Creationism or Evoloution

[kungpow]

I saw a thread like this in other forums and i'm quite curious what the community thinks here. Tell me which do you think could be right and why

[rossmum]

Evolution, but not "hurr god doesn't exist lol what a load of tosh" evolution. It works with, it works without.

[Bodzilla]

i'm a hur hur god doesnt exist kinda person

however i dont see it as an issue, some ppl prefer to belieive that someone is watching over them, and i dont.
other then that i dont care.

Beware of possible thread bomb here.

[n00b1n8R]

i agree with zilla on all the above points.

[Phobias]

Evolutionism.

[jahrain]

Evolution is not a religion foo'

[Tweek]

it's a fact.

[Kornman00]

needs /moar/ poll

[Neuro Guro]

-

[n00b1n8R]

I SEE YOUR 4CHAN

[rossmum]

Evolution is not a religion foo'
Neither's creationism (in the traditional sense, anyway), what's your point?

[Archon23]

Evolution.

I mean cmon the evidence is RIGHT THERE. Oh wait, Religion :downs:

[FlyingStone]

Creationism.
-F.S

[Caboose O'Malley]

Creatonism was created by those fundamentalists that simply could not give up on their beliefs in the bible...
The arguments that they put against The Evolution theory (which appears to be the more solid one) are so ridiculous that it feels like arguing with a six-year-old...
So I guess I'm more of the Darwinism-type...

[Texrat]

Evolution, but not "hurr god doesn't exist lol what a load of tosh" evolution. It works with, it works without.

There ya go.

[Con]

I'm with Bod

[FlyingStone]

Creatonism was created by those fundamentalists that simply could not give up on their beliefs in the bible...
The arguments that they put against The Evolution theory (which appears to be the more solid one) are so ridiculous that it feels like arguing with a six-year-old...
So I guess I'm more of the Darwinism-type...
:eyesroll:
-F.S

[Texrat]

Creationism soundly refuted, point by silly point:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[Agamemnon]

I SEE YOUR 4CHAN
That's not 4Chan, that's Scientology.

[kungpow]

I wonder if you can sell theatons on ebay.

[jahrain]

Neither's creationism (in the traditional sense, anyway), what's your point?
There are people in this thread is taking a natural process and turning it into a system of beliefs with statements like "I believe in evolution" as if it is some sort of religious notion.

[Rosco]

In truth I don't believe either. I have no care in whether the world was created by some kind of god, or whether we one day stumbled upon fire.

No proovable evidence/facts, and the rest is usually biased opinion.

[jahrain]

No proovable evidence/facts, and the rest is usually biased opinion. What? Tell me where there is lack of evidence supporting evolution. You can observe it in your own house if you have a mosquito infestation.

[rossmum]

There are people in this thread is taking a natural process and turning it into a system of beliefs with statements like "I believe in evolution" as if it is some sort of religious notion.
Given that it's still classified as a theory, that statement makes perfect sense.

[CN3089]

Given that it's still classified as a theory, that statement makes perfect sense.

yeah man i mean it's just a theory i mean i still don't believe in this whole "atom" business it's just silly if you ask me;

[rossmum]

You know what I mean. It's still officially classified as a theory (or was, last time I checked); as a result, it does make sense when people say they "believe in it" as it's entirely possible to believe in a theory.

Whether I consider it fact or not (which I do) has nothing to do with it.

[Pooky]

I believe all the drama is really unnecessary and creationism and evolution can be reconciled. Blame the fuckwads who only read the Bible at face value and interpret everything literally.

[n00b1n8R]

That's not 4Chan, that's Scientology.

no, this bit is 4chan:

ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!!!

also, good to see dole's not still here ;)

[Pooky]

Oh god you're right, he would surely have some foaming page long rant about how a certain demographic doesn't deserve to exist, etc.

[jahrain]

You know what I mean. It's still officially classified as a theory (or was, last time I checked); as a result, it does make sense when people say they "believe in it" as it's entirely possible to believe in a theory.

Whether I consider it fact or not (which I do) has nothing to do with it.
If people are "believing" in a theory, they following it as they would a religious belief. There is a difference between believing in something, and accepting it as the best, most evident yet logical explanation. The existence of the process of evolution is as evident as the existence of gravity, but the reason why it is still considered to be a theory is because the process which explains why it occurs (accidental DNA mutation which benefits the organism) occurs so rarely, slowly, nor abundant enough as well as it is heavily based on probability to establish the theory as a law of nature. Scientists usually refer to theories that they accept as the best, most evident yet logical explanation, yet that does not imply they may believe in it because someone might just come along and find a better more evident explanation along with undeniable facts contradicting the theory.

