Poll

Do you believe in evolution?

Round earth evolutionist
20 (69%)
Round earth YEC
5 (17.2%)
Flat earth evolutionist
2 (6.9%)
Flat earth YEC
2 (6.9%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Macro evolution, where's the evidence?

  • 139 Replies
  • 15642 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #90 on: June 26, 2016, 09:57:04 PM »
I finally looked at this thread, just like I should have never looked at the 9/11 thread because I know what it will become. I give you major credit Luke... you defend your position without any hostility ect. I try to do the same, usually successful yet I have many times failed lol. Yet you just troop on with kindness even with practically everyone against you. I tip my hat to you sir.

Space cowgirl, come now. You are doing what you yell about people doing all the time. Calling luke a fake or in a way a shill because his ideas are different than yours?? You are much better than that sweet lady
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #91 on: June 27, 2016, 03:12:27 AM »
Space cowgirl, come now. You are doing what you yell about people doing all the time. Calling luke a fake or in a way a shill because his ideas are different than yours?? You are much better than that sweet lady
Well that's not patronising in the slightest.

Might resurrect my old discussion with Luke, if I had time. Sorry for vanishing midway through, Luke, got a bit overwhelmed with other things.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44998
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #92 on: June 27, 2016, 09:50:45 AM »
I finally looked at this thread, just like I should have never looked at the 9/11 thread because I know what it will become. I give you major credit Luke... you defend your position without any hostility ect. I try to do the same, usually successful yet I have many times failed lol. Yet you just troop on with kindness even with practically everyone against you. I tip my hat to you sir.

Space cowgirl, come now. You are doing what you yell about people doing all the time. Calling luke a fake or in a way a shill because his ideas are different than yours?? You are much better than that sweet lady

No, jerkface  >:(

I do not call him fake because his views are different than mine. I call him fake because he puts zero effort into the discussion. Jane and boydster argued and explained their side of the discussion with patience and kindness. Luke posts links to sources he doesn't understand, and apparently doesn't even bother to read sometimes. He expects others to do all the work in the debate!  You are only taking his side because you agree with creationism. I don't see how you could read this thread and get the notion that Luke deserves "major credit" when he hasn't made a single sensible argument, and is seemingly incapable of making arguments in his own words.

I am surrounded by people I disagree with on this subject, irl. I do not, for one moment, think they are faking their views. This is because they don't discuss them dishonestly. They realize what they believe is based on faith, and they are okay with it. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #93 on: June 27, 2016, 10:32:49 AM »
Space cowgirl, come now. You are doing what you yell about people doing all the time. Calling luke a fake or in a way a shill because his ideas are different than yours?? You are much better than that sweet lady
Well that's not patronising in the slightest.

Might resurrect my old discussion with Luke, if I had time. Sorry for vanishing midway through, Luke, got a bit overwhelmed with other things.

No problem. I kinda appreciated the break anyway.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #94 on: June 27, 2016, 10:42:23 AM »
Very late reply time! I've tried to group a few related points together, or at least group together the sections to which my responses would be the same.

Ok. But the 1's and 0's can only create designs if its connected to something able to decode or understand the code like the LEDs on most computers. They have the compatibility to recieve the information and create patterns.

Ok. What are the subjects of the laws?
This ultimately comes down to the same thing: the universe is governed by countless laws. Physics, and chemistry, which in turn govern biological processes. Simple, simple things may develop into very complex systems because the universe treats certain objects certain ways. For example, mass attracts mass, e=mc2, Newton's Laws... Then you also get into chemistry, and chemical reactions.
The subjects of the laws are all matter and energy.

Quote
Can you point to any mutation that can create a feather from a scale?
Easily: they're very similar. The only difference between the two is that in a feather the vanes aren't one solid construct. Just slowly develop gaps...

Quote
If that be the case then would there be a time when the flappy things are still useless for even gliding and the arms are too weak for pretty much anything?
And there's only how much and far can a mutation go without being destructive.
But we haven't observed that type of transition.
Why would that be the case?
Actually, you reject every example under the assumption that form of transition is impossible. It's a circular argument. More feasibly, you'd need to actually explain or demonstrate why such transitions are impossible rather than assert it based on your belief they are.

