Religiosity gene responsible for world population:

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I commented a line from you. If that is out-of-line, then you shouldn't have wrote that.

You cannot define science and pseudo-science at your opinion. If I quote your words: "What you think is practically irrelevant". Correct. What you think is practically irrelevant. So don't go and call pseudo-science science and science pseuodo-science. Because if y ...[text shortened]... you are totally out-of-line.

I thought you actually have learned something. Was I wrong?

irrelevant to the title of the thread

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
irrelevant to the title of the thread

So why did you go off-topic yourself? You brought it up - science and pseudo-science. I commented upon your comment. Don't point your complaints against me when you are the one going off-topic.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So why did you go off-topic yourself? You brought it up - science and pseudo-science. I commented upon your comment. Don't point your complaints against me when you are the one going off-topic.

simply because, the article cited in the OP was based on pseudo science! which has a direct correlation to the thread title, which makes it relevant. Trying to turn it into another evolution v creationism debate is not relevant. Have you anything to say about the initial post, let it be heard, otherwise i will not get embroiled in any petty squabbles with you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
simply because, the article cited in the OP was based on pseudo science! which has a direct correlation to the thread title, which in turn it relevant. Trying to turn it into another evolution v creationism debate is not relevant.

And I told commented that you, of all people, shouldn't tell us what science and pseudoscience is, because you belive in creationism as science, and evolution as pseudo-science. You have it all wrong. And therefore it is totally within my rights to comment about your terminology. Don't mention pseudo-science unless you know what pseudo-science is. That's was my comment.

Whenever I see a false statement and reasoning based on this false statement I comment it. If you don't want to be commented then just say so. But then the thread will fall dead on the ground. This is a debate. We comment eachothers comments. Therefore it is a living debate. Would you like to kill the thread? Then you're acting just fine.

AS you told us about pseudo-science I have to make clear that creationism is a good example of pseudo-science. Evolution is a good example of science. If you don't agree, then we have a debate. You started. I followed. It was your choice.

Now do you agree (and learned something) or don't you agree (and remain in ignorance)?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And I told commented that you, of all people, shouldn't tell us what science and pseudoscience is, because you belive in creationism as science, and evolution as pseudo-science. You have it all wrong. And therefore it is totally within my rights to comment about your terminology. Don't mention pseudo-science unless you know what pseudo-science is. That's ...[text shortened]...

Now do you agree (and learned something) or don't you agree (and remain in ignorance)?

do you have any comment to make with regard to the Op, then make it, otherwise i am not interested. I stated why its psuedo science with reference, i need not do so again. I will not get into another futile and fruitless debate with a rank materialist over the incongruities of the evolutionary hypothesis. I repeat, if you have a comment to make with regard to the Op, then make it! otherwise i will be pleased if you would refrain from wasting my time. I promise not to waste yours.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do you have any comment to make with regard to the Op, then make it, otherwise i am not interested. I stated why its psuedo science with reference, i need not do so again. I will not get into another futile and fruitless debate with a rank materialist over the incongruities of the evolutionary hypothesis. I repeat, if you have a comment to make wi ...[text shortened]... wise i will be pleased if you would refrain from wasting my time. I promise not to waste yours.

No, this debate is interesting.

You said that "there is no such thing as a 'religiosity gene'" (your words) as "pseudo-scinece" (your words). As it is your words I have the right to, within the OP, comment such a statement. Right?

You ave at an earlier thread said that creation is science whereas evolution is pseudo-science (right?) They you have obviously no idea what is the difference between the two - science vs pseudo-science. So why do you use the word 'pseudo-science', and then want to shut up the debate, and further censor it? Why?

I know why: You are on thin ice. You don't know what you're talking about. And I have just proved it to be so. You avoid the discussion, becuase you know it. You just don't want to admit it. You cannot differ science from pseudo-science. How JW!

Your next step is to be insultive against me. That's my prophecy. Am I right?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, this debate is interesting.

You said that "there is no such thing as a 'religiosity gene'" (your words) as "pseudo-scinece" (your words). As it is your words I have the right to, within the OP, comment such a statement. Right?

You ave at an earlier thread said that creation is science whereas evolution is pseudo-science (right?) They you have ob JW!

Your next step is to be insultive against me. That's my prophecy. Am I right?

sorry but you have been asked to produce evidence of a religiosity gene, you have not, therefore you do not indeed know what you are talking about, for if you had, you would have produced it. I told you not to waste my time, either you have evidence or you do not, so lets ask you again, do you have evidence of a religiosity gene? No, then when you do, come back and present it to the forum, otherwise, waste another posters time with this pseudo scientific tooth fairy type of postulation for the sake of politicising an issue.

At this moment i am learning to play the bongo drums, i will now pretend that the small left hand bongo is your left temple and the larger right hand bongo your other temple. I intend to play some rigorous Latin rhythms on each, i really should thankyou for inspiring me. One i will call Fabian the the other i have named Fnas, in honour of you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry but you have been asked to produce evidence of a religiosity gene, you have not, therefore you do not indeed know what you are talking about, for if you had, you would have produced it. I told you not to waste my time, either you have evidence or you do not, so lets ask you again, do you have evidence of a religiosity gene? No, then when you ...[text shortened]... you for inspiring me. One i will call Fabian the the other i have named Fnas, in honour of you.

You want me to produce evidence of a religion gene? Do you really think me of a candidate of the Nobel prize? Oh, thank you for the compliment, I am not that intelligent. But I thank you for the thought!

And the religions gene I am not here to discuss. If you have read my postings, I dispute the term pseudo-science, when it comes from your mouth. If you see creationism as science, and evolution as pseudo-science, then you are the one not knowing the difference. That's what I'm commenting upon. And you are avoiding this question, thus admitting that you don't know it. And your lack of knowledge you know yourself.

Why do you bring up the pseudo-science term, not knowing what it is, and try to avoid the matter so hard so you even complaining when others (me) when I ask you the question?

I am honoured that you call your drums my name! I thought you were hostil against me? But this is off-topic, don't you think? 😉

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You want me to produce evidence of a religion gene? Do you really think me of a candidate of the Nobel prize? Oh, thank you for the compliment, I am not that intelligent. But I thank you for the thought!

And the religions gene I am not here to discuss. If you have read my postings, I dispute the term pseudo-science, when it comes from your mouth. If yo ms my name! I thought you were hostil against me? But this is off-topic, don't you think? 😉

sigh, i give up. i see that there is no evidence of a religiosity gene, the basis for the opening posters remarks therefore it remains in the realms of pure speculation and pseudo science. My drums shall now be subject to a heavy beating!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, i give up.

So you don't know the difference, yet you're using the term...?
Can I take this as you don't know what you're talking about...?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you don't know the difference, yet you're using the term...?
Can I take this as you don't know what you're talking about...?

you can state what you like, you usually do.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you can state what you like, you usually do.

No, I just ask questions. You don't answer them.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, I just ask questions. You don't answer them.

yes because they are generally irrelevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because they are generally irrelevant.

And you avoid questions so your irrelevance is not showing.

Do you remember my question?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And you avoid questions so your irrelevance is not showing.

Do you remember my question?

no i have not forgotten it, simply dismissed it as completely irrelevant.