23 Aug 11
Originally posted by lauseyYou may not have heard the latest, but now some scientist say man's
You don't want to listen to him, yet still willing to quote mine him out of context?
That make sense.
common ancestor was probably a certain kind of worm. I heard it on
the science channel on DIRECTV. We don't have to be looking for
that imaginary creature anymore. We are nothing more than evolved
worms. So the next time somebody calls you a worm don't get
offended, it may be the truth.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah, this is the second time you've raise this story. What the article is actually talking about is the last common ancestor of both humans and worms. It's not really a surprise from an evolutionary standpoint.
You may not have heard the latest, but now some scientist say man's
common ancestor was probably a certain kind of worm. I heard it on
the science channel on DIRECTV. We don't have to be looking for
that imaginary creature anymore. We are nothing more than evolved
worms. So the next time somebody calls you a worm don't get
offended, it may be the truth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201101905.htm
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOkay, little worm, go wiggle in the mud for awhile to keep yourself busy.
Yeah, this is the second time you've raise this story. What the article is actually talking about is the last common ancestor of both humans [b]and worms. It's not really a surprise from an evolutionary standpoint.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201101905.htm[/b]
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatNo I would rather not have to do it. But you guys just want think on
Does it make you feel good to insult people?
your own. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that other animals have
things in common with each other, not because they evolved from one
or the other, but because they all have a common designer, God.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYou'd rather not have to? Have to?
No I would rather not have to do it. But you guys just want think on
your own. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that other animals have
things in common with each other, not because they evolved from one
or the other, but because they all have a common designer, God.
Well, that nonsense aside, of course that thought has occurred. On balance, however, and on long consideration, I am of the opinion that your hypothesis seems considerably less likely than Darwin's. I don't feel any obligation to insult you because you conclude differently - is that a christian thing, or just peculiar to you, do you think?
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatMaybe I am a peculiar person. So I apologize for my insult to you for
You'd rather not have to? [b]Have to?
Well, that nonsense aside, of course that thought has occurred. On balance, however, and on long consideration, I am of the opinion that your hypothesis seems considerably less likely than Darwin's. I don't feel any obligation to insult you because you conclude differently - is that a christian thing, or just peculiar to you, do you think?[/b]
not seeing things my way. I just can not understand how an intelligent
person could believe that anything intelligent could come from a rock.
Even though you will say you don't believe that, it really comes back to
that if you keep taking this common ancestor back far enough. They
have only taken it back as for as the worm right now; but it is only a
matter of time and your pet rock will be your next ancestor.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't claim to know how life started, maybe it did result from some sort of numinous action (although, again, I favour a simpler explanation). However, that's not relevant to my favouring of evolution over biblical creationism. I cannot understand how anybody, intelligent or otherwise, could read genesis and think that it represents a literal explanation for the origin of human life, but that's just my opinion. I'm quite capable of accepting that other people see things differently.
Maybe I am a peculiar person. So I apologize for my insult to you for
not seeing things my way. I just can not understand how an intelligent
person could believe that anything intelligent could come from a rock.
Even though you will say you don't believe that, it really comes back to
that if you keep taking this common ancestor back far enough. They
...[text shortened]... worm right now; but it is only a
matter of time and your pet rock will be your next ancestor.
It is, I admit, something of a surprise to encounter people who sincerely believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Or, indeed, that humankind has existed for billions of years. These sort of fringe beliefs seem unsupportable to me, but I try not to resort to insult despite my lack of understanding.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt must be a remainder of my military training. In Basic Training as Privates,
I don't claim to know how life started, maybe it did result from some sort of numinous action (although, again, I favour a simpler explanation). However, that's not relevant to my favouring of evolution over biblical creationism. I cannot understand how anybody, intelligent or otherwise, could read genesis and think that it represents a literal expla ...[text shortened]... eem unsupportable to me, but I try not to resort to insult despite my lack of understanding.
we were insulted very often to get our attention and break us from our
civilian way of thinking that could get us killed. When I became a Sargent,
I continued this tradition for I came to believe it might one day save the
lives of my men because they would be well prepared. I believe that there
are many people who are in danger of being lost for eternity because they
reject their only means of salvation by clinging on to a different way of
thinking. If it takes a little insults to get their attention, I am willing and able.
23 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI hope you will excuse my scepticism, but I have encountered the 'only insulting them for their own good' argument before. I'm sure you don't really believe, any more than Dasa does, that insulting somebody will lead to them developing some sort of sympathy with your point of view. I suspect rather that this is a post-hoc rationalisation whereby you attempt to justify behaviour which you recognise as morally questionable even according to your own professed standards.
It must be a remainder of my military training. In Basic Training as Privates,
we were insulted very often to get our attention and break us from our
civilian way of thinking that could get us killed. When I became a Sargent,
I continued this tradition for I came to believe it might one day save the
lives of my men because they would be well prepared. ...[text shortened]... way of
thinking. If it takes a little insults to get their attention, I am willing and able.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI think you can understand, but it threatens your belief system, so you reject it so strenuously that you pretend that nobody could possibly accept it.
I just can not understand how an intelligent person could believe that anything intelligent could come from a rock.
If you really couldn't understand, you might seek to understand, but you don't. You refuse at every turn to listen to any possible explanation as to how it might have happened and insult the explainer or declare them liars or the mouth piece of the devil. These are not the reactions of someone who cannot understand, they are the reactions of someone who feels threatened. And not someone who is threatened by someone believing something ridiculous, but rather someone who is threatened by the possibility that it might be true.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSargent? If it was on my discharge papers I would know how to spell it.
It must be a remainder of my military training. In Basic Training as Privates,
we were insulted very often to get our attention and break us from our
civilian way of thinking that could get us killed. When I became a Sargent,
I continued this tradition for I came to believe it might one day save the
lives of my men because they would be well prepared. ...[text shortened]... way of
thinking. If it takes a little insults to get their attention, I am willing and able.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by usmc7257I must admit I have never been a good speller. But I had three ranks as
Sargent? If it was on my discharge papers I would know how to spell it.
SGT, SSG, and SFC always abbreviated a little different from the Air Force
and the Marines. But I never had to spell it and I think it might have also
been abbreviated on all of my discharge papers. But that doesn't really
matter now that I am retired for good after 23 or 24 years with the USPS.
I have a very good retirement having three retirement checks for myself
and one for my wife coming in each month. So spelling is the least of my
worries.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSargent is spelled Sergeant. But as I had believed, my rank was abbreviated
I must admit I have never been a good speller. But I had three ranks as
SGT, SSG, and SFC always abbreviated a little different from the Air Force
and the Marines. But I never had to spell it and I think it might have also
been abbreviated on all of my discharge papers. But that doesn't really
matter now that I am retired for good after 23 or 24 years ...[text shortened]... for myself
and one for my wife coming in each month. So spelling is the least of my
worries.
on all my discharge papers. So I would never have learned to spell it by looking at them.