Quote
Just because there are different cultures doesn't automatically mean that a religion can't be beneficial to all.
Socially, it does: what benefits one society wouldn't benefit another. That's all it comes down to.
You might be able to argue that one specific form of society is better than another, but that contradicts your initial claim (and would again be dependent on context: some societies only function in certain situations).

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #95 on: June 27, 2016, 01:29:35 PM »
Very late reply time! I've tried to group a few related points together, or at least group together the sections to which my responses would be the same.

Ok.

Quote
Ok. But the 1's and 0's can only create designs if its connected to something able to decode or understand the code like the LEDs on most computers. They have the compatibility to recieve the information and create patterns.

Ok. What are the subjects of the laws?
This ultimately comes down to the same thing: the universe is governed by countless laws. Physics, and chemistry, which in turn govern biological processes. Simple, simple things may develop into very complex systems because the universe treats certain objects certain ways. For example, mass attracts mass, e=mc2, Newton's Laws... Then you also get into chemistry, and chemical reactions.
The subjects of the laws are all matter and energy.

So with that, can you demonstrate one animal forming into another like a non dog to a dog?

Quote
Quote
Can you point to any mutation that can create a feather from a scale?
Easily: they're very similar. The only difference between the two is that in a feather the vanes aren't one solid construct. Just slowly develop gaps...

Actually the only similarity is that they are made from the same material (never could spell it and spell check doesn't pick it up but I think you know what I'm talking about). They form from different sequences of the gene code, they attach differently to the skin, etc.

Quote
Quote
If that be the case then would there be a time when the flappy things are still useless for even gliding and the arms are too weak for pretty much anything?
And there's only how much and far can a mutation go without being destructive.
But we haven't observed that type of transition.
Why would that be the case?
Actually, you reject every example under the assumption that form of transition is impossible. It's a circular argument. More feasibly, you'd need to actually explain or demonstrate why such transitions are impossible rather than assert it based on your belief they are.

It's been so long I kinda forgot myself. I think I was responding to someone saying something about how did wings evolved.

Quote
Quote
Just because there are different cultures doesn't automatically mean that a religion can't be beneficial to all.
Socially, it does: what benefits one society wouldn't benefit another. That's all it comes down to.
You might be able to argue that one specific form of society is better than another, but that contradicts your initial claim (and would again be dependent on context: some societies only function in certain situations).

Wait, what was my original claim? I could scroll through the thread but it would help to know which page it was.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #96 on: June 27, 2016, 01:44:30 PM »
I finally looked at this thread, just like I should have never looked at the 9/11 thread because I know what it will become. I give you major credit Luke... you defend your position without any hostility ect. I try to do the same, usually successful yet I have many times failed lol. Yet you just troop on with kindness even with practically everyone against you. I tip my hat to you sir.

Space cowgirl, come now. You are doing what you yell about people doing all the time. Calling luke a fake or in a way a shill because his ideas are different than yours?? You are much better than that sweet lady

No, jerkface  >:(

I do not call him fake because his views are different than mine. I call him fake because he puts zero effort into the discussion. Jane and boydster argued and explained their side of the discussion with patience and kindness. Luke posts links to sources he doesn't understand, and apparently doesn't even bother to read sometimes. He expects others to do all the work in the debate!  You are only taking his side because you agree with creationism. I don't see how you could read this thread and get the notion that Luke deserves "major credit" when he hasn't made a single sensible argument, and is seemingly incapable of making arguments in his own words.

I am surrounded by people I disagree with on this subject, irl. I do not, for one moment, think they are faking their views. This is because they don't discuss them dishonestly. They realize what they believe is based on faith, and they are okay with it.

 >:( Jerk face???? >:(

Hey I called you sweet lady. I havent read all the post in this thread, you saw I just came in here when they moved the 9 11 thread here. Even then I didn't want to click on it considering subject content. Maybe just say use your own words to Luke. I did notice he would post up just links sometimes, and I can understand your frustration with that.

Everything as faith in this world...i think you are logical enough to realize how much faith macro evolution takes. I scientist now saying hey I think something happened like this then. That is why it's a borderline hypothesis/theory.

