We evolved from a great ape, now what?

[Wild Cobra]

Mate, what is a devolver?

LOL...

I just found a YOUTUBE of it, go to 18:50 in the time:

[Woo Bum-kon]

And calling me chicken isn't insulting, or making baseless accusations, and then asking for a debate? Get serious!

You lack reading comprehension. I never claimed that I only asked you civilly. I did repeatedly ask you what you believed and why. You chose not to answer, so I called you out for being the coward that you are.

Why are you so afraid to say what you believe, SA210 2.0? Ask me the questions that I asked you and I will gladly answer them. It's not that hard. Stop being a coward.

[silverblk mystix]

You lack reading comprehension. I never claimed that I only asked you civilly. I did repeatedly ask you what you believed and why. You chose not to answer, so I called you out for being the coward that you are.

Why are you so afraid to say what you believe, SA210 2.0? Ask me the questions that I asked you and I will gladly answer them. It's not that hard. Stop being a coward.

SMH

Being destroyed by Avante, and then by me, wasn't enough?

Now you are begging for xmas to destroy you?

Funny .

[Woo Bum-kon]

sbm could never destroy anybody so long as he keeps ignoring the advice that he gives everybody else.

" live life to its fullest "
" stop worrying about what others say "
"No, I'm not a hypocrite, because only the people I sided with and I can argue on SpursTalk! Everybody else is just wasting their lives."

[xmas1997]

SMH

Being destroyed by Avante, and then by me, wasn't enough?

Now you are begging for xmas to destroy you?

Funny .

Nah, a quarter of the time Woo acts civil, but the rest he is insulting and flat out contentious.
So I won't even try to destroy him in the interest of that 1/4 decency.
But how can someone who resorts to ugly immature behavior expect anyone to take him seriously enough to discuss anything with him, much less give him the time of day?
That is what makes me question his intelligence.
That should be a no-brainer!


The sad truth is, so far when he has broken down my posts to spew his BS, he has failed to understand anything that I said, similar to how he has replied to you SBM. Because his rebuttals have noting to do with my answers. It is as if he made up my answers for me and was debating that.
That is preposterous.

[Woo Bum-kon]

At the thought of you destroying me. You're too afraid to even take a stance, so what do I have to fear? And you have also shown that you can't read too well, judging by your previous response to me.

[xmas1997]

Woo, you need to learn debate decorum before you can begin to do the debate itself. You cannot put the cart before the horse. Can you get this through your thick head?
Truth.
You will never get anyone of any intelligence to debate you or discuss anything with you with your at ude of hostility and derisiveness, pure and simple.
To any normal person it reeks of "baiting", which smacks of trolling.
Why should I, or anyone else take you seriously when you act that way? They won't, they'll laugh at your supposed ignorance.
Just saying.

[xmas1997]

At the thought of you destroying me. You're too afraid to even take a stance, so what do I have to fear? And you have also shown that you can't read too well, judging by your previous response to me.

Woo, you ed up, buddy. You made your bed. Now go and sleep in it like a good little boy.
Then after a while, if and when you show your face here again, and provided you display some badly needed decency, respect, and civility, maybe then someone will be inclined to discuss something with you.
But not with the hot headed at ude you are running under now.
Only an idiot would, and I am no idiot.
Do you understand?
Or are you going to continue to spin your baiting BS?
My bet is on the latter.

[Woo Bum-kon]

And I am just saying that you are a coward with hurt feelings. I don't give a if you call me names; I will present my points regardless. When you are called a name, you want to take your ball and go home. You. Are. A. Coward. Period. You feign outrage so you can get out of answering questions. You're just another SA210. Instead of answering a simple question, you will instead post paragraph after paragraph about how you don't like how other posters conduct themselves. You're a baby.

I will ask you again, and this time pretend that this is a general question that you don't have to follow up on: Do you reject or accept the claim, "A god exists"? If you accept it, explain why. Just respond. You don't even have to reply to me ever again (that would still make you a coward, but you'll at least be a coward who isn't afraid to take a stance).

[mouse]

Original question: We evolved from a great ape, now what?


Answer: We use 13 pages proving it

[xmas1997]

Woo, I am not even going to read what you posted.
Your first sentence probably sums up what your whole post is about and it obviously is baiting, contentious, disrespectful, insulting, and totally hostile.
Your spots are showing. You don't even attempt to change your at ude.
Live with yourself, if you can.
Make all the baseless, fallacious accusations you want until you turn blue in the face from lack of breath, because the next color you will turn is red, from making such a total fool of yourself.
You are doing it, not me. I am just casually watching the theatrics.

[mouse]

Woo, I am not even going to read what you posted.

He can, be taught !!

[xmas1997]

He can, be taught !!

