10
   

Why has she ceased speaking to me?

 
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 02:42 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
I've given you more breaks than usual, thought you said you were no longer interested I talking to her, Prince Confused


I'm not interested in her as a love-affair anymore.
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 02:44 am
@glitterbag,
I wish that made any sense.

Stick to bingo, old-hag.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 12:51 pm
@JimmyJ,
I've always wondered how the astronauts dealt with flatulence. You've been eating hard boiled eggs and drinking beer, haven't you?
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 08:18 pm
@neologist,
What do you think Neo, isn't Jimmy just the smartest guy you ever met. His witty remarks are devastatingly withering. On second thought, not so much, actually a tad little-boyish. .
JimmyJ
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 08:26 pm
@glitterbag,
Your face looks like an old carpet that was left out in the sun all day.
jcboy
 
  3  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 08:29 pm
@JimmyJ,
No wonder she stopped talking to you. You’re a dipshit. Cool
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 08:30 pm
@jcboy,
you're late.

She's continued speaking to me and wants to get together but I got back with my ex Wink
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 08:48 pm
@glitterbag,
I don't think he's stupid, just very much in love with his IQ
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 09:35 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

It's a lot like the kid standing outside the sports bar, hoping his new whiskers will fool the bouncer


word
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2013 09:42 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
I don't think he's stupid, just very much in love with his IQ


Well, you are the one who claims to know more than all the world's Biologists.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2013 01:29 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:
Well, you are the one who claims to know more than all the world's Biologists.
Not true, actually. I admire the work of people like farmerman who diligently describe and categorize fossil evidence. We have many areas of agreement. And, where we disagree, neither of us would describe the other as cerebrally challenged.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2013 01:52 am
@neologist,
All of the worlds Biologists adhere to evolution.

You claim they are wrong and that evolution is false.

Therefore, by extension, you are claiming to know more than them.
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2013 01:34 pm
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
All of the worlds Biologists adhere to evolution.


The trouble with making claims that "all" of a certain population believe in something or adhere to something is that it only takes finding 1 instance of non-conformity to prove you wrong. And once proven wrong it lessens the impact of your argument. And since I enjoy proving people wrong when they make really dumb statements which include the word "all" I have provided the below link to debunk your statement.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=full

And of course if that is not enough, I expanded my google search and consistently find figures that only 98-99.8% of biologists adhere to strict evolution beliefs. And I would not be surprised if the number were really 99.995%. It doesn't really matter how close you get to 100%. Anything less than that makes your statement wrong.

Now, had you written that nearly all biologists adhere to evolution, I would then agree with you. You really must step up your game if you are going to get any slack around here.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2013 10:02 pm
@CoastalRat,
Perhaps I should change my claim. However, I won't change the "all". I will change it to this:

All legitimate Biologists adhere to evolution.

I can support this by posting you the google scholar search of "Nathaniel Abraham". He is the "Biologist" that you referred to in the article. Interestingly enough he has not published a single academic journal.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Nathaniel+Abraham&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C29&as_sdtp=


We can also take a look at the article that you posted. The closing quote is very telling and truthful indeed when comes to Biology as a science.

"It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution," she said. "A flight school hiring instructors wouldn't ask whether they accepted that the earth was spherical; they would assume it. Similarly, Woods Hole would have assumed that someone hired to work in developmental biology would accept that evolution occurred. It's part and parcel of the science these days."

I stand by my statement.
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Dec, 2013 10:07 pm
@CoastalRat,
I also forgot to point out that the figures you're looking up don't take into account partial acceptance of evolution.

Some people may have problems with PARTS of evolution (ie: monophyletic, polyphyletic, etc), but it is literally almost impossible to do any biological research without operating from a position that evolution is true (hence why your "biologist" Abraham or whatever his name was has no published research).

I like your post, though.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

I went on a first date. Now what? - Question by LiveLoughLaugh24
Can we love someone we dont… like? - Question by silver227
I'm waiting. But. - Question by anonymously99
Writing - Question by anonymously99
writing - Question by anonymously99
Patience - What does it mean to you? - Discussion by chai2
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2022 at 01:03:24