Bill Maher and Brian Levin Discuss Islam

[jj3jordan 2,053]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me little bit though)

It's not hard, it just takes a little faith. Welcome to the fold.

[Aufan59 62]

Does it take faith, or denial?

I pointed out a very clear contradiction in the Bible. One has to to ignore or deny this contradiction (and dozens of others) in order to believe the Bible has no contradictions.

[homersapien 11,373]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me little bit though)

It's not hard, it just takes a little faith. Welcome to the fold.

Exactly. We understand that. (Although I would say it takes a lot more than a "little" faith in the case of Christianity)

As for "joining the fold", we weren't referring to your actual convictions. We were referring to the "comfort" you derive from them. It's sort of like manufacturinig peace-of-mind from nothing more than a wish.

To those of us without the "God gene" a simple leap of faith is not possible. We have to find our piece-of-mind by more involved methods which seem a lot more difficult. You have it relatively easy. Thus, the envy.

[MDM4AU 332]

"Very clear" contradiction? Did you read anything I posted? And, again, how does that discredit the Bible? I'm not sure I understand your position.

[Aufan59 62]

"Very clear" contradiction? Did you read anything I posted? And, again, how does that discredit the Bible? I'm not sure I understand your position.

I read what you posted, and you seemed to agree that the Bible does have some small errors. Anyone who reads the text will admit this, unless they are in denial.

I wasn't trying to discredit the Bible. I was dispelling the myth that the Bible is inerrant with no contradictions.

[Grumps 3,704]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me little bit though)

It's not hard, it just takes a little faith. Welcome to the fold.

Exactly. We understand that. (Although I would say it takes a lot more than a "little" faith in the case of Christianity)

As for "joining the fold", we weren't referring to your actual convictions. We were referring to the "comfort" you derive from them. It's sort of like manufacturinig peace-of-mind from nothing more than a wish.

To those of us without the "God gene" a simple leap of faith is not possible. We have to find our piece-of-mind by more involved methods which seem a lot more difficult. You have it relatively easy. Thus, the envy.

I appreciate your straight-forward answer, but I think you are wrong about this. I am a scientist, and I did not think I had the "God-gene" (as you call it). At the prompting of a minister I basically pretended that I had faith. Just that small attempt on my part opened up a whole new life for me. I COMPLETELY agree with you that without faith in God it would be much harder to have peace of mind and complete contentment. I was not able to accomplish that without submtting my life to Christ. I am glad that you have been able to achieve it, but I believe that God's way is still better.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I appreciate your straight-forward answer' date=' but I think you are wrong about this. I am a scientist, and I did not think I had the "God-gene" (as you call it). At the prompting of a minister I basically pretended that I had faith. Just that small attempt on my part opened up a whole new life for me. I COMPLETELY agree with you that without faith in God it would be much harder to have peace of mind and complete contentment. I was not able to accomplish that without submtting my life to Christ. I am glad that you have been able to achieve it, but I believe that God's way is still better.

[/quote']

Being a scientist != being an atheist/leftist/etc.

For some reason those get equated a lot; more than likely because higher education tends to historically correlate to lower religious belief.

I am interested to know why you believe that "God's way" is still better than non-belief if a non-believer is completely content/happy. It sounds like although you didn't believe in god you still weren't happy. Do you credit "God" for actually making you happier, or the fact that you found a support network and probably new social structure with that?

[homersapien 11,373]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me little bit though)

It's not hard, it just takes a little faith. Welcome to the fold.

Exactly. We understand that. (Although I would say it takes a lot more than a "little" faith in the case of Christianity)

As for "joining the fold", we weren't referring to your actual convictions. We were referring to the "comfort" you derive from them. It's sort of like manufacturinig peace-of-mind from nothing more than a wish.

To those of us without the "God gene" a simple leap of faith is not possible. We have to find our piece-of-mind by more involved methods which seem a lot more difficult. You have it relatively easy. Thus, the envy.