Teaching students in school to simply just believe in evolution is meaningless as teaching any other 'beliefs', but teaching students how and why it is the most evident and logical explanation is completely different.

[rossmum]

no, this bit is 4chan:


also, good to see dole's not still here ;)


Oh god you're right, he would surely have some foaming page long rant about how a certain demographic doesn't deserve to exist, etc.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch, he's been posting again.

[n00b1n8R]

I noticed just after I posted that :saddowns:

[Texrat]

I've argued with Dole a lot but I respect him. He has a knack for bringing out a person't best counterpoints. Plus, he rarely gets ugly over it and doesn't defend a point that's been obviously undermined.

[rossmum]

You evidently missed the posting spree that got him banned in the first place.

I respected him right up until the point I realised he was a bigoted prick.

[Dole]

Ross, if you manage to show me bigotry, I will concede. Good luck.

I didn't have any ban-worthy posts in that thread, so Dr@Home gave me infractions for the derailed conversation between me and Agamemnon saying "you and agamdroogn really need to learn when to stop." Supposedly he gave Agamemnon an infraction, also, but it seems he laid an extra one on me just for the sake of being able to illegitimately chalk up a ban.


Oh god you're right, he would surely have some foaming page long rant about how a certain demographic doesn't deserve to exist, etc.
What?

[Agamemnon]

I actually got two, one which wasn't even warnable and was done just to please you to make it seem like you weren't completely at fault, despite that you were.

Also,

http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=140446&postcount=4
http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=140854&postcount=12

Now get out.

[TeeKup]

Wow, all of you, shut up.

[kungpow]

Lets stay on topic of the thread and at least try and have some intelligent discussion! :(

I know for a fact that there are some very intelligent people in this forum who surely must have something constructive to say

[Agamemnon]

We wouldn't have this problem if it was stopped when the first sign of it flared up. You want to blame someone, blame the administration.

[kungpow]

I dont want to blame anyone im just trying to salvage this D: (and obviously i cant do shit :()

[rossmum]

Ross, if you manage to show me bigotry, I will concede. Good luck.
Oh ok so all those posts about how Russians, gays, bis, and people who have sex before marriage are the scum of the Earth were something else, then?

[Texrat]

I actually got two, one which wasn't even warnable and was done just to please you to make it seem like you weren't completely at fault, despite that you were.

Also,

http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=140446&postcount=4
http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=140854&postcount=12

Now get out.

Yeah, I missed those. Definitely bigotry.

Dole, wtf. You're smarter than that.

[TeeKup]

Oh ok so all those posts about how Russians, gays, bis, and people who have sex before marriage are the scum of the Earth were something else, then?

I don't want to get into another argument but ross is right. All that crap was REALLT ignorant and TOTALLY uncalled for. Regardless of your beliefs and values, all of that was just wrong.

[Rob Oplawar]

Kyle, for a long time I've wanted to state my position on this. Now, once and for all, I'd like to tell everyone that I feel that
*out of time*

[Rosco]

What? Tell me where there is lack of evidence supporting evolution. You can observe it in your own house if you have a mosquito infestation.

Holy shit you do know I exist.

Maybe next time I wont respond.

You tell me where this 'lack of evidence' bit came up. All I said was no proovable evidence. Sure. It's there, anyone can be told that, but no-one can go back in time to proove it's not some mangled skull after being dumped in acid.

[Con]

Jahrain, I think Rosco means there's lots of proof when it comes to evolution, but when we're talking about things that happened in the past, it's harder to prove these things since we really don't know what happened exactly.

IMO, evolution theory for mankind makes perfect sense and has enough proof behind it already.

[Rob Oplawar]

IMO, evolution theory for mankind makes perfect sense and has enough strong evidence behind it already.ftfy

The whole big stink about the vs argument is that those who tout Creationism preach it as fact, because they believe it is, and at the same time people present Evolution as fact. The thing is, Creationism is more of a faith thing and therefore it defeats the purpose to present it as fact, and Evolution is a very well supported theory but still just a theory nonetheless. Sure you can observe natural selection and micro-evolution of species, but we still can't prove macro-evolution because it spans far too many millenia for us to have observed. But let's not get started on logical counter-arguments to creationism, because the premise supporting it is to abandon logic and reason in favor of faith. It's wrapped up in layers of anti-logic defense.

edit: I guess at this point it would be kind of redundant to state my position on this issue...

