History Repeats Itself

[Homeless Nutter]

Cath, why is everyone diplomatic to kingpin but gave you a real hard time about all this stuff?
You know why? Because you're a female and pretty![...]

Are you suggesting kingpin isn't pretty? That's very insensitive of you...

[Catholic_Lady]

Cath, why is everyone diplomatic to kingpin but gave you a real hard time about all this stuff?
You know why? Because you're a female and pretty! (AND THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!)  hehe

Stick around babe ...kingpin's got your back now ...If they start being arseholes, it'll just expose them for what they are!
Sure we're gonna make fun of religion, that's what we do ... Do you understand now that it's nothing personal against you or anyone else.
I'm sure kingpin knows that ...

catch...

I was wondering about that exact thing myself earlier today, Igno.

Thanks, bud!

[Lemonvariable72]

There is plenty evidence in favor of macroevolution, including the fossil record, though it is to be expected that there will be gaps-the necessary for a fossil to form are very specific and need to be held for thousands if not millions of years. And differentiating it from microevolution is pointless, because it's the exact same process.

The creationist objections to macroevolution are intriguing to me. This selective and sometimes downright nitpicky skepticism is fascinating. It's the same with religious people who can perfectly point out every logical flaw of a deity, provided that it isn't their own.

I understand why people hold these beliefs, but it is rather uncanny how much they can ignore in favor of them. But I guess in the end, emotions are stronger than rational thought.

I did not quote or pull from Answers in Genesis at all.  I have only showed peer reviewed scientific articles showing the enormous improbability of random mutations and natural selection being able to create the diversity and lineage that the evolutionary model presents.  Someone here mentioned we have clear evidence of us coming Australopithecus, but that is just simply not true.

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987)

One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure."

Evolution is presented as fact, yes, but there is not a consensus.  There is an entire site dedicated to scientists who wish to sign their scientific dissent from the darwinian model of evolution.  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and the 22 page list (updated and released June 2015) of scientists who publicly denounce the Darwinian model can be viewed here:  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=660

This is bold because as soon as they do this they are essentially written off as intellectuals in the scientific community.  Look at atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel for example:  http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/w...-darwinism

Evolution as presented for the origin of all species has enormous gaps and holes and scientists fill those gaps with assumptions and presuppositions that it must be a natural process but it is far from "proven" or "consensus", irregardless of religious beliefs, but based on pure science.

This does NOT mean that creation theory can be proven or must be true.  I'm not saying that.  Yes it is what I believe, but I'm pointing out what I see the problem evolution theory has.

If you know anything about the subject of evolution at it is pretty obvious that Australopithecus is a ancestor to homo habilis due to the fact that homo habilis was very similar to toung child but the "Human" features are more refined, and most scientists support this conclusion. Also this list is nearly as big as your dissent from Darwin list but it has scientists with the name Steve that support evolution.

[Pyrrho]

Cath, why is everyone diplomatic to kingpin but gave you a real hard time about all this stuff?
You know why? Because you're a female and pretty! ...

I think that may be true of some, but lkingpinl has a different demeanor as well. So we may expect that some differences in the way they are treated are from that.

In my case, I think lkingpinl may well tell you that I have been as irreverent with him as with Catholic_Lady. And you could search my posts for that as well, if it were of any interest to you.

Besides, ignoramus, Catholic_Lady might really be an ugly old man, just yanking everyone's chain online for a lark. If so, good job, Catholic_Lady!

[Catholic_Lady]

Cath, why is everyone diplomatic to kingpin but gave you a real hard time about all this stuff?
You know why? Because you're a female and pretty! ...

I think that may be true of some, but lkingpinl has a different demeanor as well.  So we may expect that some differences in the way they are treated are from that.  

In my case, I think lkingpinl may well tell you that I have been as irreverent with him as with Catholic_Lady.  And you could search my posts for that as well, if it were of any interest to you.

Besides, ignoramus, Catholic_Lady might really be an ugly old man, just yanking everyone's chain online for a lark.  If so, good job, Catholic_Lady!

This is not the first time you've made the suggestion that I may not be who I say I am. Anyone here who is friends with me on facebook can confirm that I am who I say I am.

[ignoramus]

Cath, why is everyone diplomatic to kingpin but gave you a real hard time about all this stuff?
You know why? Because you're a female and pretty![...]

Are you suggesting kingpin isn't pretty? That's very insensitive of you...