It's no different than 2k years ago reading what alot of people wrote about a guy that did some miracles. Taking their word they are not full of crap, or was just a scam. Simple things like, if I shoot you in the head and you will die really takes no faith. However , even that is not a guarantee, death rate is 992/1000, so there are 8 real pissed off people.

Calling me a jerk face  >:( >:( >:(
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #97 on: June 27, 2016, 01:52:51 PM »
So with that, can you demonstrate one animal forming into another like a non dog to a dog?
How would you propose I demonstrate it? It happens gradually over a huge scale of time.
Just look at the fossil record, the various clearly related animals, and apply the simple logical deductions I've been talking about.

Quote
Actually the only similarity is that they are made from the same material (never could spell it and spell check doesn't pick it up but I think you know what I'm talking about). They form from different sequences of the gene code, they attach differently to the skin, etc.
The genetic code gets altered thanks to evolution, that's hardly surprising. They attach differently because the main body of the object's altered. If the barbs of a feather join together, you've got a scale: if they split apart, you have a feather.

Besides, this is all just evasion. I've given evidence for macroevolution: you're asking I give evidence of a different kind, but frankly even without any of that the logic holds.

Quote
Quote
Quote
If that be the case then would there be a time when the flappy things are still useless for even gliding and the arms are too weak for pretty much anything?
And there's only how much and far can a mutation go without being destructive.
But we haven't observed that type of transition.
Why would that be the case?
Actually, you reject every example under the assumption that form of transition is impossible. It's a circular argument. More feasibly, you'd need to actually explain or demonstrate why such transitions are impossible rather than assert it based on your belief they are.

It's been so long I kinda forgot myself. I think I was responding to someone saying something about how did wings evolved.
Yes, and the question remains.

Quote
Wait, what was my original claim? I could scroll through the thread but it would help to know which page it was.
Think that line of discussion started in reply 47, page 2 for me though I don't know how many posts you've set up to view per page.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #98 on: June 27, 2016, 01:54:18 PM »
Hey I called you sweet lady.
Which is creepy and patronising.

Quote
That is why it's a borderline hypothesis/theory.
Which are two completely different things.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #99 on: June 27, 2016, 02:04:23 PM »
So with that, can you demonstrate one animal forming into another like a non dog to a dog?
How would you propose I demonstrate it? It happens gradually over a huge scale of time.
Just look at the fossil record, the various clearly related animals, and apply the simple logical deductions I've been talking about.

Incidentally the evolution of canids from non-canids (and afterwards of dogs from non-dogs) is very well documented.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2016, 02:07:43 PM »
Hey I called you sweet lady.
Which is creepy and patronising.

Quote
That is why it's a borderline hypothesis/theory.
Which are two completely different things.

I am aware they are different things. If I had to place evolution and it's progress I would say it's balancing between the two.

Do you live in Texas? There are still a few darlings, ma'ams, sweet ladies ect names thrown around here. It's not the end of the world or disrespectful, it's just calling a female a nice person. Geez...please don't go feminazi on me for no reason.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2016, 02:14:19 PM »
I am aware they are different things. If I had to place evolution and it's progress I would say it's balancing between the two.
Not really. Firm foundation, solid evidence... It's a theory.

Quote
Do you live in Texas? There are still a few darlings, ma'ams, sweet ladies ect names thrown around here. It's not the end of the world or disrespectful, it's just calling a female a nice person. Geez...please don't go feminazi on me for no reason.
If enough people are upset by it that you get so instantly defensive when called out, consider that there's actually a reason for that.
Never said it's the end of the world, that's your overreaction, and speaking of overreaction, throwing out a term with 'Nazi' in it kinda says it all.
Deciding it's remotely relevant to remind someone that they're 'sweet' for no actual reason, and using that kind of patronising compliment when you'd never do anything remotely similar with a guy, yep, kinda creepy.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2016, 02:31:24 PM »
Feminazi is a term used here about a feminist that overreacts about the tiniest things, along with some other things. Yeah I became defense because you turned something meant to be nice into something it was not intended to be. I do think space cowgirl is sweet.