[jahrain]

ftfy

The whole big stink about the vs argument is that those who tout Creationism preach it as fact, because they believe it is, and at the same time people present Evolution as fact. The thing is, Creationism is more of a faith thing and therefore it defeats the purpose to present it as fact, and Evolution is a very well supported theory but still just a theory nonetheless. Sure you can observe natural selection and micro-evolution of species, but we still can't prove macro-evolution because it spans far too many millenia for us to have observed. But let's not get started on logical counter-arguments to creationism, because the premise supporting it is to abandon logic and reason in favor of faith. It's wrapped up in layers of anti-logic defense.

But I could come up with a logical argument for creationism.

If we evolved, what created that of which we evolved from? If nothing was created at some point, then nothing could exist. We exist, therefore we were created. :downs:

10 points to anyone who can spotlight the fallacy in this argument :awesome:

[Skiiran]

But I could come up with a logical argument for creationism.

If we evolved, what created that of which we evolved from? If nothing was created at some point, then nothing could exist. We exist, therefore we were created. :downs:

10 points to anyone who can spotlight the fallacy in this argument :awesome:
Your argument has to have the other accept the idea that whatever came before us was created. Your argument is using creationism to argue creationism.

[n00b1n8R]

^winer.

[Con]

^winner.
loser^

[n00b1n8R]

loser^
speeling police^

[Pooky]

loser^

who-gives-a-fuck^

[Skiiran]

NOW IT IS TIME FOR SHE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE.

SCIENCE! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o)
I am surprised and upset that a thread went this long without Science.

[Rob Oplawar]

It's poetry in motion!

[n00b1n8R]

yeah man i mean it's just a theory i mean i still don't believe in this whole "atom" business it's just silly if you ask me;

obviously evolution happens, but there is just no way of going back to when the first microbe appeared and seeing if it accidentilly assembled it's self or if some god came along and went "ima make life lol".

however, I go for the first theory.

now the thread is back ontopic...

[kungpow]

"accidentally assembled" is a tad different to natural selection.

[n00b1n8R]

whell the first microbe occoured by accident.
if we were to assume that this microbe required a creator to come into being, then we would also have to assume that that creator needed a creator and then it strech's off into infinity.

[kungpow]

Isnt there a theory that matter has always existed and the spawning of a microbe was just a matter of time.

[Rob Oplawar]

I have a theory:
the universe is ridiculously huge, with enough individual particles to be considered infinite. And the universe has existed for a ridiculously long time and will continue to exist for a ridiculously longer time. I think that the size and lifespan of the universe are just big and long enough that everything that could ever possibly exist according to the rules of our universe will at some point.

Also, anybody who thinks that life spontaneously coming into existence and evolving into our present form is way too unlikely to have happened should go take a good long look at Hubble Deep Field. No matter how unlikely anything is, our universe is so unimaginably huge and has been around for such an unimaginably long time that it was just bound to happen at some point, and is very likely to have happened quite a lot.

edit: Hubble Deep Field is the single most important, amazing, beautiful photograph ever taken.

[kungpow]

Thats the photo of thousands upon thousands of spiral galaxies right?

[Texrat]

Isnt there a theory that matter has always existed and the spawning of a microbe was just a matter of time.

No doubt, but consider: everything we know says that the creation of matter *should* be met with simultaneous creation of antimatter, and they cancel each other out. SOMEthing biased our reality toward matter and skewed the process. So what is the random factor that ruins a perfectly good stasis? How and why does it occur? Why isn't all of reality nothing but a steady matter/antimatter generating engine in perfect tune? Or why isn't there just Nothing?

[kungpow]

I think i need some aspirin after that one tex.

[Texrat]

I think i need some aspirin after that one tex.

When your head feels better, here's the meat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis

[kungpow]

You're on a mission to make my head implode arnt you

[Texrat]

You're on a mission to make my head implode arnt you

Oh, it isn't just your head. I see head implosion as the next big art form. I'll sign each imploded head and put it up on ebay.

[kungpow]

I better get a cut of your in-come.

[Texrat]

Kinda hard to pay an imploded head. Who's in your will? :D

[kungpow]

Gah! >.< Give the money to the anti-texrat implosion market society I've just created.

[Teroh]

Open to anything, just show me proof.

[kenney001]

Personally, i believe there is a god, so my theory will be a little biased.

I believe in both. The evolution chain had to start somewhere, and that somewhere was God. Simple as that.....Evolution does exist...so does creation.

