Why do evolutionists defend evolution...

Why do evolutionists defend evolution with insults?

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Cod

Houston, TX

#1 Sep 28, 2013
You would think after a tough 29 hour work week without health benefits at Starbucks serving lattes they would have developed better manners. Seems that little evolution has occurs with these people.
.
Or as Barry from Indonesia, Hawaii, Columbia in NYC and Harvard would call them....Folks! Must be an Indonesian expression. I never met anyone from Hawaii, Columbia in NYC or Harvard call anyone... FOLKS! Just a little for you Evo rubes to chew on.
.
Cod

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Sep 28, 2013
I have never seen people that accept the theory of evolution to be rude first.

It is always the people in the wrong who are rude first.
Cod

Houston, TX

#3 Sep 28, 2013
So evolutionists that are wrong are rude first, check.
BTW, since you are in Everett, you better load up on iodine, iodide, cesium, strontium. Good home HEPA system, ziolite, South Atlantic kelp and such. Cross Ivar's, sushi etc off the list.
GL
Cod

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#4 Sep 29, 2013
Cod wrote:
So evolutionists that are wrong are rude first, check.
BTW, since you are in Everett, you better load up on iodine, iodide, cesium, strontium. Good home HEPA system, ziolite, South Atlantic kelp and such. Cross Ivar's, sushi etc off the list.
GL
Cod
Backwards as always Cod. Evolution is demonstrably correct and creationists all eventually are liars or idiots.

No need to be paranoid about seafood. We get the same seafood here as you do. Same beef, same pork, and for the most part the same chicken. I see that you are a fool in other matters too.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#5 Sep 29, 2013
Good point Cod and this Subduction Zone just proves it. Not once were you rude but yet in his last post he calls creationists liars and idiots and ends by saying you are a fool.

But as he says n his first post and shows it as well - It is always the people in the wrong who are rude first.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#6 Sep 29, 2013
suncore wrote:
Good point Cod and this Subduction Zone just proves it. Not once were you rude but yet in his last post he calls creationists liars and idiots and ends by saying you are a fool.
But as he says n his first post and shows it as well - It is always the people in the wrong who are rude first.
No the implication that evolutionists can only handle 29 hour work weeks serving coffee is neither rude to evolutionists nor rude to people working at Starbucks.

Rude behavior does not require the use of pointedly inflammatory words.
Cod

Houston, TX

#7 Sep 29, 2013
suncore wrote:
Good point Cod and this Subduction Zone just proves it. Not once were you rude but yet in his last post he calls creationists liars and idiots and ends by saying you are a fool.
But as he says n his first post and shows it as well - It is always the people in the wrong who are rude first.
I have to agree. First he makes assumptions about my POV on this subject. Next he attacks with insults.
.
IMO, it shows a small and calcified world view formed by an idea as simple as monkey see, monkey do. He so wishes to consider himself an intellectual that he parrots the positions of people that he considers intellectuals through the media of TV , movies and the pulpit of the intellectual university science religion. An institution that is mainly a propaganda tool of the organs that fund it. Finance controlled government and finance controlled big business, aka fascism.
.
Seig Ersatz Intellectualism! Seig Ersatz Intellectualism! Seig Ersatz Intellectualism!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#8 Sep 29, 2013
suncore wrote:
Good point Cod and this Subduction Zone just proves it. Not once were you rude but yet in his last post he calls creationists liars and idiots and ends by saying you are a fool.
But as he says n his first post and shows it as well - It is always the people in the wrong who are rude first.
No, I said I can prove that all creationists are either liars or idiots.

That is not being rude, that is a fact.

And Cod was rude. Not here but elsewhere.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#9 Sep 29, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree. First he makes assumptions about my POV on this subject. Next he attacks with insults.
.
IMO, it shows a small and calcified world view formed by an idea as simple as monkey see, monkey do. He so wishes to consider himself an intellectual that he parrots the positions of people that he considers intellectuals through the media of TV , movies and the pulpit of the intellectual university science religion. An institution that is mainly a propaganda tool of the organs that fund it. Finance controlled government and finance controlled big business, aka fascism.
.
Seig Ersatz Intellectualism! Seig Ersatz Intellectualism! Seig Ersatz Intellectualism!
Your initial post was a rude attack. Thus showing your point invalid from the start.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#10 Sep 29, 2013
Sorry, I forgot to go back to the OP of this thread. Cod was rude.

