18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limepointing out the discovery of a new species isn't "nonsensical" but something called "science" and that wasn't a "response" because I wasn't talking to you let alone asking you a question thus your post wasn't a "answer" to anything but rather, as you just confirmed, just nonsensical.
[b]
Panspermia has nothing to do with speciation. I just tossed that out there as a nonsensical answer to a nonsensical response...
18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyI didn't say the discovery of a new species was nonsensical. Your response to the link I posted was nonsensical.
pointing out the discovery of a new species isn't "nonsensical" but something called "science" and that wasn't a "response" because I wasn't talking to you let alone asking you a question thus your post wasn't a "answer" to anything but rather, as you just confirmed, just nonsensical.
(Originally posted by @lemon-lime)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
what about it? <----- (that was your response)
Originally posted by @lemon-limeyou apparently posted your link for no reason I could see as it must be obvious to you I already knew what speciation is.
I didn't say the discovery of a new species was nonsensical. Your response to the link I posted was nonsensical.
(Originally posted by @lemon-lime)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
what about it? <----- (that was your response)
I want to know why you posted it. This is why I asked "what about it?". The question "what about it?" is asking you to explain the relevance of your response i.e. your 'point'.
Did you post it just for its own general scientific interest as opposed to a specific point? -If so, I humbly apologize for I erroneously thought you were trying to make a specific point.
Originally posted by @humyI may have inadvertently faked you out by posting that link.
you apparently posted your link for no reason I could see as it must be obvious to you I already knew what speciation is.
I want to know why you posted it. This is why I asked "what about it?". The question "what about it?" is asking you to explain the relevance of your response i.e. your 'point'.
Did you post it just for its own general scientific i ...[text shortened]... ? -If so, I humbly apologize for I erroneously thought you were trying to make a specific point.
I think many here have become so accustomed to exchanging quips and insults that instant retorts are the default response. It's become so deeply ingrained after (literally) years of ill will and rancour that even an innocuous statement like "think about it" is automatically interpreted as an insult.
I can remember when "think about it" was not an insult. In fact, it usually meant (the connotation) the listener was regarded as intelligent and thoughtful enough to do just that...
Oh good grief. Did I really say "I can remember when..." ?
That's like saying "Back in the day..." 😞
18 Aug 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-limeyes, sadly I think you are absolutely right about that. I will try not to fall into that trap again.
I think many here have become so accustomed to exchanging quips and insults that instant retorts are the default response. It's become so deeply ingrained after (literally) years of ill will and rancour that even an innocuous statement like "think about it" is automatically interpreted as an insult.
18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyDid you post it just for its own general scientific interest as opposed to a specific point?
you apparently posted your link for no reason I could see as it must be obvious to you I already knew what speciation is.
I want to know why you posted it. This is why I asked "what about it?". The question "what about it?" is asking you to explain the relevance of your response i.e. your 'point'.
Did you post it just for its own general scientific i ...[text shortened]... ? -If so, I humbly apologize for I erroneously thought you were trying to make a specific point.
I have a specific point in mind. And you may have already guessed what it is.
We'll eventually get there... or not. Either way, I have no intention of wading through pages and pages of nonsense and strawman attacks in order to get there.
18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyThe traps are everywhere, and habits are deeply ingrained.
yes, sadly I think you are absolutely right about that. I will try not to fall into that trap again.
18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThat rancor is as dangerous as acid; needs to come with a warning label.
I may have inadvertently faked you out by posting that link.
I think many here have become so accustomed to exchanging quips and insults that instant retorts are the default response. It's become so deeply ingrained after (literally) years of ill will and rancour that even an innocuous statement like "think about it" is automatically interpreted as an ...[text shortened]... d grief. Did I really say "I can remember when..." ?
That's like saying "Back in the day..." 😞
Not only is it not potable, it's equally unhealthy to serve.
18 Aug 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAh yes, back in the day...
I may have inadvertently faked you out by posting that link.
I think many here have become so accustomed to exchanging quips and insults that instant retorts are the default response. It's become so deeply ingrained after (literally) years of ill will and rancour that even an innocuous statement like "think about it" is automatically interpreted as an ...[text shortened]... d grief. Did I really say "I can remember when..." ?
That's like saying "Back in the day..." 😞
The world was still new and giants walked upon the face of the earth. It had that new planet smell, especially in the morning when the sun was low in the sky, and you could see steam rising up from fresh piles of dino poop.
Ah well, I suppose there's no point in reminiscing... it was a long time ago... a very long time...
... ago
what?
18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou went too far, Rick Marshall.
Ah yes, back in the day...
The world was still new and giants walked upon the face of the earth. It had that new planet smell, especially in the morning when the sun was low in the sky, and you could see steam rising up from fresh piles of dino poop.
Ah well, I suppose there's no point in reminiscing... it was a long time ago... a very long time...
... ago
what?
Dial it back an eon or four.
19 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhRick Marshall?
You went too far, Rick Marshall.
Dial it back an eon or four.
No way. Besides, I got a rock hard alibi.
I was in a chain gang breaking hard rocks when that was happening. So it couldn't have been me, see? Yeah, that's right, ya got nothin' on me copper, see? Yeah, yeah...
talk to my lawyer
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWait.
Rick Marshall?
No way. Besides, I got a rock hard alibi.
I was in a chain gang breaking hard rocks when that was happening. So it couldn't have been me, see? Yeah, that's right, ya got nothin' on me copper, see? Yeah, yeah...
talk to my lawyer
I was going "Land of the Lost," but you went Nina Simone?
19 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhOh, you meant that Rick Marshall... ?
Wait.
I was going "Land of the Lost," but you went Nina Simone?
oopsie
Now I'm (almost) afraid to google Nina Simone.
edit: Ah yes, of course... Nina Simone!
20 Aug 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @sonhouseEvolutionists WANT to know how life got here but that is a discipline not in their kit bag.
Mealy mouth, your posts. Evolutionists WANT to know how life got here but that is a discipline not in their kit bag. They leave that to cosmologists and all your screaming and writhing around won't change that. It matters little to evolution science how life got here. If you want to believe a human shaped god with a big white beard did it, fine, till we a ...[text shortened]... osmologists right now figuring out how life started. At least for now, you are on equal footing.
And yet, you are old enough to know that it was in their kit bag. Before it was called 'abiogenesis' the name for it was 'chemical evolution'. But this name change only came about after years of looking for proof (or any real evidence) of it happening turned out to be a bust.
Isn't it amazing how removing a particular word has the power to change reality? And equally amazing is how changing 'natural selection' to 'micro-evolution' has the power to cement a belief in macro-evolution. Changing the vocabulary by inserting (or taking out) the word 'evolution' is not science. It's simply wordplay, and wordplay is the practice of politicians... not scientists. Politicians routinely look for evidence for supporting a position, rather than allowing evidence to point them toward a (viable, workable, realistic) position.