Cerise
Well-Known Member
wow. that explanation is pretty asshole-ish. but, nah, i'm not saying anything about YOU with this comment.
Why, thank you.
So hey, anyone object to unbanning me?
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
Why, thank you.
Not true. What is probable is that fossils are not as old as they think they are.
Darwin was specifically talking about intermediate, i.e., transitional, fossils that are not found in any of the strata.
I do not doubt that. It should only giver further credence that there is not a good sample of "transitional fossils" to make a preponderant case for macro evolution.
That is an example of specie variation or micro evolution, not macro evolution. There are roughly 10,000 species of birds that are known with an abundant variation. It would not be surprising to see variation with elephants.
There are some good ones there. I think you just might be intellectually dishonest.
Ever read about the apparent Plesiosaur that washed ashore in 1925? Or the dinosaur and man foot prints found in the Paluxy River bed?
I would not use the great flood with you. As for your population inquiry, here you go:
Source
I am not vouching for the above quote. It just something to chew on, as is this. The exact details of what happened with the flood is not the point I am arguing.
You only prove my point. Can you not come up with something original?
Monkey see, monkey do.
Which means free speech reins. Kind of ironic, those who purport to love choice didn't like it when it was allowed to breathe free.
Nobody on the left was chased away. They just didn't like people who aren't as sensitive as they think they are. 9 other forums & still the RW maintains its championship status.
spike
New Member
No, the difference is I did not call you the noun: "fool"
I called you the adjective: "foolish."
Refer to the dictionary if you can't see the distinction.
Sorry you can't take a little criticism.
That is my opinion, and I stand by it.
Both are insults. Most personal attacks are opinions.
spike
New Member
Original? Why not just describe "my religion says so and I will not question it".
Go ahead with the childish insults. You're making my point in this thread for me.
spike
New Member
When do you think that might happen?
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Anyways, can you substantiate that assertion of yours pertaining to me?
Do you really think I am calling you a monkey? Perhaps I am just illustrating a point of you mimicking others as your avatar implies since that is what monkeys do. You do have a monkey avatar. Do you know what avatar means?
Again, you mimic me.
spike
New Member
Most of your posts substantiate that. Maybe you could give us a few issues where you disagree with the Catholic church's official position substantially?
You were trying to insult me.
A hindu diety. Mostly though it's just images people like. Mine is a cool character form a cartoon.
Oh noez! Maybe you should quit trying to insult me.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
Both are insults. Most personal attacks are opinions.
Oh, I didn't realize you leftists are so sensitive!
What a cop out.
There are issues of which I am in disagreement. It would not be prudent to get into them.
If you found my comment offensive I apologize, it was not my intention. But I think you are merely being contentious.
I suppose if I thought you were gay, you would think I thought you were happy? The image beneath your name is commonly called a message board avatar. The meaning of which is not what you described.
spike
New Member
Now that is a cop out. C'mon, don't be scared.
I appreciate it.
No, it really is mostly just images people like.
spike
New Member
Rightists are more sensitive. I'm just stating facts.
Another mimic.
Haha. Do not try to switch the subject. Substantiate your assertion.
It usually reflects their mentality.
Here is a little fact for you, a lefty banned you from the TRW.
Dave
Well-Known Member
*tosses Spike a biscuit
1 : empty, insubstantial
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly <inane comments>
synonyms see insipid
I looked it up...
spike
New Member
Pointing out your hypocrisy.
You substantiated it for me. You can't provide a single example where you disagree with the catholic church on anything substantial.
Not really.