I put a term there to show her I meant no disrespect with what I was saying. That it was more in a joking manner, and since this is text based, sometimes you cannot tell the implied tone.

I take it all back damn, this place is ridiculous.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2016, 02:39:48 PM »
... space cowgirl is sweet.

She is 80 and has no teeth.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2016, 02:54:37 PM »
... space cowgirl is sweet.

She is 80 and has no teeth.

So I guess that means she can't be sweet then???

I see why there are people on here that are pure rage. Attempted intelligent respectful conversation is all but impossible. Attempting to take this place seriously or offer anything for its benefit and well being is a waste apparently.

Guess I can just use this place as a shit zone for bad days and raw anger. It would follow suit with many others here
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2016, 02:59:54 PM »
Feminazi is a term used here about a feminist that overreacts about the tiniest things, along with some other things. Yeah I became defense because you turned something meant to be nice into something it was not intended to be. I do think space cowgirl is sweet.

I put a term there to show her I meant no disrespect with what I was saying. That it was more in a joking manner, and since this is text based, sometimes you cannot tell the implied tone.

I take it all back damn, this place is ridiculous.

If you're getting that mad about being asked not to use one particular phrase, that really seems to say it all. If it is 'just a compliment' then it's such a small thing: you're the one who just said it's a tiny thing, why are you getting worked up?
You're not the one who has to hear the exact same phrase repeated day after day after day nearly exclusively as an excuse to not actually listen to a word a woman says. Whether or not someone is 'sweet' is pretty plainly utterly irrelevant to a debate. Would you say that to, say, FalseProphet?

Anyway, this is a thread about evolution. You can stop acting like an ape.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2016, 03:04:54 PM »
... space cowgirl is sweet.

She is 80 and has no teeth.

So I guess that means she can't be sweet then???

I see why there are people on here that are pure rage. Attempted intelligent respectful conversation is all but impossible. Attempting to take this place seriously or offer anything for its benefit and well being is a waste apparently.

Guess I can just use this place as a shit zone for bad days and raw anger. It would follow suit with many others here

Whatever I say, you get angry...

I just try to prevent her turning the head of one more poor hillbilly guy with her Lolita avatar.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2016, 03:30:35 PM »
Whatever I say, you get angry...

I just try to prevent her turning the head of one more poor hillbilly guy with her Lolita avatar.

Well I recant if it was meant as a warning, however, have no fear, I was not looking for a mate or any interaction of such lol. Plus, certain spots in Texas, missing multiple teeth is kind of a norm lol.

Though 80?? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration I would think? My grandparents that raised me before their passing, they were early 90s and late 80s. I could not get them to understand the remote at the end, much less a computer. Try to explain an "internet forum" to them, your day is wasted. Crazy thing up to the late 80s when he retired, he worked with top secret Gyros guidance systems laser targeting ect ect with the military then with TI after he retired, then retired a second time from TI. Very tech savvy...don't know what happened, guess it was the age I dunno.

Sorry this place has me touchy I guess....speaking of touchy.




You're not the one who has to hear the exact same phrase repeated day after day after day nearly exclusively as an excuse to not actually listen to a word a woman says. Whether or not someone is 'sweet' is pretty plainly utterly irrelevant to a debate. Would you say that to, say, FalseProphet?

Anyway, this is a thread about evolution. You can stop acting like an ape.

And as I predicted it was the feminist card that was going to be pulled. All guys are always aiming at reducing the power of the ovaries right?  ::)

I already explained why I said that, I would never ever use such a phrase again so don't you worry there. And no I wouldn't call false prophet sweet because I don't think he is, a tad bit crabby actually.

Funny, all this after I explained I wanted to show her I meant no disrespect. If someone explained to me what they meant in a  comprehensible manner I would say "oh ok no biggie"  different cultures, different meaning.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2016, 03:42:10 PM »

Though 80?? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration I would think?

Admitted, but it was my first lie this week.

What is tad bit crabby?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44998
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2016, 03:46:17 PM »
Candy Angel is not a Lolita, and besides Lolita was being raped by her creepy ass pedo stepfather  >:(

Dammit, BabyHighSpeed. Why do you read so much anger into the things other people post? Is it because you are so filled with rage? I just don't get it.

