Ant, you need to calm down.

You are abusive and hostile without even attempting to contribute to the conversation.

Ant, you need to calm down.

You are abusive and hostile without even attempting to contribute to the conversation.

Did you see youkrst response to me in another post?

Be even-handed. Don't be a biased chump. Call him out.
If not, stop crying about it like an infant.

Your bullshit double standard is weak.

ant wrote:

Ant, you need to calm down.

You are abusive and hostile without even attempting to contribute to the conversation.

Did you see youkrst response to me in another post?

Be even-handed. Don't be a biased chump. Call him out.
If not, stop crying about it like an infant.

Your bullshit double standard is weak.

So something youkrst posted on another thread means it's okay to be an ass on this one? Are you holding grudges against others as well? Does this mean you will never behave in a civil manner again, or is there a time limit?

I'm calling you on your trollish behavior. Put a stop to it or go somewhere else to be an offensive boor.

He slammed you for being unreasonably dickish in response to interbanes perfectly reasonable, un-provacative post.

You descended into a childish foot stomping rant that was un-called for, which i also commented was unreasonable, and you've since only escalated to even more hysterical and shrill trolling.

Nobody is impressed with your sass mouth, Ant.

It isn't interesting, and when you've finally succeeded in getting yourself banned with this deliberately bone headed behavior nobody here will miss you and you can go to other sites and say how crazy and unreasonable those dawkin worshipping atheists over here are. You might want to hire somebody to pat your back for you. You'll get tennis elbow.

I did see what yourkrist said, and yours was the more inappropriate post.

So something youkrst posted on another thread means it's okay to be an ass on this one? Are you holding grudges against others as well? Does this mean you will never behave in a civil manner again, or is there a time limit?

Don't be outraged by my tone when someone here that vocally supports your opinions is being just as vulgar right in front of your face.
I don't buy it and will ignore anyone's crying who is conveniently looking the other way. That includes you.

In an effort to get back on track . . .

Dawkins' larger point is to address the artificial categorizations we place on ourselves and other animals as well. We routinely judge others based on sexual preference, race, religious affiliation. So to imagine holding hands with your mother who holds hands with her mother and so on until you eventually come to Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and others (transitional early humans that have never been discovered) before coming to the first common ancestor we share with the chimpanzee reminds us of how interconnected we all are.

This reminds me of what Kinsey said about trying to place humans in definite categories of sexuality, either fully homosexual or fully heterosexual. It's important to be reminded of the way our brains work where we try so hard to categorize the world into easily recognizable compartments. The real world doesn't quite work like that.

Kinsey wrote:Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.

So the idea that there was no first human--no Adam and Eve--is not only contrary to biblical thought, but to much of the philosophy of the western world. Humans have always imagined a precise beginning and of humans just showing up at some point. The truth is much more complicated and much more amazing that.

The continuous model posed by Dawkins comes with some moral and ethical conundrums with respect to animal rights.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/te ... kins01.htm

johnson1010 wrote:He slammed you for being unreasonably dickish in response to interbanes perfectly reasonable, un-provacative post.

You descended into a childish foot stomping rant that was un-called for, which i also commented was unreasonable, and you've since only escalated to even more hysterical and shrill trolling.

Nobody is impressed with your sass mouth, Ant.

It isn't interesting, and when you've finally succeeded in getting yourself banned with this deliberately bone headed behavior nobody here will miss you and you can go to other sites and say how crazy and unreasonable those dawkin worshipping atheists over here are. You might want to hire somebody to pat your back for you. You'll get tennis elbow.

I did see what yourkrist said, and yours was the more inappropriate post.

Oh puleasee.

You're whining like a baby.
I thought a reply was funny on the link Dexter provided and right away Geo laments that no one else thought it was funny.

I mean, really? No one else thought it was funny so it shouldn't be thought of as funny by anyone else that did?

Give me a fucking break.

You're acting like a big baby.
Grow up and move on. You're really looking for an excuse to keep your echo chamber alive. If you'd like, I can leave. Just ask.

comment withdrawn

Actually, I'm going to take a break myself . . .

Interbane wrote:

sonoman wrote:What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not?

You would only misunderstand this if you had no clue how the mechanisms of evolution would unfold. The first man and first woman refer to the oldest known specimens. Go searching for a quote from any of the scientists who discovered these "firsts", and you'll see that none of them actually hold the silly notion that they are truly the first organisms of a species.

Interbane, give it up. You're out of your league when you cross swords with me. I guess you've forgotten my mentioning my major in anthropology at U.C. Berkeley so please, stop trying to slander me as if I don't know Darwin's theory of evolution quite thoroughly. That's just you resorting to name-calling again because you have no reasoned argument to present against my accurate criticism that Dawkins is merely mouthing a truism that is essentially meaningless except as more atheist anti-theist fodder for lesser minds to soak up as if words from above, the atheist's Trinity being Darwin and Hawkings and Dawkins it appears. You can fall for Dawkin's little dance but don't expect thinking people to be deceived by it.

Evolution happens gradually, sometimes accelerated, sometimes slowly, but always along a gradient. A gradient which corresponds to small genetic changes with each generation. What we find in fossil remains are points along the gradient, waypoints on a map.

I was digging up fossils before you were born.

ant wrote:This post was meant as a joke, right?
Or was this more of a "How to think like Richard Dawkins" exercise?

Do you understand the mechanism of evolution? What are you attempting to criticize? Why not criticize leap years? After all, can we truly pinpoint the position of the Earth in spacetime, considering that not only the solar system but also the galaxy is moving as well as the Earth? Why not criticize the nitrogen cycle? Has anyone actually seen a nitrogen molecule flow through this entire cycle? You criticize it because you lack the capacity to understand physical systems. It may only be a thought experiment, but it's not far off the mark.

It's an exercise in atheist propaganda and a feeble one at that. It's nothing more than stating the obvious but it obviously does the job of convincing atheist fundies that something important was being said. Every bullet counts in the atheist arsenal against theists, right?

sonoman wrote:
It's an exercise in atheist propaganda and a feeble one at that. It's nothing more than stating the obvious but it obviously does the job of convincing atheist fundies that something important was being said. Every bullet counts in the atheist arsenal against theists, right?

It's hard to pin down you or ant on making any actual arguments, but lets try again. Do you disagree with Dawkins that if you lined up your ancestors, they would show a very gradual shift until you've reached a very primitive species?

If you agree with this non-controversial statement -- which was the sole purpose of this thought experiment, I just thought it was a good way of stating it -- then what are you getting all bent out of shape about? And how can you reconcile this with a unique human soul, which I assume you believe in? When did God put it in?

If you disagree, then you believe in Creationism, yes?