Not only that he was rude and incorrect.

My mistake.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#11 Sep 29, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree. First he makes assumptions about my POV on this subject. Next he attacks with insults.
.
IMO, it shows a small and calcified world view formed by an idea as simple as monkey see, monkey do. He so wishes to consider himself an intellectual that he parrots the positions of people that he considers intellectuals through the media of TV , movies and the pulpit of the intellectual university science religion. An institution that is mainly a propaganda tool of the organs that fund it. Finance controlled government and finance controlled big business, aka fascism.
.
Seig Ersatz Intellectualism! Seig Ersatz Intellectualism! Seig Ersatz Intellectualism!
And look, I was right. Cod has shown he is both a liar and an idiot.

There are very very few honest creationists.

Do you know what they call honest creationists? They call them evolutionists.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#12 Sep 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No the implication that evolutionists can only handle 29 hour work weeks serving coffee is neither rude to evolutionists nor rude to people working at Starbucks.
Rude behavior does not require the use of pointedly inflammatory words.
So you are assuming there are no evolutionists that work at Starbucks? If not then Cod was wrong in his statement. If so then he could be correct with his statement. He did not say "all" evolutionist. If a say black men play sports I am not indicating that "all" black men do.
Cod

Houston, TX

#13 Sep 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And look, I was right. Cod has shown he is both a liar and an idiot.
There are very very few honest creationists.
Do you know what they call honest creationists? They call them evolutionists.
Sorry but your sub-IQ slip is showing. You opened with a volley of insults and accusations about my beliefs and my honesty of which you have no test other than perhaps your magic 8 ball. Clearly you have no valid qualification, no matter your desire, to be considered an intellectual.
BTW, I like my mocha topped with whipped cream. Lastly, those tattoos are disturbing, please wear a long sleeved shirt next time you're serving paying customers. TIA

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#14 Sep 29, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are assuming there are no evolutionists that work at Starbucks? If not then Cod was wrong in his statement. If so then he could be correct with his statement. He did not say "all" evolutionist. If a say black men play sports I am not indicating that "all" black men do.
You can dance around all you like. Cod was rude in the very first post invalidating his claim. End of story.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#15 Sep 29, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but your sub-IQ slip is showing. You opened with a volley of insults and accusations about my beliefs and my honesty of which you have no test other than perhaps your magic 8 ball. Clearly you have no valid qualification, no matter your desire, to be considered an intellectual.
BTW, I like my mocha topped with whipped cream. Lastly, those tattoos are disturbing, please wear a long sleeved shirt next time you're serving paying customers. TIA
Look at the lying dumbshit.

You were rude and wrong in your opening post here. You cannot support your myth so all you have done is to spew garbage here.

So what do you believe and why? If it is not science based I am sure that I can show you how your beliefs are incorrect.

Do you believe the Noah's Ark myth? Or just the Garden of Eden myth?
Cod

Houston, TX

#16 Sep 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at the lying dumbshit.
You were rude and wrong in your opening post here. You cannot support your myth so all you have done is to spew garbage here.
So what do you believe and why? If it is not science based I am sure that I can show you how your beliefs are incorrect.
Do you believe the Noah's Ark myth? Or just the Garden of Eden myth?
.
Where did I lie? Where was I rude? What myth do I did escribe to?
.
You seem to use the same drugs as Mylie Cyrus. I'm not being rude. I am making an observation of a delusional person that is reading things that were never posted.
.
A seemingly illiterate horribly mind programmed clod that only responds with sing song diatribes as opposed to actually analyzing what is being posted.
.
/pwned
.
BTW, AGW is not real. It was only foisted upon the great unwashed such as yourself so you would accept your impoverished serfdom and early demise to save Gaia. Al Gore and TPTB lolz at you and your kind. No different than Henry Kissinger saying: "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.".
.
Enjoy serving coffee.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#17 Sep 29, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Where did I lie? Where was I rude? What myth do I did escribe to?
.
You seem to use the same drugs as Mylie Cyrus. I'm not being rude. I am making an observation of a delusional person that is reading things that were never posted.
.
A seemingly illiterate horribly mind programmed clod that only responds with sing song diatribes as opposed to actually analyzing what is being posted.
.
/pwned
.
BTW, AGW is not real. It was only foisted upon the great unwashed such as yourself so you would accept your impoverished serfdom and early demise to save Gaia. Al Gore and TPTB lolz at you and your kind. No different than Henry Kissinger saying: "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.".
.
Enjoy serving coffee.
Morn, at least when I am honest about using invective upon idiots.

