Yet another 'off topic' post about off topic posts.
My apologies, my intent was to possibly suggest a method that could be both beneficial for further discussion and leading to further learning on your part (and mine).
Yes, have a go at my lack of knowledge.(your opinion)
Further explanations about your lack of knowledge on the subject will likely be interpreted as insults. My opinion is simply based on your misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution and the inevitable result of those misconceptions being off topic and incorrect statements.
I didn't know I was in the company of such brilliant scholars.
I had thought you to be one:
message 72 writes:
You are not really examining the facts in a scholarly manner.
By the way, you're very aggressive.
I had my coffee and cigarette but forgot my smilies.
Okay, so we cant make challenges if we fall below a certain bar of learning.
Making challenges based upon false information is generally not a good idea. Asking direct questions about the topic without immediatly expressing your bias and false assumptions could in fact lead to you learning something before expressing incorrect facts.
This is hardly conductive to an informed discussion:
quote:
Excuse me, evolution has no mechanism. Evolution is only a theory, has only ever been a theory and scientifically is being dismantled year on year.
Based upon what I have read in your post I would suggest instead of saying "
you replace 'God created it that way', with - 'it evolved'. you instead ask
"what is the difference between "goddidit" and "it evolved"? (its much less agressive)
Instead of saying
"Excuse me, evolution has no mechanism...." you instead say
"what exactly do you mean about evolution having a mechanism?" (its much less agressive)
Instead of saying
"Oh dear. You've obviously never read the The Origin of Species then?" you instead say
"my understanding of evolution differs from yours, perhaps you could correct me in a my possible misunderstandings?" (its much less agressive, but admittedly sounding a bit like a kiss ass)
If you can weed out the misconceptions its completely possible that you have an ace up your sleeve. Silly things such as "its only a theory" won't win you many points here however.
I cannot discuss eyelids without first discussing this word and it's misuse. Is that permitted on this thread or must we start another and come back here once we have established some rules on the use of language?
Why not simply accept the definition as described regardless of whether you actually believe in it. For the purpose of this thread you appear to be aware of what is
meant by the term. I think a great question regarding this would be:
Rhavin writes:
you don't have nictitating membranes. You have a vestigial remnant of them left over from an evolutionary precursor
Rhavin, or whoever - Why do you say that humans have vestigial nictitating membranes? What evidence supports this idea?