I appreciate your straight-forward answer, but I think you are wrong about this. I am a scientist, and I did not think I had the "God-gene" (as you call it). At the prompting of a minister I basically pretended that I had faith. Just that small attempt on my part opened up a whole new life for me. I COMPLETELY agree with you that without faith in God it would be much harder to have peace of mind and complete contentment. I was not able to accomplish that without submtting my life to Christ. I am glad that you have been able to achieve it, but I believe that God's way is still better.

But then, apparently you did.

And you are certainly not alone among scientists who do, as you undoubtedly know.

[Grumps 3,704]

I appreciate your straight-forward answer' date=' but I think you are wrong about this. I am a scientist, and I did not think I had the "God-gene" (as you call it). At the prompting of a minister I basically pretended that I had faith. Just that small attempt on my part opened up a whole new life for me. I COMPLETELY agree with you that without faith in God it would be much harder to have peace of mind and complete contentment. I was not able to accomplish that without submtting my life to Christ. I am glad that you have been able to achieve it, but I believe that God's way is still better.

[/quote']

Being a scientist != being an atheist/leftist/etc.

For some reason those get equated a lot; more than likely because higher education tends to historically correlate to lower religious belief.

I am interested to know why you believe that "God's way" is still better than non-belief if a non-believer is completely content/happy. It sounds like although you didn't believe in god you still weren't happy. Do you credit "God" for actually making you happier, or the fact that you found a support network and probably new social structure with that?

As far as the first part of you post, it is my opinion that scientific types are more likely to require proof to support a particular belief. That is why I thought my being a scientist was relevant.

Regarding your question as to why I think that God's way is better--that is a very good question. Before I dedicated my life to serving God, I would have to say that my life was dedicated to achieving happiness for myself--and by extension, for my family. My job is still the same and my family is still the same, but my heart has been changed. I am happier because I am fulfilling the role for which I was created. If I had been perfectly content with living for my own sake then I suppose I would have had no reason to look for a "higher purpose." If I am correct that God created me to serve him and to teach others about His love for them then it should be easy to see why I think that doing his will is better than doing my own will. I really don't think that I would try to convince a person to change anything if he/she was completely content/happy, but I honestly believe that everyone would be happier if they knew that they were fulfilling God's purpose for their life.

[Grumps 3,704]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me little bit though)

It's not hard, it just takes a little faith. Welcome to the fold.

Exactly. We understand that. (Although I would say it takes a lot more than a "little" faith in the case of Christianity)

As for "joining the fold", we weren't referring to your actual convictions. We were referring to the "comfort" you derive from them. It's sort of like manufacturinig peace-of-mind from nothing more than a wish.

To those of us without the "God gene" a simple leap of faith is not possible. We have to find our piece-of-mind by more involved methods which seem a lot more difficult. You have it relatively easy. Thus, the envy.

I appreciate your straight-forward answer, but I think you are wrong about this. I am a scientist, and I did not think I had the "God-gene" (as you call it). At the prompting of a minister I basically pretended that I had faith. Just that small attempt on my part opened up a whole new life for me. I COMPLETELY agree with you that without faith in God it would be much harder to have peace of mind and complete contentment. I was not able to accomplish that without submtting my life to Christ. I am glad that you have been able to achieve it, but I believe that God's way is still better.

But then, apparently you did.

And you are certainly not alone among scientists who do, as you undoubtedly know.

You are correct. I did not think I had the "God-gene" but I did. You apparently think that you do not have the "God-gene," but I think that you have it too! I completely agree with your last statement also.

[homersapien 11,373]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me little bit though)

It's not hard, it just takes a little faith. Welcome to the fold.

Exactly. We understand that. (Although I would say it takes a lot more than a "little" faith in the case of Christianity)

As for "joining the fold", we weren't referring to your actual convictions. We were referring to the "comfort" you derive from them. It's sort of like manufacturinig peace-of-mind from nothing more than a wish.

To those of us without the "God gene" a simple leap of faith is not possible. We have to find our piece-of-mind by more involved methods which seem a lot more difficult. You have it relatively easy. Thus, the envy.

