Creation, true, false, or unsure?

[eye95]

I have moved on from discussing the topic with YOU.

As I said, there are scads of people here having an adult discussion. I can talk with them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

When in contact with a group of people who admit they don't know much about the subject and are open and willing to learn about it, you're right. When you're with a group that doesn't care, nor want to care about what is true then there is no point in going out of my way. As soon as someone says something completely untrue about the subject (like men came from monkeys, or plants should be evolving into humans) then use their ignorance of the subject to prove you wrong then move on to act as if your stupid for believing something so ridiculous, they have proven their intent, and their unwillingness to learn. I will argue with them all day (because it's usually funny), but I will not waste my time trying to convey my message nicely.

You have YET to stop up to the plate and provide a shred of evidence of your claims of truth, which indicates they are all lies. Where are the citations?

"Bawk, Bawk, Bawk"

 

[Citizen]

When in contact with a group of people who admit they don't know much about the subject and are open and willing to learn about it, you're right. When you're with a group that doesn't care, nor want to care about what is true then there is no point in going out of my way. As soon as someone says something completely untrue about the subject (like men came from monkeys, or plants should be evolving into humans) then use their ignorance of the subject to prove you wrong then move on to act as if your stupid for believing something so ridiculous, they have proven their intent, and their unwillingness to learn. I will argue with them all day (because it's usually funny), but I will not waste my time trying to convey my message nicely.

Well, it takes two to fight. And, you definitely want to fight with them about it. So much for your explanation about untruth being detrimental. You're not interested in giving them truer-truth. You just want to make them wrong for their beliefs. Kinda sad, really. I feel sorry for you.

 

[ADobbs1989]

You have YET to stop up to the plate and provide a shred of evidence of your claims of truth, which indicates they are all lies. Where are the citations?

"Bawk, Bawk, Bawk"

And I don't plan on doing it either. At least until evidence is provided by everyone who makes a claim. I have no need to adhere to your demands.

 

[WalkingWolf]

And I don't plan on doing it either. At least until evidence is provided by everyone who makes a claim. I have no need to adhere to your demands.

Then you are not only a coward but violating the rules of this site. I have not made a claim, not once. And most others have not, YOU on the other hand keep bringing up your dogma without the slightest hint of a citation of your lies, and then have the gall to call others ignorant. What IRONY!

 

[Citizen]

I would never threaten to burn you for heresy. I would just do it. Watch your back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

No you wouldn't. You're just a big softy. You'd try to argue me out of my beliefs, and when/if it didn't work, you would just say, "Moving on."

 

[ADobbs1989]

Then you are not only a coward but violating the rules of this site. I have not made a claim, not once. And most others have not, YOU on the other hand keep bringing up your dogma without the slightest hint of a citation of your lies, and then have the gall to call others ignorant. What IRONY!

What rule would that be exactly? The only rule regarding citing your information is when it pertains to making claims about LAWS.

 

[eye95]

Citizen,

I would argue with you about that one, but that would just prove that I am argumentative.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

Edited to make sure that no one would think I was replying to the intervening post.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What rule would that be exactly? The only rule regarding citing your information is when it pertains to making claims about LAWS.

It is recognized that if you make a claim of fact on this site you MUST back it up with a source. Refusing to do so is the act of a coward!

 

[ADobbs1989]

Well, it takes two to fight. And, you definitely want to fight with them about it. So much for your explanation about untruth being detrimental. You're not interested in giving them truer-truth. You just want to make them wrong for their beliefs. Kinda sad, really. I feel sorry for you.

Here ya go, I'll post this source here that has quite a bit of information about evolution. If this doesn't suffice, or you want to know more, feel free to do your own research.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

[ADobbs1989]

It is recognized that if you make a claim of fact on this site you MUST back it up with a source. Refusing to do so is the act of a coward!

Oh, so now it's not actually a rule as you claimed, it's a social standard. I don't care much for those.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Oh, so now it's not actually a rule as you claimed, it's a social standard. I don't care much for those.

It appears that the only thing you care for is pushing your dogma and when called out for it refusing to answer to your claims. It is cowardly as well as ignorant.

 

[Citizen]

Here ya go, I'll post this source here that has quite a bit of information about evolution. If this doesn't suffice, or you want to know more, feel free to do your own research.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

Too late. I already know you're not genuinely interested in others aquiring truer-truths. You just want to make others wrong.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Here ya go, I'll post this source here that has quite a bit of information about evolution. If this doesn't suffice, or you want to know more, feel free to do your own research.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

There is nothing there, have you actually looked at your link? More of the same of NOT putting up to back up your lies. Please post actual citations to back up your claims or they are lies.

 

[Mantioch]

Here ya go, I'll post this source here that has quite a bit of information about evolution. If this doesn't suffice, or you want to know more, feel free to do your own research.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

Cool - its the first result from Google after Wikipedia and PBS. Anything scholarly you can quote?

Okay, now I'm out. I could not resist temptation to peek at this thread. And then respond. Temptation resisted is the true measure of character - gotta do better!

 

[WalkingWolf]

Cool - its the first result from Google after Wikipedia and PBS. Anything scholarly you can quote?

I don't believe he has the nads to post anything other than a link to a link to a link, and he thinks that is a citation. Or he is just lazy, and has not even read his own sources of dogma. He is winging it.

 

[Redbaron007]

It's not your fault and I'm not calling you bigoted. It's often teachers which are ignorant and bigoted. Go some reason on "apex predators." The whole notion of the "top of the food chain" really shouldn't be used as a teaching tool, it gives a false impression of superiority.

Think of it like this, throw all the most dangerous predators from Africa in the same room, which one is on the "top of the food chain"? All of them share the "top," there is no single predator in first place. Sure you can judge by factors like speed, claws, teeth, strength, etc but each has it's own levels of severity.

Humans are different.....we wouldn't get into the room, unless we were equipped to come out on top. The other 'animals' do not have the ability to make that decision, so they will fight it out to the death; subsequently, the last one standing wins, the human.

Humans are the top; they have many options to defeat any other animal on the planet.....the problem is, some don't do well with decision making......therefore, they audition for the Darwin Awards.

To tie this with the OPs original comments; the proof of creationism vs evolution, it's simple...like I said before, if evolution is the preferred belief, then why doesn't everything migrate to being a human? Simple question....evolution doesn't exist.....adaptability does.

Later Gators!

 

[ADobbs1989]

Here ya go, I'll post this source here that has quite a bit of information about evolution. If this doesn't suffice, or you want to know more, feel free to do your own research.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

If you can't search that site and find information about evolution maybe I should have first linked an explanation on how to use the internet. I'm not linking every page that's useful do your own digging.

 

[Citizen]

I don't believe he has the nads to post anything other than a link to a link to a link, and he thinks that is a citation. Or he is just lazy, and has not even read his own sources of dogma. He is winging it.

Worse than that, he's made himself irrelevant by showing he's not interested in others having his truer-truth--he just wants to fight.

Now maybe the rest of us can get back to our discussion

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Nope not so those are two physical objects I could test to see which I like better. Or I could just get them both and if you broke into my house we'd find out which worked better......

Not having proof means you leave your options open....at least for me.

I do like the way you think though...