Now, i also dont believe we will ever have the capacity to ever fully grasp an understanding of where we and the universe came from. That is beyond the limits of our brain.

[kungpow]

Dont you think ruling it down to god is a bit to much like taking the easy way out? =p



I think we have the capacity to figure it out....but im not sure about our ability to live long enough to find out.

[Texrat]

Open to anything, just show me proof.

Here's a proof:

Given:

Segment AD bisects segment BC.
Segment BC bisects segment AD.
Prove:

Triangles ABM and DCM are congruent.


http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/9/9468de070d794b4c203fe8a51bd73917/sampleproofb.gif

[Teroh]

Here's a proof:

Given:

Segment AD bisects segment BC.
Segment BC bisects segment AD.
Prove:

Triangles ABM and DCM are congruent.


http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/9/9468de070d794b4c203fe8a51bd73917/sampleproofb.gif


FUCK PROOFS.
I'm in Geo right now. Don't start that crap with me.

[Rob Oplawar]

i like proofs. real proofs. real proofs are good. bogus proofs like what i was getting in the edge of the universe thread suck.

[Texrat]

i like proofs. real proofs. real proofs are good. bogus proofs like what i was getting in the edge of the universe thread suck.

I was fond of my proofs, though.

[Skiiran]

Proofs are some serious hate-math. Why must I prove some old guy's theorem when he already did?

[Emmzee]

The more posts by Texrat I find in a thread, the more intellectual it gets.

Proof:
As x posts by Texrat in a thread increase, y level of intellectuality in a thread increases exponentially by
y=2.3x+1

[Texrat]

The more posts by Texrat I find in a thread, the more intellectual it gets.

Proof:
As x posts by Texrat in a thread increase, y level of intellectuality in a thread increases exponentially by
y=2.3x+1

That equation only resolves true where nuttiness = intellectualism.

[CN3089]

The more posts by Texrat I find in a thread, the more intellectual it gets.

Proof:
As x posts by Texrat in a thread increase, y level of intellectuality in a thread increases exponentially by
y=2.3x+1

But that's a linear equation http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-crossarms.gif

[atomicpower93]

hmm i'd have to say evolution but there is absolutley no proof that god does or doesnt exist, you will have to wait till you die!!
(and if god did exist why would he make everything so complicated (not as in simple maths but you know what i mean))

[jahrain]

Personally, i believe there is a god, so my theory will be a little biased.

I believe in both. The evolution chain had to start somewhere, and that somewhere was God. Simple as that.....Evolution does exist...so does creation.You just paraphrased my fallacious argument. You assume creation to argue creation.


Now, i also dont believe we will ever have the capacity to ever fully grasp an understanding of where we and the universe came from. That is beyond the limits of our brain.It makes sense if and a human mind can easily grasp the concept if you assume that the universe has always existed. The "beginning" simply implies where we start measuring from but there will always be something before that. Thats what the concept of evolution implies.

[Flyboy]

If you take several hundreds of gases found on early earth (too many for me to even begin to list) and add about the same amount of electricity as a lightning bolt (which were also common on early earth) your end up with all the amino acids necessary for life. (it's true, google it) That pretty much sums it up. The chance of life NOT happening by chance is low, at least here.

At least thats better than the theory created by a bunch of idiots came up with in the beginning of the bible. All religion was created because man didn't know. Don't have any idea how things were made? No problem, just say some god did it to keep your town from waisting time asking questions. Hey, the earth looks flat when you look at the horizon, thus, it's flat. If a guy makes up a bunch of stories about walking on water, then hey, he's the son of god.

The entire premise of religion was because people didn't know, and because at the time there wasn't effective technology or proper thought train, gods were the best thing to use to explain how the world worked. As time went on however, more and more people had the tools to discover, and with discovery came questions, with questions came evidence, with evidence came theories. And those theories, backed up by fact, easily abolish religion. Why do you think that over the past century the number of atheists has nearly increased ten fold? It's all because we're finally finding out how things work for REAL through physics and astronomy, and the idea of a god creating and controlling everything is becoming less and less credible when compared to scientific theories.

[Texrat]

At least thats better than the theory created by a bunch of idiots came up with in the beginning of the bible. All religion was created because man didn't know.

Actually, Creationism is not a theory. It fails the definition.

And as for the "idiots", religion as we know it is actually a means of capturing advanced astrological knowledge from the distant past, hiding it in myth and perserving it for future generations that can recognize and use it. Many scholars are now grasping that the real critical purpose of major religious faiths is to pass on warnings of previous doom that can occur again. Comets, ice ages, floods, etc. Idiots? Not hardly.