I appreciate your straight-forward answer, but I think you are wrong about this. I am a scientist, and I did not think I had the "God-gene" (as you call it). At the prompting of a minister I basically pretended that I had faith. Just that small attempt on my part opened up a whole new life for me. I COMPLETELY agree with you that without faith in God it would be much harder to have peace of mind and complete contentment. I was not able to accomplish that without submtting my life to Christ. I am glad that you have been able to achieve it, but I believe that God's way is still better.

But then, apparently you did.

And you are certainly not alone among scientists who do, as you undoubtedly know.

You are correct. I did not think I had the "God-gene" but I did. You apparently think that you do not have the "God-gene," but I think that you have it too! I completely agree with your last statement also.

Maybe so. But if so, it's not turned on. I simply can't relate to the idea. On the other hand, the idea of meeting God when I die generates no fear whatsoever in me. It might not even surprise me. I had a few out-of-body experiences back in the 70's, so the idea of a supernatural is not totally alien.

I figure I will at least enjoy watching IT chastising fundamentalists for turning their backs on "his" gift of knowledge. I wouldn't really expect IT to be really "into" submission.

[4AUsince62 10]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me little bit though)

It's not hard, it just takes a little faith. Welcome to the fold.

Exactly. We understand that. (Although I would say it takes a lot more than a "little" faith in the case of Christianity)

As for "joining the fold", we weren't referring to your actual convictions. We were referring to the "comfort" you derive from them. It's sort of like manufacturinig peace-of-mind from nothing more than a wish.

To those of us without the "God gene" a simple leap of faith is not possible. We have to find our piece-of-mind by more involved methods which seem a lot more difficult. You have it relatively easy. Thus, the envy.

I agree with you there, it takes more than a little faith, it takes a lot, it takes the faith of a child.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, but my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

Even your "respectful" request that anyone not claim Auburn as their alma mater is incredibly arrogant.

I can fully understand why you feel that way.

Regardless, as I have said previously, I never claimed to be innocent of at least occasional arrogance.

If all degrees don't require a basic understanding of science, and maybe they all do, science still does not prove evolution. It is still just a theory.

I acknowledge your right to let your religious beliefs override your respect for science. But you are simply wrong. Science has proven - and more importantly, continues to verify - the theory of evolution.

As for the "just a theory" response........PLEASE look up the term theory and understand the context of its use with relativity. This has already come up once. Some of you seem determined to misrepresent - if not simply lie about - evolution, facts be damned.

Why? Because of the millions of unexplainable unanswerable questions it brings forth.

The fact that unanswered questions exist in relativity in no way invalidates it. Is simply indicates that some questions simply have not been addressed. It would be practically impossible to address every question that might arise, not to mention that the technology to do so doesn't necessarily exist.

But it's quite ironic that someone approaching the issue from the position of faith in a supernatural entity would point to unanswered questions as a standard to evaluate acceptance.

Nobody can truly say a theory is false, because by definition it is only a theory. If you want to call Creation a theory, fine. It can't be proven to you, so it is a theory.

"My" theory is a foundational scientific theory. Your theory consists of religious faith. So, at least you are correct in saying they shouldn't be compared.

More importantly, I am not challenging your "theory". I am defending the theory of evolution against people who say it is false.

(And again, please look up "scientific theory")

Please don't imply even respectfully that I or anyone else is an idiot for believing my theory over your theory.

I never implied - or at least meant to imply - anyone was an "idiot". I have said that people who proclaim evolution to be false are either ignorant or are willfully allowing their religious conviction to trump the rational evidence. I apologize if this offends you but I can't really help that.

You said it perfectly yourself: evolution is "accepted", not proven, not fact. It has facts in it, but it has not been proven to be LAW.

Evolution has been proven to the extent that such a theory can be proven given 150 years to work on the problem. It continues to be proven on a continuous basis, even if incidentally, during the course of research in other fields, such as geology (for example). This is exactly why it is "accepted" by every serious scientist in the field.

As a scientific theory, it has to be falsifiable by definition. So if you really want to play semantical games (and aren't you the one who protesting semantical debate?) I suppose you could argue the fact it is open to challenge as a basis arguing it cannot be accepted as "truth".

