- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Great King RatActually its very common [to the extent that everyone I know who doesn't drink has experienced this,
I've met a few people who've stated that they don't drink alcohol (anymore) because if they start drinking they won't stop. This was after they very proudly proclaimed not to drink.
Not sure about your social life, but for me any perceived "peer pressure" to drink stopped pretty much when I became a grown-up - around 20 years old.
If you perceiv ...[text shortened]... o drink as an adult, then perhaps you should worry a little less about what others think of you.
as have I, and it's frequently brought up in news/magazine articles] for those that don't drink to meet
hostility and be subject to hostile questioning by those that do drink when they discover that you don't.
I don't give in to, or give a crap about, peer pressure and never have. However I can still recognise when
it's there. That you have apparently been lucky enough to avoid it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Perhaps you should assume less about other peoples personal lives before posting.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, hominids (apes) are hominoideas, which are excluded from the definition of monkeys because of how our shoulder joints work. Thanks to these few posts with gf I'm up to speed on this. Funny, the path of learning sometimes. 🙂
Neither are the official biological terms.
And fish according to Wikipedia is a paraphyletic group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
Monkeys normally include two groups: old world monkeys and new world monkeys. The old world monkeys specifically excludes apes largely for traditional reasons.
The ape category is less clear cut as categorizing man as a 'great ape' has precedence, but even so, tradition excludes humans.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSays the man who admits to being 'closed minded' and 'ignorant' on the topic. Seriously, let reality set in.
thee idea that all living things spontaneously generated from non living matter in a pre biotic soup is ridiculous to say the least and amounts to nothing more than an atheistic creation myth even more fantastic than the Genesis account. Seriously let reality set in.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat does my non reading of Darwins book have to do with your self induced ignorance of the topic you are trying to wade into?
Says the man who hasn't even read Darwin's outrageous tome! I guess if anyone knows ignorance its gotta be you. Just let reality set in, seriously.
Originally posted by Proper KnobMy self induced ignorance as far as Darwins damnable tome goes outweighs your alleged erudition, thats what - ahhh reality, thank you for setting in, seriously, please seek a bum feeling for all atheists concerned, reality must be brought to bear on them.
What does my non reading of Darwins book have to do with your self induced ignorance of the topic you are trying to wade into?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat are you chuntering on about? What does me not having read Darwins book have to do with anything?
My self induced ignorance as far as Darwins damnable tome goes outweighs your alleged erudition, thats what - ahhh reality, thank you for setting in, seriously, please seek a bum feeling for all atheists concerned, reality must be brought to bear on them.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobChuntering? what kind of word is that? Hee hee, its funny. Anyway, you claim that I have a self induced ignorance and yet as far as Darwin's damnable tome goes I am clearly more informed than you, how does that reflect upon any claims of erudition that you may make?
What are you chuntering on about? What does me not having read Darwins book have to do with anything?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust out of curiosity, since you read Darwin's 'damnable tome', how do YOU explain Darwin's finches? Or convergent evolution, where species not related have similar body parts? Or divergent evolution:
Chuntering? what kind of word is that? Hee hee, its funny. Anyway, you claim that I have a self induced ignorance and yet as far as Darwin's damnable tome goes I am clearly more informed than you, how does that reflect upon any claims of erudition that you may make?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution
Originally posted by sonhouseCharles Darwin - Galapagos Finches
Just out of curiosity, since you read Darwin's 'damnable tome', how do YOU explain Darwin's finches? Or convergent evolution, where species not related have similar body parts? Or divergent evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution
Originally posted by C HessNevertheless, it is for traditional reasons. If the categories were drawn up again today, apes would not be in a separate category - or old and new world monkeys would be separated and apes would be just one of several groups in old world monkeys.
No, hominids (apes) are hominoideas, which are excluded from the definition of monkeys because of how our shoulder joints work.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt doesn't reflect upon his claims in any way. You remain self admittedly ignorant of the subject in question. Your claim that the idea of abiogenesis is ridiculous hold no weight given that you do not understand the subject matter, and do not want to understand it.
Chuntering? what kind of word is that? Hee hee, its funny. Anyway, you claim that I have a self induced ignorance and yet as far as Darwin's damnable tome goes I am clearly more informed than you, how does that reflect upon any claims of erudition that you may make?
Originally posted by whodeyIt's comforting to know you haven't visited a playground in decades.
This is the best comeback to an Atheist that I have seen in decades.
When an atheist called him a "moron" for believing
in God, Dr. Ben Carson responded with one brilliant line that
put the atheist in his place.
"I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a
monkey," he told the individual, "and you've convinced me
you're right."