If you call Jane a feminazi, should we call you a christianazi? I think that's fair.  Also, everyone who has been on the internet for more than a minute knows what a fucking feminazi is. It's not Texas slang. Rush Limbaugh was saying it on his tv show back in the 1980s.

You can defend Luke all you want, but you're defending someone too lazy to read over his own posts in this  short thread. He wants others to do all the heavy lifting, while he asks the same stupid ass questions over and over. Such as -

Quote
So with that, can you demonstrate one animal forming into another like a non dog to a dog?

He only wants them to repeat what they've said over and over. This is why I think he is fake. He knows "one animal forming into another" is not possible, he knows this isn't what evolution means.

ALSO

I am 47yrs old, jerkfaces  >:( >:( >:(

I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2016, 04:06:33 PM »
Lolita was being raped by her creepy ass pedo stepfather  >:(

No, he plans to rape her using a sedative to make her unconscious, but it does not work. Still, Humbert is an awful guy.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2016, 04:11:21 PM »
And as I predicted it was the feminist card that was going to be pulled. All guys are always aiming at reducing the power of the ovaries right?  ::)

I already explained why I said that, I would never ever use such a phrase again so don't you worry there. And no I wouldn't call false prophet sweet because I don't think he is, a tad bit crabby actually.

Funny, all this after I explained I wanted to show her I meant no disrespect. If someone explained to me what they meant in a  comprehensible manner I would say "oh ok no biggie"  different cultures, different meaning.
I don't like having to give a speech I've had to give countless times before on demand. It's not really a matter of different cultures anyway: might be normalised where you are, but the meaning's the same. Besides, you plainly don't need the explanation given you clearly already knew what the objections were. Infantilizing terms like 'darling,' 'sweet lady' etc thrown in for no relevant reason when there is no equivalent way you'd treat a guy, yeah, sure, I'll put my hand up to playing the 'feminist card,' sometimes it needs to be played. Relatively small issue, sure, you're the one who decided to make a big deal out of it.
As for 'All guys are always aiming at reducing the power of the ovaries right?' I never said that. I've no doubt that most of the time it's accidental, but when your immediate reaction to a comparatively mild call-out is to compare me to a Nazi, you've made your point of view pretty damn clear.

Dammit, BabyHighSpeed. Why do you read so much anger into the things other people post? Is it because you are so filled with rage? I just don't get it.
I'm british, so 80% of what I post probably sounds snarkier and more mean-spirited than intended, but yeah, not entirely sure why he got quite that worked up so quickly.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44998
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2016, 04:18:05 PM »
Dammit, BabyHighSpeed. Why do you read so much anger into the things other people post? Is it because you are so filled with rage? I just don't get it.
I'm british, so 80% of what I post probably sounds snarkier and more mean-spirited than intended, but yeah, not entirely sure why he got quite that worked up so quickly.

He told me (in a different thread) that the FES is his first forum. I've been trying to be understanding because of that. I kinda remember thinking the internet was serious business, once!  I never think your posts come off snarky or mean, tho. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2016, 04:20:38 PM »
Don't jerk faces me  >:( >:( the whole damn thing with Jane was because of something I said that was SUPPOSE to be sweet. I also didn't say anything about your age or your mandible count, I have no idea what you look like or your age. Nor did I say feminazi was just a Texas thing, I was talking about calling you a sweet lady.

I said I understood about the link thing...did you not read that?? Do I ever say anything about God?? No because 99 percent of people here could give a fuck about that so why waste my breath? So I would say christinazi would not make sense. Plus I respect other people's views and opinions. I just can't stand ignorance or disrespect. I like people to feel comfortable and get postive accepting vibes, instead of feeling like an outcast.



Though 80?? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration I would think?

Admitted, but it was my first lie this week.

What is tad bit crabby?

Very mildly cranky or grumpy.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #114 on: June 27, 2016, 04:31:27 PM »
the whole damn thing with Jane was because of something I said that was SUPPOSE to be sweet.

It is like this: the same thing that sounds sweet and appropriate in one situation can sound patronising in another situation. Male hominid mammals unfortunately often have no sense for such nuances, though it pays when they do, because the chicks love it.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #115 on: June 27, 2016, 04:35:39 PM »
the whole damn thing with Jane was because of something I said that was SUPPOSE to be sweet.