And arguing the philosophical concept of "truth" in conceptual terms is really no more useful than arguing religion. There is nothing I can say if you are determined to be ruled by religious conviction in this matter.

I am simply arguing the case for evolution as scientific fact, which it is. You don't have to believe it.

And you do have the right to be embarrassed. Well put.

Thanks!

Now go out there and try not to embarrass me. If you are going to insist the theory of evolution is false, please don't tell them you are an Auburn grad.

That would be impossible.

[homersapien 11,373]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, but my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

Even your "respectful" request that anyone not claim Auburn as their alma mater is incredibly arrogant.

I can fully understand why you feel that way.

Regardless, as I have said previously, I never claimed to be innocent of at least occasional arrogance.

If all degrees don't require a basic understanding of science, and maybe they all do, science still does not prove evolution. It is still just a theory.

I acknowledge your right to let your religious beliefs override your respect for science. But you are simply wrong. Science has proven - and more importantly, continues to verify - the theory of evolution.

As for the "just a theory" response........PLEASE look up the term theory and understand the context of its use with relativity. This has already come up once. Some of you seem determined to misrepresent - if not simply lie about - evolution, facts be damned.

Why? Because of the millions of unexplainable unanswerable questions it brings forth.

The fact that unanswered questions exist in relativity in no way invalidates it. Is simply indicates that some questions simply have not been addressed. It would be practically impossible to address every question that might arise, not to mention that the technology to do so doesn't necessarily exist.

But it's quite ironic that someone approaching the issue from the position of faith in a supernatural entity would point to unanswered questions as a standard to evaluate acceptance.

Nobody can truly say a theory is false, because by definition it is only a theory. If you want to call Creation a theory, fine. It can't be proven to you, so it is a theory.

"My" theory is a foundational scientific theory. Your theory consists of religious faith. So, at least you are correct in saying they shouldn't be compared.

More importantly, I am not challenging your "theory". I am defending the theory of evolution against people who say it is false.

(And again, please look up "scientific theory")

Please don't imply even respectfully that I or anyone else is an idiot for believing my theory over your theory.

I never implied - or at least meant to imply - anyone was an "idiot". I have said that people who proclaim evolution to be false are either ignorant or are willfully allowing their religious conviction to trump the rational evidence. I apologize if this offends you but I can't really help that.

You said it perfectly yourself: evolution is "accepted", not proven, not fact. It has facts in it, but it has not been proven to be LAW.

Evolution has been proven to the extent that such a theory can be proven given 150 years to work on the problem. It continues to be proven on a continuous basis, even if incidentally, during the course of research in other fields, such as geology (for example). This is exactly why it is "accepted" by every serious scientist in the field.

As a scientific theory, it has to be falsifiable by definition. So if you really want to play semantical games (and aren't you the one who protesting semantical debate?) I suppose you could argue the fact it is open to challenge as a basis arguing it cannot be accepted as "truth".

And arguing the philosophical concept of "truth" in conceptual terms is really no more useful than arguing religion. There is nothing I can say if you are determined to be ruled by religious conviction in this matter.

I am simply arguing the case for evolution as scientific fact, which it is. You don't have to believe it.

And you do have the right to be embarrassed. Well put.

Thanks!

Now go out there and try not to embarrass me. If you are going to insist the theory of evolution is false, please don't tell them you are an Auburn grad.

That would be impossible.

Yeah. Exactly as I feared.

[Weegle777 78]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

http://en.wikipedia....ks_on_evolution

http://www.mit.edu/~...ci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.abo...s-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.co...lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk?

Yes. Can you?

My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read.

I wasn't "making assumptions". I was going by your own statements, to wit, "you have read everything you can find". I am not responsible for dumb statements you might make, much less obligated to ignore them.

Give me an argument, anybody can google links.

Not my job. (You already know that.)

Likewise, I will not educate you on other foundational scientific theories.

(Well, unless of course, you want to pay me for my time.)

For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

Well, that puts your familiarity of me right up there with your familiarity of evolution.