[Con]

Hmm that's an interesting idea Tex, I've never thought of it that way. I knew Religions were in many ways based off of astrological things, but I never knew the purpose behind it.

[Flyboy]

Actually, Creationism is not a theory. It fails the definition.

And as for the "idiots", religion as we know it is actually a means of capturing advanced astrological knowledge from the distant past, hiding it in myth and perserving it for future generations that can recognize and use it. Many scholars are now grasping that the real critical purpose of major religious faiths is to pass on warnings of previous doom that can occur again. Comets, ice ages, floods, etc. Idiots? Not hardly.
If that was the case then rome would still be standing.

[rossmum]

If that was the case then rome would still be standing.
Maybe they were like you and didn't even bother to step back for a moment and look deeper into it. :downs:

[Pooky]

If that was the case then rome would still be standing.

The united states is basically the modern rome. Now step back for a second and explain why they should still be standing.

[Texrat]

If that was the case then rome would still be standing.

I don't see the correlation. Mind explaining?

[Texrat]

Hmm that's an interesting idea Tex, I've never thought of it that way. I knew Religions were in many ways based off of astrological things, but I never knew the purpose behind it.

The wealth of knowledge on the subject is vast, but this is still an underground topic. Religious leaders aren't going to acknowledge it because they've built a business around keeping things simple and under their control. Scientists tend to avoid getting involved with religion. Historians don't like their paradigms upset. So the research is undertaken by those with no agenda other than sincere curiosity. Graham Hancock is one of the best at investigating what's beneath the surface. His books "Underworld" and "Footprints of the Gods" are mind-blowing.

[Pooky]

I don't see the correlation. Mind explaining?
Well, the united states has a lot of the same flaws as the late roman empire... we're getting lazy, cocky, and acting like we can manage the whole world by ourselves. Personally I don't think the United States is going to last another 100 years if we keep it up.

[Texrat]

Well, the united states has a lot of the same flaws as the late roman empire... we're getting lazy, cocky, and acting like we can manage the whole world by ourselves. Personally I don't think the United States is going to last another 100 years if we keep it up.

The question was addressed to Flyboy's remark about Rome standing (note that I'm not meaning to be rude).

[n00b1n8R]

Isn't china supposed to have a huge stock of USD that they've threated to flood the market with?

[Pooky]

The question was addressed to Flyboy's remark about Rome standing (note that I'm not meaning to be rude).
Ah, k.

[Texrat]

Isn't china supposed to have a huge stock of USD that they've threated to flood the market with?

China (and Japan, et al) hold vast amounts of US bonds and dollars. If they cashed in those bonds at once, our economy would crash in minutes. Imagine the leverage...

[kungpow]

I don't like how the Vatican uses there religious beliefs to get power...very corrupt. (but who the hell doesn't know that)

[Texrat]

I don't like how the Vatican uses there religious beliefs to get power...very corrupt. (but who the hell doesn't know that)

Biggest business on the planet IIRC.

[Flyboy]

Ok, if your wondering about the rome thing, here's why I said it. During the middle ages (or dark ages, call it what you will), most of the wars were caused by separation from the roman empire. Rome had extended its reach beyond what it could grasp, all of Europe and many parts of asia. Rome had forced many rules and regulations upon its citizens, who were often thousands of miles away from their representation. One of the big things was religion, the entire country was bound by one religion, and people all around had different variations or different ideas entirely of their own religions. Eventually this obviously led to hundreds of rebellions which created the countries of Europe we know today yada yada yada. When rome and its colonies were attacked, much of the science and history from that time was burned, lost, destroyed, or pronounced heresy by the churches. If religion was intended to give some record of knowledge, then why was so much information destroyed (the entire reason in my mind rome fell. If the information was still there, theoretically so would rome.)

And also, about the passing down of generations. I can understand that people would need a method to pass these things on. And yes, religion does sound good, take your average citizen, tell him a few stories with modification of gods and myth for him to remember it, it passes around the world, and for thousands of years it is remembered. But if those people had realized that creating stories to "inform" people (which I doubt was their intent anyway) would eventually create cults with millions of followers, that burned and imprisoned scientists for trying to find out how the world really worked, but conflicted with ancient scriptures based on nothing. Or how about our modern problem with the arabs, who have blinded themselves in their religion to where their willing, and wishing to commit mass murder upon people who disagree with their religion.

