains that humankind was created as is. |
The theory of evolution asserts that all living things are descended from other living things. Our ancestors could look like rats and creationists would still have a problem with it. The appearance of our ancestors is irrelevant. It's just easy to say "I ain't descended from no monkey!"
| RevJP wrote: | | As you said earlier, the origin of life is irrelevant in this debate, but macroevolution is the real issue. |
It is only an issue for those attacking evolution. There is plenty of evidence for it, for those who care enough to actually read it.
| RevJP wrote: | | Creationists deny it, evolutionist worship it, |
A lot of people denied that cars would replace horses. Do you therefore worship your car?
| RevJP wrote: | | and both are left with only their belief without one honest shred of proof. |
Because proof isn't the issue. One side has plenty of evidence to support it, however. Guess which?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | RevJP wrote:
SDMD wrote:
Your snideness is NOT welcome
Sorry a taste of your own medicine displeases you |
.
What do you mean? |
Very simple. I 'spoke' to you in the same fashion that you have been speaking to many others on this site. You apparently don't care for it, so why do you do it?
| Quote: | | but if I give back, you just ban me. I am fully aware of that tendency. |
Would you care to substantiate this claim? When have you been banned on this site? In particular, since you claimed I have done so, I would like you to explain when this happened, exactly.
Oh wait... since you are still a member of this board and still posting, I suppose that means you haven't been banned.
And you speak to me about bearing false witness?
| Quote: | | How incredibly lame, this personal attack of yours. |
Personal attack? It seems you like to point out the errors of others, but don't care for yours to be pointed out. The only point was that I thought it interesting that you indicated your superior intellect and then made simple grammatical errors.
| Quote: | | Does that mean you have to be banned for a week |
You keep talking about being banned. Who has been banned that you know of?
| Quote: | | but instead to attack me when I point out the flasehoods |
It would be good for you to realize that I have not 'attacked' you for pointing out falsehoods. I have addressed the manner in which you do it. If you don't care for me pointing out that you have been rude, then I would suggest you change the way you treat people around here.[/quote]
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Who has been banned that you know of? |
There was that one guy that called me the antichrist a while back.
This guy:
Post 1
Post 2
For those who weren't around at the time, my user tag at the time was "Goldfish."
Looking at it now, it looks like he's not banned anymore, but I'm pretty certain he was. And he didn't call me the antichrist, just "stricken from the book."
Plus, this is like the only time me and jim stevenson have agreed on anything.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Most of the people who post AGAINST Evolution simply does not know what Evolution is |
, Most of the people.... simply do not know...
| Quote: | | No, a demonstration of the ignorance of Evolution among those who speak against it. |
Actually I was referring to your grammar...
| Quote: | | people who post against it, and who shows an astonishing ignorance |
... and who show astonishing ignorance... |
Oh, now I am truly crushed by your display of pettiness.
If you are disturbed when I challenge people on their bearing false witness, are you also disturbed when they bear false witness? Or is it OK when they do so for some fundie cause, you know, some kind of "lying for Jesus" idea? Personally, I find it offensive, but perhaps you are different, now that we are talking about personal dislike for each other (Though I am not quite sure why you decided suddenly to make this personal rather than on the issue.)
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Can I assume that you are doing this for snideness without any intention of taking any of this serious? |
No. I am doing this to demonstrate to you that the way you address people and the way you address them is unpleasant. |
Really? They don't like to have their false witnessing exposed? They don't like it that I challenge them on making flat-out false and incredibly ignorant claims about Evolution because they never bothered actually learning what they argue against is sheer dishonesty? It is unpleasant that I expose them?
Perhaps you should have figured it unpleasant to have to witness that bearing false witness? All the blame is suddenly on my side with no blame on the ones with the deception? Because they are on your "side"? Or what else has possibly made you ignore the massive outpouring of bearing false witness that this site has witnessed in the last week or so? Oh, you are saying that has NOTHING to do with the poisoned atmosphere?
Oh, I forgot, you SUPPORT that, don't you. You ENCOURAGE that, don't you?