I'm not asking for an hour long seminar, just give me some kind of an argument. The more you say, "It's not my job to educate you." the more you make yourself look as if you have no idea what you are talking about. My gosh, any doofus can google links, it takes an intelligent individual to put forth effort to argue a point. Others have argued points here, you just dodge and weave around excuses. And I have even said that I would be glad to hear your argument. All you can do is be a jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

First, refusing to "explain evolution" is not dodging a "point". It's a specious argument based on my refusal to write an elegant essay proving evolution to be fact. What a dumb thing to ask and then double down on to suggest I am

a "doofus googling links, not putting forth effort to argue a point, you just dodge and weave around excuses. jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

That's just simple BS. It sounds like someone who is resorting to "fireworks" after being intellectually defeated. I am not willing to spend the time to educate you (at least for free) but I am more than willing to take you on in the context of an internet forum. So lets go.

You say you are open to argument. Let's try this: Why don't you give me a specific challenge? Tell me one thing about evolution that keeps you from accepting it. I promise I will give you my straight-up answer without cribbing. Any links I post will be for your benefit to clarify or further understand my points.

OK?

Having said that, if you really want to claim that evolution is false (or "crazy" as you actually said) and cite homersapien's reluctance to explain the whole thing to you (for free) you have my permission. I doubt many will find that convincing, but if it works for you, it's at least better than citing the Bible.

Obviously, I have no expectations of convincing you. I don't think it's possible. No one can trump a determined belief in a supernatural deity with logic, rationality or evidence.

Besides, why in hell would I go to the trouble of trying to convince you when you simply dismiss the scholarly references I have offered in good faith?? Trust me, those people are far more expert than I am.

What a "doofus" post that was.

Wow. What an angry post! Honestly, if what I said was sooooooooo wrong in your "expert" opinion, then why the snarky and angry response? Did you read what I said? Let me say it again. Maybe you can see it this time. If you give me a good argument and good evidence that I haven't considered, maybe I might see your stance. But, when you post such an angry diatribe like you posted, it just makes you look like you were confronted with truth and you just couldn't handle it. If you are as "eloquently educated" and on such a higher intellectual plane as you would like us to think, you sure don't sound like it. As I said, if you can discuss this without acting like a 16 year old, I would love to hear what you have to say. But simply, putting the proverbial ball in my court to inquire of your "boundless knowledge" at cost, (which is funny) just further makes you look like you don't really have any idea what you are talking about.

[Weegle777 78]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Apparently he doesn't have much appreciation for objective logical argument. He will undoubtedly misinterpret this and I'll have to explain it to him. Watch.

Again, such an immature attitude for such an "accomplished" educated mind!

[homersapien 11,373]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

http://en.wikipedia....ks_on_evolution

http://www.mit.edu/~...ci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.abo...s-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.co...lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk?

Yes. Can you?

My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read.

I wasn't "making assumptions". I was going by your own statements, to wit, "you have read everything you can find". I am not responsible for dumb statements you might make, much less obligated to ignore them.

Give me an argument, anybody can google links.

Not my job. (You already know that.)

Likewise, I will not educate you on other foundational scientific theories.

(Well, unless of course, you want to pay me for my time.)

For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

Well, that puts your familiarity of me right up there with your familiarity of evolution.

I'm not asking for an hour long seminar, just give me some kind of an argument. The more you say, "It's not my job to educate you." the more you make yourself look as if you have no idea what you are talking about. My gosh, any doofus can google links, it takes an intelligent individual to put forth effort to argue a point. Others have argued points here, you just dodge and weave around excuses. And I have even said that I would be glad to hear your argument. All you can do is be a jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

First, refusing to "explain evolution" is not dodging a "point". It's a specious argument based on my refusal to write an elegant essay proving evolution to be fact. What a dumb thing to ask and then double down on to suggest I am

a "doofus googling links, not putting forth effort to argue a point, you just dodge and weave around excuses. jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

That's just simple BS. It sounds like someone who is resorting to "fireworks" after being intellectually defeated. I am not willing to spend the time to educate you (at least for free) but I am more than willing to take you on in the context of an internet forum. So lets go.

