We should be able to block trolling moderators?

it wasn't intended to be an insult.

as to the questions, why don't you post them so everyone can see how lame they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lamerpold:

Calling someone a 'critter' isn't intended to be an insult? Yeah, pull the other one...

Very well:

I'm sure that after the other posters here read your 'questions', they will realize that I made the right choice in not bothering to respond to you. If you want answers to them, post them in the forum, and waste someone elses time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mountainhare, I find myself on the opposite of the fence from you on this one. I don't know exactly what context these questions were asked in, but they seem reasonable ones to ask.

Unfortunately the Washington Times link is now dead, but the question as to how certain things could evolve vexed even Darwin. Of course, Leo has asked 'why' not 'how', yet the answer is the same - natural selection acting on mutations and available genetic stock within a given environment.

The emergent property of life (and later of consciousness) remains a scientific, philosophical and spiritual mystery. I am at a loss to see why you would consider such a question beneath you, though I can imagine why you might think it beyond you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

take your pick:
http://www.google.com/search?client...fficial_s&hl=en&q=god gene&btnG=Google Search

 

Ophiolite:

The problem here is that I didn't ask Leopold to challenge me with irrelevant questions. I asked for evidence to support his supposition that
1. Evolution is false 2. Creationism is true.
I don't have the time or patience to bother with his stupid questions.

To clarify, Leopold sent me an article about the supposed 'God' gene, which supposedly gives humans a predisposition to believe in God. He then asked me why we would evolve such a thing.
For a start, I find the science behind a 'God' gene questionable. There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that a particular gene is responsible for faith.

Secondly, it's not my responsibility to explain such a thing. I asked Leopold for evidence that
1. Evolution was false 2. Creationism was true.
Even if I was unable to explain such a thing, does not mean that he has provided me with evidence to support Creationism, or evidence against evolution. I'm sure that even you agree that merely because we aren't aware of the exact processes by which a mechanism evolved, is not evidence against the fact that it did evolve.
If he wants an answer to such a question, he's free to post it in the forum, although I personally feel it's a stupid question.

Such a question is not only 'beneath' me, it's also fucking irrelevant to my original question, which was whether Leopold had any evidence whatsoever that
1. Evolution is False 2. Creationism is true.
When atoms become life is a damn stupid question, where he attempts to draw attention away from the fact that he CAN'T support his original claim, which is that evolution is BS. Merely because where one draws the line between 'life' and 'non-life' is a little ambigious, does in no way cast doubt upon evolution.

I'm not going to piss away my time replying to irrelevancies. I've got better things to do, which is why my post count per day has dropped dramatically. I tried to merely extract myself from the argument by staying quiet, but Leopold doesn't have the sense to do likewise. He can feel free to call me a 'critter' and a 'coward' all he wants. Until he provides some decent evidence which is relevant to his original conjecture, I'm not going to bother to respond.

 

i refer ophiolite to the following thread which prompted this dialog between mountainhare and myself.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53938&highlight=muslim

i point out the following quote by mountainhare
"Try asking me your question in a different thread."
instead of creating a thread i sent a pm

edit
and where did i use the word 'coward' to describe you mountainhare?
as far as the critter part i am sorry you took it as an offense but you must agree that a 'mountainhare' is a 'critter'

 

Mountainhare, here's a link about the gene VMAT2 and a review of the book that discussed some research. And yes, you are correct, research is sketchy at best, BUT if it were true, it would beg the question (if you were a man of faith) "why would God NOT put this gene into all people?", and "why would God use such a clumsy, biological interface, and not talk directly to our 'spirit'?"

As to why we would have that gene, well, it probably does something else, the faith part is most likely a side effect.