I've already been teaching fuuzzy the rudiments of basic English and discussion and grammar.
I don't need another pupil.
I didn't even want the first one.
But they keep pestering me.

[Clipper Nation]

Woo, I am not even going to read what you posted.
Your first sentence probably sums up what your whole post is about and it obviously is baiting, contentious, disrespectful, insulting, and totally hostile.
Your spots are showing. You don't even attempt to change your at ude.
Live with yourself, if you can.
Make all the baseless, fallacious accusations you want until you turn blue in the face from lack of breath, because the next color you will turn is red, from making such a total fool of yourself.
You are doing it, not me. I am just casually watching the theatrics.

Once again, you are using your overexaggerated outrage about other peoples' tone and word choice as an excuse to duck their questions and avoid addressing their points, tbh....

[xmas1997]

Once again, you are using your overexaggerated outrage about other peoples' tone and word choice as an excuse to duck their questions and avoid addressing their points, tbh....

I guess your reading comprehension suffers too because I answered every one of the questions on the topic we were debating, but he didn't understand any of them.
Then out of the clear blue he brings up another topic before finishing the first one, expecting me to reply to that one as well as attributing it to me when it was another poster who was arguing it.
There. Satisfied?
Sometimes I wonder how any of you ever got out of school.
You can make all the silly claims all you want to but it does not change the facts.
Go back and read the thread progression next time before bringing any more silly false claims my way.
It would do wonders for your credibility, and self esteem. Plus it would save me some writing time.

[xmas1997]

Once again, you are using your overexaggerated outrage about other peoples' tone and word choice as an excuse to duck their questions and avoid addressing their points, tbh....

Over exaggerated?
Outrage?
Me?
Compared to what you just wrote?

[Blake]

Sometimes I wonder how any of you ever got out of school.

it's you that's behind here, tbh.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I guess your reading comprehension suffers too because I answered every one of the questions on the topic we were debating, but he didn't understand any of them.

Let's review:
- You tried to assert that the definition of atheism that I posted was made up by me because it didn't exactly match the definition on dictionary.com. Let's first disregard the fact that you are getting your definition of atheism from a general dictionary as if dictionary.com is an actual authority on the subject ( , I took one philosophy class and even I know not to use a simple dictionary when talking about potentially complex subjects ).

Anyway, here's what I described atheism as:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

Here's you accusing me of making it up:

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?

I have to take a break for a moment and again laugh at you for using broad definitions and thinking that they are the only definitions there are.

Anyway, here's the rest of your post:

In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition.Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.

That's you accusing me of making up the definition I provided.

Again, here's "my" definition:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

And here's the second definition on Dictionary.com, which was YOUR source, by the way:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So, not only were you completely wrong about me trying to establish myself as an authority, you also never even bothered to admit it. , you were too lazy to even read the second definition from your own source. I pointed out repeatedly that dictionary.com does not contradict what I posted, and you ignored me.

So, in regards to that whole definition of atheism argument we were having, YOU. WERE. WRONG. You were wrong when you accused me of making up my own definition and you were being stupid and lazy for using dictionary.com as your source in the first place.

If we are going to get anywhere, first acknowledge that you were wrong when you accused me of trying to set myself up as an authority on what atheism is.

[The Reckoning]

how can anyone read xmas' posts anyway? kills my eyes after the first line with how he spaces.

[ChumpDumper]

I keep reading the thread le wrong.



And yes, he is taking a on this thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've already been teaching fuuzzy the rudiments of basic English and discussion and grammar.
I don't need another pupil.
I didn't even want the first one.
But they keep pestering me.

Gossiping about me again? I wasn't even around yesterday yet here you are talking bad about me.


What a backbiting s bag you are.

[xmas1997]

Let's review:
- You tried to assert that the definition of atheism that I posted was made up by me because it didn't exactly match the definition on dictionary.com. Let's first disregard the fact that you are getting your definition of atheism from a general dictionary as if dictionary.com is an actual authority on the subject ( , I took one philosophy class and even I know not to use a simple dictionary when talking about potentially complex subjects ).

Anyway, here's what I described atheism as:



Here's you accusing me of making it up:



I have to take a break for a moment and again laugh at you for using broad definitions and thinking that they are the only definitions there are.

Anyway, here's the rest of your post:


That's you accusing me of making up the definition I provided.

Again, here's "my" definition:



And here's the second definition on Dictionary.com, which was YOUR source, by the way:



So, not only were you completely wrong about me trying to establish myself as an authority, you also never even bothered to admit it. , you were too lazy to even read the second definition from your own source. I pointed out repeatedly that dictionary.com does not contradict what I posted, and you ignored me.

So, in regards to that whole definition of atheism argument we were having, YOU. WERE. WRONG. You were wrong when you accused me of making up my own definition and you were being stupid and lazy for using dictionary.com as your source in the first place.