You say you are open to argument. Let's try this: Why don't you give me a specific challenge? Tell me one thing about evolution that keeps you from accepting it. I promise I will give you my straight-up answer without cribbing. Any links I post will be for your benefit to clarify or further understand my points.

OK?

Having said that, if you really want to claim that evolution is false (or "crazy" as you actually said) and cite homersapien's reluctance to explain the whole thing to you (for free) you have my permission. I doubt many will find that convincing, but if it works for you, it's at least better than citing the Bible.

Obviously, I have no expectations of convincing you. I don't think it's possible. No one can trump a determined belief in a supernatural deity with logic, rationality or evidence.

Besides, why in hell would I go to the trouble of trying to convince you when you simply dismiss the scholarly references I have offered in good faith?? Trust me, those people are far more expert than I am.

What a "doofus" post that was.

Wow. What an angry post! Honestly, if what I said was sooooooooo wrong in your "expert" opinion, then why the snarky and angry response? Did you read what I said? Let me say it again. Maybe you can see it this time. If you give me a good argument and good evidence that I haven't considered, maybe I might see your stance. But, when you post such an angry diatribe like you posted, it just makes you look like you were confronted with truth and you just couldn't handle it. If you are as "eloquently educated" and on such a higher intellectual plane as you would like us to think, you sure don't sound like it. As I said, if you can discuss this without acting like a 16 year old, I would love to hear what you have to say. But simply, putting the proverbial ball in my court to inquire of your "boundless knowledge" at cost, (which is funny) just further makes you look like you don't really have any idea what you are talking about.

Angry?

Excuse me, but this is nothing more than projection. Anyone can go back and look at our exchange and see who started with the insults.

Furthermore, you didn't respond to a single question I posed. I have already told you that while it is not my responsibility to educate you, I will address any specific questions you have.

I am sorry if I come across as more educated, smarter, or more experienced than you, but it's hard not to when you say stuff like "you've read everything you can find" on the subject. I suppose I could respond like you really do have the sort of development issues your posts reflect, but I am sure you would find that very condescending. And I just can't seem to keep from adding a little "edge" on responses to insults. I admit, that's a weakness I have. But I am trying to get better improve it. Corresponding with you is not helping.

Bottom line, you can make me out as a arrogant, petulant or whatever, but that does nothing more than try to change the subject. It doesn't address the debate. I don't really care what you think about me and everyone else on the forum can come to their own conclusions.

So if you don't want to have a reasoned discussion about evolution that's fine with me. Like I said, I could care less. Likewise, I'm not interested in getting into a flame war with the likes of you. It's demeaning, not to mention boring.

But if you want to continue the discussion on evolution, try to overlook your fascination with me and my style and address some aspect of the actual topic.

[Weegle777 78]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

http://en.wikipedia....ks_on_evolution

http://www.mit.edu/~...ci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.abo...s-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.co...lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk?

Yes. Can you?

My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read.

I wasn't "making assumptions". I was going by your own statements, to wit, "you have read everything you can find". I am not responsible for dumb statements you might make, much less obligated to ignore them.

Give me an argument, anybody can google links.

Not my job. (You already know that.)

Likewise, I will not educate you on other foundational scientific theories.

(Well, unless of course, you want to pay me for my time.)

For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

Well, that puts your familiarity of me right up there with your familiarity of evolution.

I'm not asking for an hour long seminar, just give me some kind of an argument. The more you say, "It's not my job to educate you." the more you make yourself look as if you have no idea what you are talking about. My gosh, any doofus can google links, it takes an intelligent individual to put forth effort to argue a point. Others have argued points here, you just dodge and weave around excuses. And I have even said that I would be glad to hear your argument. All you can do is be a jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

First, refusing to "explain evolution" is not dodging a "point". It's a specious argument based on my refusal to write an elegant essay proving evolution to be fact. What a dumb thing to ask and then double down on to suggest I am

a "doofus googling links, not putting forth effort to argue a point, you just dodge and weave around excuses. jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

That's just simple BS. It sounds like someone who is resorting to "fireworks" after being intellectually defeated. I am not willing to spend the time to educate you (at least for free) but I am more than willing to take you on in the context of an internet forum. So lets go.