You really have no leg to stand on here, trying to "teach me a lesson."
| Quote: | | Perhaps my demonstration will help you realize this and you will make an effort to be less snide, rude, and/or hostile. |
The posts so void of honesty are rude, snide and hostile. YOU are rude, snide and hostile. Sweep before your own door first!
| Quote: | You say this: | Quote: | | Faith does NOT require physical evidence, you merely hold the Faith you hold. |
and this: | Quote: | | I see creationism as weak faith, as faith that can not be sustained without physical evidence of God. |
Granted, I may not understand your meaning, but it seems contradictory. |
Not to me, not at all.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | That those people's faith can't withstand scientific evidence, findings and facts, that shows their need for a physical tangible evidence for God's existence. |
I don't think that is the issue for the majority. |
So why the pathetic insistence that physical evidence MUST confirm God? As if God's existence is threatened if the Scientific Evidence doesn't focus solely on God? Why the incessant lies about the science being "atheistic"? Why the need for constant misrepresentation of what people don't even understand or bother learning to begin with, when they have no problem spending hours pouring over outright lying creationist sites? Why do you buy in to that culture of outright lying?
| Quote: | | I think the umbrage is expressed because most of TOE supporters deny God in their support of TOE. It is not so much a threat to faith as it is a defense of the existence of God. |
What people say in their support of the Scientific Theory of Evolution has no bearing on what the Scientific Theory actually says. Some people take umbrage to the KKK who claim to be Christian. Does that mean that Christianity is as racist as the KKK? The STOE says absolutely NOTHING about God not existing. If you have objections against their view on Christianity, take it out on their views, don't take it out on the STOE by bearing false witness about it. It is dishonest and dishonorable, not to mention it gets my intense attention as all such bearing false witnessing does.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | That is such a tiny, minimal part of the Scientific theory of Evolution. If you are claiming an entire Scientific Theory false based on one single point like this, particularly with the evidence in existence of hominid evolution, then I must conclude that your argument is contrived. |
I never claimed the entire Theory of evolution is falsed based on that one element of the theory, so thank you for not building an entire argument based on an erroneous assumption. I simply stated that in my opinion, the major bone of contention with TOE is the assumption of humanity's evolution from an apelike ancestor - or as some have slyly said: goo-to-you... |
So, the contention is with the result of scientific investigation. Hence all the outright lies about science? Are all fundamentalist Christians luddites?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Then, when direct evidence is presented of the many examples of speciation directly observed both in lab and in nature, then the argument changes from 'species" to "kind" or "Class" or "Order" or even the biological "Kingdoms." |
I agree. I have seen this phenomenon many times on this board, although everytime I have seen it is from those supporting TOE when trying to defend macro-evolution. It seems their definitions of macroevolution and speciation, and what constitutes it changes whenever faced with opposition to their claims. |
Could you give an example? Because I have yet to see anything look like that here EVER.
Now, again, just to clarify. WHAT does "macro-evolution" mean on this board? You kind of avoided that one, didn't you!
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Sorry for my cynicism in doubting the honesty of creationists who use the word "macro evolution,” but it is my direct experience that it is a contrived term with no real meaning to a creationist other than "The next step beyond what you provide evidence for." |
hmmm.. who coined the term 'macro-evolution'? |
Irrelevant. Because the original meaning was the changes from one species to another. As I just pointed out (but you obviously completely ignored) creationists become very busy having macro-evolution suddenly mean all sorts of other things when the direct evidence for speciation is presented. Then suddenly, cowardly, the meaning of "macro evolution" changes among the creationists. KRE evidence of the incessant bearing false witness, of the inherent dishonesty of creationist arguments and claims. Does it surprise you that I have become cynical, that I have come to see nearly all creationists as bearing false witness as outright liars? None here are trying to dissuade me of that impression. Certainly NOT in this tread.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Then, when direct evidence is presented of the many examples of speciation directly observed both in lab and in nature, then the argument changes from 'species" to "kind" or "Class" or "Order" or even the biological "Kingdoms." |
What has speciation given us other than subspecies? Is there evidence for something other than the whole donkey/mule, |
OF COURSE THERE IS!!! Aren't you friggin' listening? @%@$#%^$@%$@# This is a friggin deliberate insult, isn't it???
| Quote: | | or different fly from a another fly? |
A "fly" is not a species, it is hundreds of species. See, this is the kind of misrepresentation that drives me bonkers.