[Pooky]

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=199

[Rob Oplawar]

^ i loled

[Texrat]

Ok, if your wondering about the rome thing, here's why I said it. During the middle ages (or dark ages, call it what you will), most of the wars were caused by separation from the roman empire. Rome had extended its reach beyond what it could grasp, all of Europe and many parts of asia. Rome had forced many rules and regulations upon its citizens, who were often thousands of miles away from their representation. One of the big things was religion, the entire country was bound by one religion, and people all around had different variations or different ideas entirely of their own religions. Eventually this obviously led to hundreds of rebellions which created the countries of Europe we know today yada yada yada. When rome and its colonies were attacked, much of the science and history from that time was burned, lost, destroyed, or pronounced heresy by the churches. If religion was intended to give some record of knowledge, then why was so much information destroyed (the entire reason in my mind rome fell. If the information was still there, theoretically so would rome.)

And also, about the passing down of generations. I can understand that people would need a method to pass these things on. And yes, religion does sound good, take your average citizen, tell him a few stories with modification of gods and myth for him to remember it, it passes around the world, and for thousands of years it is remembered. But if those people had realized that creating stories to "inform" people (which I doubt was their intent anyway) would eventually create cults with millions of followers, that burned and imprisoned scientists for trying to find out how the world really worked, but conflicted with ancient scriptures based on nothing. Or how about our modern problem with the arabs, who have blinded themselves in their religion to where their willing, and wishing to commit mass murder upon people who disagree with their religion.

It's just a little silly to blame the original intent for the corrupted result.

[Flyboy]

That is if you believe that was their original intent. From my point of view it wasn't, I was just taring through your arguement.

[ExAm]

Wow...


This thread isn't filled with spam.

I'm Evolutionist, btw.

[Texrat]

That is if you believe that was their original intent. From my point of view it wasn't, I was just taring through your arguement.

"Taring" through my argument? I'll assume that was just a typo. So tell me, since I seem to be missing it: just where is my argument torn?

By the way, your Rome points are completely misguided vis-a-vis what I'm saying. The original intent of myth was obviously co-opted by charismatic figures who saw an opportunity to warp a mystery into religion for their own ends. There's reems of evidence to support what I'm saying but you won't find it in the extremes of the Holy Bible or the conventional history texts. It's gonna defy a skimming approach to research and reason, too.

[rossmum]

Flyboy, I'll put it simply for you:

You've got about as much chance of winning an argument with Tex as you do of winning a mudslinging match with me. I suggest you don't bother.

[Emmzee]

Flyboy, I'll put it simply for you:

You've got about as much chance of winning an argument with Tex as you do of winning a mudslinging match with me. I suggest you don't bother.
^tbh.

Flyboy, you're not a GBX veteran, so you don't know Tex's arguing skills. I can only hope to be half of the arguer he is.

[Texrat]

MZ, you are TWICE the arguer I am.

And Rossie is 4 times the spammer.

[rossmum]

I try.

[Flyboy]

^tbh.

Flyboy, you're not a GBX veteran, so you don't know Tex's arguing skills. I can only hope to be half of the arguer he is.
There's a different between an argument with the intent of winning, and an argument with the intent of arguing? We're just debating our opinions. Don't confuse this with the personal attacks me and Ross used to have.

Also, I've snooped around here since november of last year, just hesitated too join since May (The point where the MAW just became too idle for me to post). So I could "kinda" be considered a veteran, but thats up to you.

Mind sharing some of that evidence? I'd actually like to know.

[rossmum]

Either way, at no point were you taring through his argument.

Come to think of it, you weren't tearing through it, either.

[Texrat]

There's a different between an argument with the intent of winning, and an argument with the intent of arguing? We're just debating our opinions. Don't confuse this with the personal attacks me and Ross used to have.

Also, I've snooped around here since november of last year, just hesitated too join since May (The point where the MAW just became too idle for me to post). So I could "kinda" be considered a veteran, but thats up to you.

Mind sharing some of that evidence? I'd actually like to know.

I agree with the first part.

As for evidence, start with the 2 books I recommended.

[Rosco]

this thread went south

[Texrat]

this thread went south

It devolved.

[rossmum]

Oh I see what you did there

Are we even talking about creationism or evolution anymore?

[Bodzilla]

well kinda.

it's more about you going from Boyhood to manhood. We cant decide whether it's a freak occurance, such as a Mutation or wether it's gods Devine intervention :downs:

[/shameless Luls at Ross]

i feel dirty.