It is like this: the same thing that sounds sweet and appropriate in one situation can sound patronising in another situation. Male hominid mammals unfortunately often have no sense for such nuances, though it pays when they do, because the chicks love it.

Plus there's the fact that there's no reason to assume the best case scenario for a stranger's intentions, especially when they immediately get defensive over it.
As a good gauge: imagine you're talking to a guy. If you wouldn't say the same thing then, maybe rethink. That kind of compliment thrown out of nowhere is a) meaningless, b) utterly tedious, c) patronising.

What is tad bit crabby?


*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #116 on: June 27, 2016, 04:37:16 PM »
Dammit, BabyHighSpeed. Why do you read so much anger into the things other people post? Is it because you are so filled with rage? I just don't get it.
I'm british, so 80% of what I post probably sounds snarkier and more mean-spirited than intended, but yeah, not entirely sure why he got quite that worked up so quickly.

He told me (in a different thread) that the FES is his first forum. I've been trying to be understanding because of that. I kinda remember thinking the internet was serious business, once!  I never think your posts come off snarky or mean, tho.


Maybe I am being just being an over sensitive girl. I am actually over sensitive at times in the real world as well. I have my positive unique attributes in that area, though that is one of the sympathetic down fall bi products of said positive attributes.

I still think Jane is over reacting but that is just my opinion. I certainly respect females, though I have some animosity towards the "typical" woman. However, intelligence/logic/personality/humor ect is always first on my list, looks is certainly 5th or 7th in line, nor do I view women as objects. I was raised mainly by an elderly woman, she taught me well.

Though everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #117 on: June 27, 2016, 04:42:38 PM »
I still think Jane is over reacting but that is just my opinion.
Probably seems that way because you turned a 3-word mention into a long discussion.

Quote
I certainly respect females, though I have some animosity towards the "typical" woman.
Uh-huh.

Quote
However, intelligence/logic/personality/humor ect is always first on my list, looks is certainly 5th or 7th in line, nor do I view women as objects. I was raised mainly by an elderly woman, she taught me well.
Immediately listing what you find attractive when that's never been remotely under discussion, immediately followed by the equivalent to "Some of my best friends are black!" isn't exactly filling me with confidence.

Can we please just move on?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44998
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2016, 04:43:09 PM »
Dammit, BabyHighSpeed. Why do you read so much anger into the things other people post? Is it because you are so filled with rage? I just don't get it.
I'm british, so 80% of what I post probably sounds snarkier and more mean-spirited than intended, but yeah, not entirely sure why he got quite that worked up so quickly.

He told me (in a different thread) that the FES is his first forum. I've been trying to be understanding because of that. I kinda remember thinking the internet was serious business, once!  I never think your posts come off snarky or mean, tho.


Maybe I am being just being an over sensitive girl. I am actually over sensitive at times in the real world as well. I have my positive unique attributes in that area, though that is one of the sympathetic down fall bi products of said positive attributes.

I still think Jane is over reacting but that is just my opinion. I certainly respect females, though I have some animosity towards the "typical" woman. However, intelligence/logic/personality/humor ect is always first on my list, looks is certainly 5th or 7th in line, nor do I view women as objects. I was raised mainly by an elderly woman, she taught me well.

Though everyone is entitled to their opinion.

WAIT  >:(

Dammit, if anyone points out that calling yourself "an oversensitive girl" is being sexist you will cry FEMINAZI again. There's nothing wrong, or girly, about being sensitive.

You accuse Jane of overreacting, but you are the one who flips out!

I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11117
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #119 on: June 27, 2016, 04:43:41 PM »

As a good gauge: imagine you're talking to a guy.

I disagree with that. Despite what the world is trying, in my eyes a woman is different than a man. I wouldn't open the car door for false prophet but I would for a female just for example. I may blow three sentences of pure profanity with a guy friend, however, I may only say one or two words of profanity with a female.

I was raised by elderly people, I was taught chivalry. It may be old school but I feel it's right. It means no disrespect or saying I am over someone
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir