Why do girls have a hymen?
Hymens are a myth... I still havent been able to find one.
Tenacious - Unlike you I never make personal attacks and yet you are the one complaining about my style.
Opinions are of no interest when it comes to matters of objective fact. I don't respect the opinion of somebody who denies evolution any more than I would respect the opinion that the earth is flat.
I show due respect to people not to bad ideas. I wouldn't patronise anybody by pretending their creationist views were anything less than risible.
I have contributed as much if not more than anybody on this forum to patiently explaining evolution in some detail. I answer sincere questions at length and show patience with anybody who wants to learn. If Rattigan is genuinely interested in how evolution explains the origin of the two sexes I will be happy to explain it - again.
I have read my post again and there is not one word I would want to change of feel the need to apologise for. What exactly are you moaning about?
Are you sincerely interested in the origin of the first cells or just trying to be clever? Is it the origin of prokaryotic or the more complex eukaryotic cells you are wanting to investigate? How much effort have you made to find an answer already? Have you read "Life Ascending" by Nick Lane? You should, it will amaze you.
@ nicolaou and OEJ - it's one thing to bring up valid points and make an argument. It's another matter entirely to belittle and more or less insult someone's post in a condescending way merely because they disagree with you.
@ cofty - contrast the way you responded to me with how you initially responded to Rattigan. Notice a difference? Yes, you were being considerably more respectful with the exception of "moaning". And yes, I'm actually very interested in learning how life originated. Not trying to be clever cofty, just a sincere interest to learn more and more. Thank you. I will definitely check out the book you recommended. I'm always open to suggestions. I'm not closed minded at all.
Let's take a closer look at your reply to Rattigan to see if I'm exaggerating:
How much time and effort have you put into finding an answer to your question?
Clearly you are talking down to Rattigan here.
If it is the hymen that makes you doubt evolution why didn't you bother to read the answer above?
Here you are taking an authoritative tone reprimanding Rattigan like a superior talking to an employee for his lack of action to your liking
.Evolution is a fact. Get over it.
Authoritative tone like a parent speaking to a child. Leaving no room for discussion
Reality takes priority.
Simply speaking, you are telling Rattigan his belief in Creationism is stupid and idiotic.
Simply speaking, you are telling Rattigan his belief in Creationism is stupid and idiotic
It is. What's your point?
I am more than happy to debate the evidence for evolution and to refute creationism. I will never take refuge behind complaints about style or tone.
I like people who respect me enough to tell me when I am wrong as long as they can back it up with facts. I assume others share a similar commitment to reality.
You don't like my style - so what?
@ cofty - your admittance just validates my point. Yes, your tone is rude and not conducive to a healthy friendly discussion environment where other users are encouraged to participate. Instead, they shy away because of precisely your ignorance to the rules of this forum. Read the following posted on the welcome page:
"......and provide a friendly, tolerant and informative environment where you can ask questions, share information and make new friends."
Yes, your tone should not be tolerated by me or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps you can convince Simon to change the wording on the welcome page to better suit you.
Women have a hymen so they could be stoned to death by their husbands if they didn't bleed on their wedding night and it could be viewed as a righteous killing approved by the creator of the hymen. Yep. I guess that proves God is real.
Unlike you I never make personal attacks
The use of absolutes, such as *always* and *never*, often denotes intellectual dishonesty, as absolutes can rarely apply to human behavour and therefore, are innately false and/or gross exaggeration. ; )
Regardless of how you interpret the tone of response to statements about creation, one thing is abundantly clear from reading these type of threads over and over again:
It's almost unheard of for anyone to present a solid argument for creation. You simply do not see anything where someone has researched the arguments and presents reasonable scientific evidence that counters a conclusion for evolution.
So much of what get's presented on here in favour of creation has been discussed to death in readily available and digestible forms through the internet and popular books on evolution. It would be really good if one supporting creation could show they have actually read something about their "point" before turning up here with claims that take 2 minutes to debunk. When it keeps happening over and over again it's no wonder that responses to stupid arguments may be terse.
Instead, they shy away because of ...
Creationists shy away from discussing the amazing evidence for evolution because they have absolutely nothing interesting to say.
Let me sum up the arguments for creationism
1 - Complexity
2 - Complexity
3 - Complexity
4 - You will find out I'm right when you go to hell
Meanwhile the "nice police" - (Talesin, Tenacious et al) complain that they don't like the tone of the person trying to bring evidence to the discussion.
I have hundreds of posts in this forum where I have explained the evidence for evolution in detail. If there is anything specific you would like to debate please say so.
If you want an environment where bad ideas are respected you will find it at the Kingdom Hall.
Hy men and Hy women. Hy to all, and to all a Happy New Year!