why DID we evolve into humans?

If you're in some way implying I'm a kid because I called crash one.... Maybe you should go back and read our posts and realize why I've come to the realization he's a kid. He hasn't denied it, and it's obvious he is very young and idealistic, and is in a state of extreme rebellion against beliefs his parents hold. The fact that his belief in Christianity is limited to the church that his parents made him go to and that he is mad at them for having done so, he puts his view of what Christianity is as the model for ALL Christians. I guess you obviously ignore the fact that this isn't a forum for a debate on Christianity and what is Christian-like and what isn't. But whatever, I'm out of here.... I don't have time to keep debating irrelevant topics. Call me ignorant and confident all you want... And you 2 can ring your hands and think you're some kinds of champs when you haven't made any valid points. Have fun "kids."

You should make this your signature, rabair, you come up with words to this effect in pretty much every post I've seen.Mark

haha, Mark, you're right... and all I can say is "Just when I think I'm out... they pull me back in."... But I am actually done now.

Again, I don't give a damn about swearing. I swear too. What I care about is that you called a person retarded in anger and confusion and now don't even begin to appear remorseful about it. I'm sure WK doesn't care that you told him he was a retard, but I do. You've made a sufficiently big deal about it that I think you owe him an apology for your ill-chosen words.I'm sorry that you don't find it Chrisitan to apologize when you've done something wrong. I can't imagine what interpetation of the Bible allows you to be a dick and not feel bad about it, though. Could you stop for a minute and explain to me what you're going on about? I never told you you couldn't swear. Swear all you like. I don't care, and I've never told you otherwise. What I don't like is somebody who calls people "retarded" simply because he doesn't agree with what they're saying. That's bearing false witness, and just plain rude, to boot.

I concur wholeheartedly. I hadn't realized that was misattributed to Twain. I thought he had actually said it. But then, to (mis?)wuote Twain:"It seems to me that any quotation, delivered with sufficient confidence, stands an equal chance to deceive." But, no. The "kid" stuff isn't bothering me. He can say what he likes about me. None of it's true, of course. I assume that you've payed enough attention to my posts to glean that I'm a person old enough to be married, at least.

okay Crash one last time... not that I owe it to you, but I APPOLOGIZED A LONG TIME AGO!!! It has nothing to do with you, and you are no moral authority anyway, but I apologized in the very first sentence of post 65! Are you an idiot? I've told you I apologized at least 3 times now... I even pointed out that Mark accepted, and WK hasn't posted again. But I'm sorry if you're to lazy to read my posts where I've told you this over and over, then I guess that's your problem. Whatever swearing or name calling, the point AGAIN is that I answer to God and not you! I've apologized to those who deserve it, but you continue to demand I do something I've already done without your influence. It doesn't involve you, but you insist on being this moral authority. I haven't said that The Bible allows me to be a dick and not feel bad about it.... I said no one is perfect or without sin, Jesus died for our sins, etc. etc... That is the true and basica teachings of Christianity, and for you to insist that somehow I display remorse and apologize for your aproval is sooooo stupid. Go back and read the first line of post 65 if you want to see the apology. I have acknowledged the mis-understanding of what WK was saying, which still isn't totally my fault. I reacted in a certain way because he was trying to imply something that was unfounded and involved a poster I'd never heard of. So I got pissed and called him something in my reply.... I apologized to him when things were cleared up, and you keep insisting I do it (what I've already done) to somehow make you feel better. You need a box of tissues so you can cry about it? So you sum up by saying you think I should apologize... Well, there you have it... If somehow that isn't sufficient for you... THE FACT THAT IS WAS ALREADY DONE MANY POSTS AGO..... I don't know what else to tell you........ Hopefully, this is the last one... if Crash will just acknowlege the fact that what he claims to be irritated about is a lack of an apology for his pal, is wrong, and the apology was given without Crash's influence, and there was no need for it (his influence)....[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-13-2003][This message has been edited by rabair, 09-13-2003]

Told ya!------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

yeah yeah

This: is not generally considered an apology. It's called "making excuses". But, since I had overlooked it, I guess I'll let it go. Thank you for pointing it out, though.

Thanks for acknowledging that... But I have to point out... you mis-quoted me... I didn't say "I will apologize ... But"I said:"I will apologize for the name calling to Mark and Wounded... But I still point out that...."I specifically apologized for the name calling directly to the both of them... and I said "but, I still point out that"... and I went on to point out where I was coming from. But I didn't make an excuse for the name calling... Just to clarify. And one last time, it wasn't anything I owed to you, I owed it to them, and had already given it to them before you kept insisting I should. Thanks for at least recognizing it was there though.[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-14-2003]

I believe the original question had "evolved" into a discussion about how evolution could produce innovation. Rabair was explaining that since everyone knows evolution doesn't really happen and that evolution is only a theory anyway, that explanations about how it works to produce new structures are not very helpful since they're obvious fictions. Perhaps the discussion could pick up there?------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

I think your apology was cetainly as gracious as one is likely to get on these confrontational sorts of forums, and I will in turn apologise for the snotty turn of the first paragraph of my reply to it.I am not sure where you think I was calling people names in my initial post however, unless 'post-modern' and 'relativist' are terms of abuse in your opinion, and I can certainly understand why they might be.

Hey Wounded... I didn't mean to imply so much that you were calling me a name... But that you were implying I might call someone a "Nazi" basically because I said I disagreed on different levels of truth. Crash said more true and less true. I said I disagree with degrees of truth, and you statement basically compared me to someone who aparantly calls people Nazis, and I got pissed because I in no way would have ever thought to call anyone a Nazi. And it just seemed a bit of a brash assertion when I was simply disagreeing with a theory of verying degrees of "truth." No biggy, it's done... But I appreciate the apology for the reply.... Adios[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-15-2003]

Rabair, did you want to get back to the original discussion? Or are we done, here?

Looks like the last post here was long ago, i just want to sum up some stuff, the original topic got lost but something i noticed was there are 2 sides.Side 1 is rabair, who basically says something doesnt come out of nothing. this is perfectly valid as evolution uses what is already there, instead of a new series of amino acids appearing from basic elements. also rabair never recieved any evidence (like a copy of the experment/data/conclusion) of the bacteria gaining anything new physically (such as a new protein)Side 2 is Mark24 and Crashfrog, whom basically say that the bacteria did in fact gain something new (the penicillin resistance) which it did not have before. This is also valid since mutations are more common than most realize.what the main problem is that both sides are making completely different points (both of which are right) and thus talking past each other.about the more/less true business
simple logic defeats the everything is true or false viewpointThe following sentence is false.
The preceding sentence is true.dont bother you cannot solve which one is true and which one is false, it turns out that this is a paradox. both sentences are true and false or they are neither