You say you are open to argument. Let's try this: Why don't you give me a specific challenge? Tell me one thing about evolution that keeps you from accepting it. I promise I will give you my straight-up answer without cribbing. Any links I post will be for your benefit to clarify or further understand my points.

OK?

Having said that, if you really want to claim that evolution is false (or "crazy" as you actually said) and cite homersapien's reluctance to explain the whole thing to you (for free) you have my permission. I doubt many will find that convincing, but if it works for you, it's at least better than citing the Bible.

Obviously, I have no expectations of convincing you. I don't think it's possible. No one can trump a determined belief in a supernatural deity with logic, rationality or evidence.

Besides, why in hell would I go to the trouble of trying to convince you when you simply dismiss the scholarly references I have offered in good faith?? Trust me, those people are far more expert than I am.

What a "doofus" post that was.

Wow. What an angry post! :laugh:/> Honestly, if what I said was sooooooooo wrong in your "expert" opinion, then why the snarky and angry response? Did you read what I said? Let me say it again. Maybe you can see it this time. If you give me a good argument and good evidence that I haven't considered, maybe I might see your stance. But, when you post such an angry diatribe like you posted, it just makes you look like you were confronted with truth and you just couldn't handle it. If you are as "eloquently educated" and on such a higher intellectual plane as you would like us to think, you sure don't sound like it. As I said, if you can discuss this without acting like a 16 year old, I would love to hear what you have to say. But simply, putting the proverbial ball in my court to inquire of your "boundless knowledge" at cost, (which is funny) just further makes you look like you don't really have any idea what you are talking about.

Angry?

Excuse me, but this is nothing more than projection. Anyone can go back and look at our exchange and see who started with the insults.

Furthermore, you didn't respond to a single question I posed. I have already told you that while it is not my responsibility to educate you, I will address any specific questions you have.

I am sorry if I come across as more educated, smarter, or more experienced than you, but it's hard not to when you say stuff like "you've read everything you can find" on the subject. I suppose I could respond like you really do have the sort of development issues your posts reflect, but I am sure you would find that very condescending. And I just can't seem to keep from adding a little "edge" on responses to insults. I admit, that's a weakness I have. But I am trying to get better improve it. Corresponding with you is not helping.

Bottom line, you can make me out as a arrogant, petulant or whatever, but that does nothing more than try to change the subject. It doesn't address the debate. I don't really care what you think about me and everyone else on the forum can come to their own conclusions.

So if you don't want to have a reasoned discussion about evolution that's fine with me. Like I said, I could care less. Likewise, I'm not interested in getting into a flame war with the likes of you. It's demeaning, not to mention boring.

But if you want to continue the discussion on evolution, try to overlook your fascination with me and my style and address some aspect of the actual topic.

So much fail in this post. Not to mention the grammatical errors that abound. If you are as smart as you are leading us to consider, then please proofread before you hit "post".

[ToomersRevenge 284]

So much fail in this post. Not to mention the grammatical errors that abound. If you are as smart as you are leading us to consider, then please proofread before you hit "post".

You didn't just go for the grammatical errors exit Weegs..I thought you were above that.

[Weegle777 78]

So much fail in this post. Not to mention the grammatical errors that abound. If you are as smart as you are leading us to consider, then please proofread before you hit "post".

You didn't just go for the grammatical errors exit Weegs..I thought you were above that.

You are right. That was petty. I fell to the level I shouldn't have.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

And why do we fall Bruce?

[jj3jordan 2,053]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

http://en.wikipedia....ks_on_evolution

http://www.mit.edu/~...ci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.abo...s-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.co...lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk?

Yes. Can you?

My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read.

I wasn't "making assumptions". I was going by your own statements, to wit, "you have read everything you can find". I am not responsible for dumb statements you might make, much less obligated to ignore them.

Give me an argument, anybody can google links.

Not my job. (You already know that.)

Likewise, I will not educate you on other foundational scientific theories.

(Well, unless of course, you want to pay me for my time.)

For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

Well, that puts your familiarity of me right up there with your familiarity of evolution.