I'm not qualified to comment.
Vorlon?

[ignoramus]

I think that may be true of some, but lkingpinl has a different demeanor as well.  So we may expect that some differences in the way they are treated are from that.  

In my case, I think lkingpinl may well tell you that I have been as irreverent with him as with Catholic_Lady.  And you could search my posts for that as well, if it were of any interest to you.

Besides, ignoramus, Catholic_Lady might really be an ugly old man, just yanking everyone's chain online for a lark.  If so, good job, Catholic_Lady!

This is not the first time you've made the suggestion that I may not be who I say I am. Anyone here who is friends with me on facebook can confirm that I am who I say I am.

I believe you. But does it even matter?
All we have here are our words on a computer screen.
Our words and thoughts are who we are. They are what we connect with.
Don't we have equal or more respect for people like BQ, Kevin and Rhonda, etc for being so cool under adverse circumstances.
These guys are my real heroes. This is where I get inspiration from.
Everything else is skin deep and superficial.

[Pyrrho]

I think that may be true of some, but lkingpinl has a different demeanor as well.  So we may expect that some differences in the way they are treated are from that.  

In my case, I think lkingpinl may well tell you that I have been as irreverent with him as with Catholic_Lady.  And you could search my posts for that as well, if it were of any interest to you.

Besides, ignoramus, Catholic_Lady might really be an ugly old man, just yanking everyone's chain online for a lark.  If so, good job, Catholic_Lady!

This is not the first time you've made the suggestion that I may not be who I say I am. Anyone here who is friends with me on facebook can confirm that I am who I say I am.

Yes, I have stated this before.  And I also previously stated that one can make a fake Facebook profile, too, with pictures and a fake storyline to one's life.  It really is no more difficult than making a real one.  So links to Facebook really do not prove anything.

My point is not about you in particular (though you have been used as the example more than once), but about online posting. Anyone can pretend to be anyone, real or imagined.  

The only thing stopping me from making a fake Facebook page is the lack of desire to do so.  Of course, I could have a fake one and deny it here, and no one would know the difference.  Which further illustrates my point, that one can pretend pretty much anything online.

That conjoined with the fact that many people enjoy lying should give rise to a degree of skepticism about all such claims made online.  Someone may, of course, tell the truth, but one very often has no real way of distinguishing truth from falsehood in such cases, as long as the lies are kept within reasonable bounds.


As for how often people lie versus how often they tell the truth online, it is impossible to know, as one generally does not know which cases are the truth and which are lies, so one cannot make a proper tally of them to make the determination.  And even if one did know that most of the time people told the truth, that would not help one in a specific instance, as the specific instance may or may not conform to the norm.

[robvalue]

But you guys all enjoy the videos I make of the weird deranged monkey I keep in my basement, right?

Some of you probably thought it was me, haha.

[Catholic_Lady]

This is not the first time you've made the suggestion that I may not be who I say I am. Anyone here who is friends with me on facebook can confirm that I am who I say I am.

Yes, I have stated this before.  And I also previously stated that one can make a fake Facebook profile, too, with pictures and a fake storyline to one's life.  It really is no more difficult than making a real one.  So links to Facebook really do not prove anything.

My point is not about you in particular (though you have been used as the example more than once), but about online posting. Anyone can pretend to be anyone, real or imagined.  

The only thing stopping me from making a fake Facebook page is the lack of desire to do so.  Of course, I could have a fake one and deny it here, and no one would know the difference.  Which further illustrates my point, that one can pretend pretty much anything online.

That conjoined with the fact that many people enjoy lying should give rise to a degree of skepticism about all such claims made online.  Someone may, of course, tell the truth, but one very often has no real way of distinguishing truth from falsehood in such cases, as long as the lies are kept within reasonable bounds.


As for how often people lie versus how often they tell the truth online, it is impossible to know, as one generally does not know which cases are the truth and which are lies, so one cannot make a proper tally of them to make the determination.  And even if one did know that most of the time people told the truth, that would not help one in a specific instance, as the specific instance may or may not conform to the norm.

I think it's quite easy to spot a fake facebook. I know you don't have facebook so you'll probably have no idea what I'm talking about lol, but when a person has hundreds of photos of themselves with a ton of family and friends tagged on there, and then you see a bunch of those family/friend's comments on the person's status updates, pictures, etc, you can be pretty dang sure it's real. I do agree you have to use good judgement though, because there are a lot of crazies out there. Just watch Catfish lol.