If we are going to get anywhere, first acknowledge that you were wrong when you accused me of trying to set myself up as an authority on what atheism is.

Woo, I did not get the general impression you were anywhere near being sincere about wanting to debate this subject. Rather your tone gave the opposite impression, that your sole motivation was to ridicule, poke holes, and generally make a mockery of the whole thread so that you could do some trolling.
And every one of your posts since, appeared to back this up.

But in the interest of good spirit, and because you at least changed your tone somewhat, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and go back and reread the entire thread to see where this all got hay wired, thrown for a loop, so to speak.
Then I will revisit this post of yours and reply.

Give me a bit of time to do this.
But I warn you, that since this takes time and effort, if I get a hint your sole aim is to bait and troll, then do not expect me to ever give you that benefit again.

My motivation is solely to examine, understand, and reexamine, so that I, regardless of others, might learn something that maybe I had hitherto missed.
You never know where truth will come from, or from who.

I will try to do this with a nonjudgmental, non biased, and open frame of mind.
If one presupposes anything, then it could taint the tincture.
If you go into something like this with already a presupposed idea, then you will look for those things that support your notion, and discard those things that do not. I do not want that to happen.

At best we may be able to unravel a bit of the "mystery" on all this. At worst, we will come away convinced that no one can prove anything one way or the other at this point in time, which was my summation when I entered this discussion with you, and thus arrived at the burden of proof issue and verdict.

Fair enough?

[Woo Bum-kon]

No, not fair enough. All you have to do is click the links in the quotes that I posted. Admit that you were wrong. I didn't want to waste more time on this, but since you insisted on it, I will. And this time I won't let you slide like I did before.

You accused me of making up a definition for atheism; I didn't. You were wrong. Admit it.

[xmas1997]

Biologists reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor, because it would be virtually impossible that two or more separate lineages could have independently developed the many complex biochemical mechanisms common to all living organisms.^[35][36] As previously mentioned the earliest organisms for which fossil evidence is available arebacteria, cells far too complex to have arisen directly from non-living materials.^[37] The lack of fossil or geochemical evidence for earlier organisms has left plenty of scope for hypotheses, which fall into two main groups: 1) that life arose spontaneously on Earth or 2) that it was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe.

You are grasping for the "seeded theory", right?
Well, if God flew around in an unidentified spacecraft, quite possibly.

Atheists are within their boundaries to have these discussions. Theists aren't. Theists profess a belief in a watchful God, yet many live as if they don't believe it either.

At least the atheist has the courage of his convictions.

The idea that life on Earth was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe dates back at least to the Greek philosopher Anaximander in the sixth century BCE.^[38] In the twentieth century it was proposed by the physical chemistSvante Arrhenius,^[39] by the astronomersFred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe,^[40] and by molecular biologistFrancis Crick and chemist Leslie Orgel.^[41] There are three main versions of the "seeded from elsewhere" hypothesis: from elsewhere in our Solar System via fragments knocked into space by a large meteor impact, in which case the most credible sources are Mars^[42] and Venus;^[43] by alien visitors, possibly as a result of accidental contamination by micro-organisms that they brought with them;^[41] and from outside the Solar System but by natural means.^[39][42] Experiments suggest that some micro-organisms can survive the shock of being catapulted into space and some can survive exposure to radiation for several days, but there is no proof that they can survive in space for much longer periods.^[42]Scientists are divided over the likelihood of life arising independently on Mars,^[44] or on other planets in our galaxy.^[42]

From your linky..

The most commonly accepted location of the root of the tree of life is between a monophyletic do,main Bacteria and a clade formed by Archaea and Eukaryota of what is referred to as the "traditional tree of life" based on several molecular studies starting with C. Woese.^[18] A very small minority of studies have concluded differently, namely that the root is in the Domain Bacteria, either in the phylum Firmicutes^[19] or that the phylum Chloroflexi is basal to a clade with Archaea+Eukaryotes and the rest of Bacteria as proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith.^[20]


So then it's commonly thought that we all came from bacteria.

God works in mysterious ways, and Satan must be bleach.

Are you quite sure you want to do this?
Or would you prefer to troll?
Because this will be involved.

Above were probably the first decent posts in rebuttal to DMCs posts concerning some evolution theory myths and explanations. All of that was in reply to what Rob was asking about evolution in general.
Intermingled with some "baiting" from a few, some minor discussion of comedians who use evolution in their acts, and other mishmash.
All of this managed to only get us to Page 3.

Ok, I will return, have patience.

[Woo Bum-kon]

What does page 3 have to do with this? What do robdiaz and DMC have to do with the discussion that WE were having? I didn't quote them, did I? They weren't mentioned anywhere in the post I made at the top of the page.

Get back lack to the conversation that we were having about what atheism means. Admit that you were wrong.