I'm not asking for an hour long seminar, just give me some kind of an argument. The more you say, "It's not my job to educate you." the more you make yourself look as if you have no idea what you are talking about. My gosh, any doofus can google links, it takes an intelligent individual to put forth effort to argue a point. Others have argued points here, you just dodge and weave around excuses. And I have even said that I would be glad to hear your argument. All you can do is be a jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

First, refusing to "explain evolution" is not dodging a "point". It's a specious argument based on my refusal to write an elegant essay proving evolution to be fact. What a dumb thing to ask and then double down on to suggest I am

a "doofus googling links, not putting forth effort to argue a point, you just dodge and weave around excuses. jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

That's just simple BS. It sounds like someone who is resorting to "fireworks" after being intellectually defeated. I am not willing to spend the time to educate you (at least for free) but I am more than willing to take you on in the context of an internet forum. So lets go.

You say you are open to argument. Let's try this: Why don't you give me a specific challenge? Tell me one thing about evolution that keeps you from accepting it. I promise I will give you my straight-up answer without cribbing. Any links I post will be for your benefit to clarify or further understand my points.

OK?

Having said that, if you really want to claim that evolution is false (or "crazy" as you actually said) and cite homersapien's reluctance to explain the whole thing to you (for free) you have my permission. I doubt many will find that convincing, but if it works for you, it's at least better than citing the Bible.

Obviously, I have no expectations of convincing you. I don't think it's possible. No one can trump a determined belief in a supernatural deity with logic, rationality or evidence.

Besides, why in hell would I go to the trouble of trying to convince you when you simply dismiss the scholarly references I have offered in good faith?? Trust me, those people are far more expert than I am.

What a "doofus" post that was.

Wow. What an angry post! Honestly, if what I said was sooooooooo wrong in your "expert" opinion, then why the snarky and angry response? Did you read what I said? Let me say it again. Maybe you can see it this time. If you give me a good argument and good evidence that I haven't considered, maybe I might see your stance. But, when you post such an angry diatribe like you posted, it just makes you look like you were confronted with truth and you just couldn't handle it. If you are as "eloquently educated" and on such a higher intellectual plane as you would like us to think, you sure don't sound like it. As I said, if you can discuss this without acting like a 16 year old, I would love to hear what you have to say. But simply, putting the proverbial ball in my court to inquire of your "boundless knowledge" at cost, (which is funny) just further makes you look like you don't really have any idea what you are talking about.

Angry?

Excuse me, but this is nothing more than projection. Anyone can go back and look at our exchange and see who started with the insults.

Furthermore, you didn't respond to a single question I posed. I have already told you that while it is not my responsibility to educate you, I will address any specific questions you have.

I am sorry if I come across as more educated, smarter, or more experienced than you, but it's hard not to when you say stuff like "you've read everything you can find" on the subject. I suppose I could respond like you really do have the sort of development issues your posts reflect, but I am sure you would find that very condescending. And I just can't seem to keep from adding a little "edge" on responses to insults. I admit, that's a weakness I have. But I am trying to get better improve it. Corresponding with you is not helping.

Bottom line, you can make me out as a arrogant, petulant or whatever, but that does nothing more than try to change the subject. It doesn't address the debate. I don't really care what you think about me and everyone else on the forum can come to their own conclusions.

So if you don't want to have a reasoned discussion about evolution that's fine with me. Like I said, I could care less. Likewise, I'm not interested in getting into a flame war with the likes of you. It's demeaning, not to mention boring.

But if you want to continue the discussion on evolution, try to overlook your fascination with me and my style and address some aspect of the actual topic.

Don't apologize, you don't come across as more educated, smarter, and more experienced. Not to worry.

[homersapien 11,373]

Don't apologize, you don't come across as more educated, smarter, and more experienced. Not to worry.

Excuse me, but I wasn't talking to you.

But thanks for the advice.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

Don't apologize, you don't come across as more educated, smarter, and more experienced. Not to worry.

Excuse me, but I wasn't talking to you.

But thanks for the advice.

That's what I did the first time I read one of your posts.