| Quote: | | There still remains a huge gap in proof between speciation and the acceptance that humans evolved from an ameoba. |
Ah, and now we have come to the back-pedalling, just as I described above. Suddenly, "macro evolution is not just the evidence of one new species evolving from another as originally implied, but suddenly, it is the insistence on a chain of evidence documenting every new species ever. What the %^%^@$#%
| Quote: | | Quote: | | That is a misrepresentation. I see you as bearing false witness here. |
I see you as judging my brother in Christ. |
I see your brother in Christ spitting God in the eye by bearing false witness. Oh, I forgot, he is on your "side" so that is fine and dandy. Uhum....
| Quote: | | It is my opinion based on experience with many supporters of TOE that they hold the theory in very high regard, religiously actually. So it is my considered opinion that evolutionists worship the theory. |
And that remains as much a misrepresentation as the initial claim. If you present Scientific Evidence disproving the Scientific Theory, then the Scientific Theory falls. There is nothing religious about it. It is only about the data.
| Quote: | | Bearing false witness? I suppose you know my thoughts and feelings better than I that you can judge me as lying about them. |
When creationists are making false claims about science then they are bearing false witness. Are you inventing a new definition of "bearing false witness" especially for use by creationists to get by that?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | AH, but the Scientific Theory of Evolution is based on the data and evidence, not on "belief." So your claim is a misrepresentation. |
Not at all. Your selection of part of my post is a misrepresentation of what I actually said. |
Here is what you said:
"Isn't this the main bone of contention between TOE and Creationism? TOE claims evolution from a common apelike ancestor and creationism sustains that humankind was created as is. As you said earlier, the origin of life is irrelevant in this debate, but macroevolution is the real issue. Creationists deny it, evolutionist worship it, and both are left with only their belief without one honest shred of proof."
I addressed every aspect of that post, I left nothing out. Your accusation is false.
| Quote: | | Take a moment to pull the plank out of your eye and perhaps you would address what I actually said instead of casting aspersions, or as you like to say.... bearing false witness. |
LIKEWISE!!!
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | RevJP wrote:
SDMD wrote:
Your snideness is NOT welcome
Sorry a taste of your own medicine displeases you |
.
What do you mean? |
Very simple. I 'spoke' to you in the same fashion that you have been speaking to many others on this site. You apparently don't care for it, so why do you do it? |
I couldn't care less. If you want that tone, you get it. I have no problem with that. I have dealt with creationists for decades.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | but if I give back, you just ban me. I am fully aware of that tendency. |
Would you care to substantiate this claim? When have you been banned on this site? In particular, since you claimed I have done so, I would like you to explain when this happened, exactly. |
Well, long time ago, I was "Steen." Now that I was invited back, it obviously gets to you and you are looking for a reason to ban me again. SO MUCH BETTER than actually having to deal with the facts that creationists are lying about, isn't it?
| Quote: | Oh wait... since you are still a member of this board and still posting, I suppose that means you haven't been banned.
And you speak to me about bearing false witness? |
Well, it was actually nobby who did it last time (as far as I know. I know I got a pm, but since I was banned, I have never actually read it. But knobby was the last one to talk to me about my postings)
| Quote: | | Quote: | | How incredibly lame, this personal attack of yours. |
Personal attack? It seems you like to point out the errors of others, but don't care for yours to be pointed out. |
Oh, what "error" was pointed out?
| Quote: | | The only point was that I thought it interesting that you indicated your superior intellect and then made simple grammatical errors. |
There you go with your false accusations again. Like for me to specifically and in detail look at your posts for grammar, spelling and misrepresentations? Sure can if you want that tone in this forum.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Does that mean you have to be banned for a week |
You keep talking about being banned. Who has been banned that you know of? |
See above.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | but instead to attack me when I point out the falsehoods |
It would be good for you to realize that I have not 'attacked' you for pointing out falsehoods. I have addressed the manner in which you do it. |
Oh, I forgot. When I am outright being lied to then "oh, excuse me but I feel a slight error was done" works so great, doesn't it?
| Quote: | | If you don't care for me pointing out that you have been rude, then I would suggest you change the way you treat people around here. |
As I have said, I couldn't care less. As long as people are being honest, they can call me anything they want. It is lies, hypocrisy, misrepresentations and bearing false witness that I can't stand.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5301
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's the point of all this? 
I think it's gone far enough! 
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