And now I see you trying to deny AGW. You are doubly a moron. The science behind it has been accepted for over 100 years. The greenhouse effect was not controversial for all of those years. Now that our contributions to atmospheric CO2 are high enough to affect the climate it is a controversial idea.

Who woulda thunk it.

So let's see how many other idiocies and lies you can spew today.

By the way, if you want politeness as long as you apologize I will have no problem in being polite to you.

And lucky for you, since you probably can't handle anything more technical than a mop and pail there are Starbuck's employees that can make you those lattes that you swill. Me, I like good quality coffee, but I drink it black. I was never a fan of Starbucks.
Cod

Houston, TX

#18 Sep 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Morn, at least when I am honest about using invective upon idiots.
And now I see you trying to deny AGW. You are doubly a moron. The science behind it has been accepted for over 100 years. The greenhouse effect was not controversial for all of those years. Now that our contributions to atmospheric CO2 are high enough to affect the climate it is a controversial idea.
Who woulda thunk it.
So let's see how many other idiocies and lies you can spew today.
By the way, if you want politeness as long as you apologize I will have no problem in being polite to you.
And lucky for you, since you probably can't handle anything more technical than a mop and pail there are Starbuck's employees that can make you those lattes that you swill. Me, I like good quality coffee, but I drink it black. I was never a fan of Starbucks.
My G-d you are brainwashed.

First of all your: "The science behind it has been accepted for over 100 years." is not a stamp of truth nor empirical evidence. The eccentric Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis was pretty much the spring board for AGW via CO2 some 35 years ago. This has only been picked up to champion carbon credits meant to impoverish the middle class back into serfdom and have their wealth transferred to the socalled elites.
.
As far as the science shows CO2 does not cause warming. First the Sun becomes energetic which blocks more cloud forming gamma rays then the oceans warm up and begin to out gas CO2 200 years or more later. Its simple enough and all the honest evidence shows it so.
.
BTW warming topped out in 1997 pretty much in line with the Sun becoming less energetic yet CO2 (plant food) keeps increasing.
.
James Burke, he of the BBC Connections television series, hosted a BBC TV propaganda piece called The Day the Universe Changed.
It showed this was going to happen in the future and that was going to happen in the future, on and on.
Of course everything was nice in this future and everyone lived well in this future to the point that the show wasn't exactly riveting.
.
Then out of a clear blue sky he said breathlessly: "We need a carbon tax". Of course I made a funny face because their was no correlation between this warmer future and a carbon tax.
Unfortunately this carbon tax will only serve to impoverish most people and force them into depressing crowded urban ghettos.
.
BTW characterizing my posts as idiocies and lies is very poor form. Usually this type of post comes from someone with no facts to back up their assertions. IOWs, your posts are weak and full of regurgatory drivel
.
Have a pleasant part time shift of serving lattes, mochas and muffins.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#19 Sep 29, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
My G-d you are brainwashed.
First of all your: "The science behind it has been accepted for over 100 years." is not a stamp of truth nor empirical evidence. The eccentric Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis was pretty much the spring board for AGW via CO2 some 35 years ago. This has only been picked up to champion carbon credits meant to impoverish the middle class back into serfdom and have their wealth transferred to the socalled elites.
.
As far as the science shows CO2 does not cause warming. First the Sun becomes energetic which blocks more cloud forming gamma rays then the oceans warm up and begin to out gas CO2 200 years or more later. Its simple enough and all the honest evidence shows it so.
.
BTW warming topped out in 1997 pretty much in line with the Sun becoming less energetic yet CO2 (plant food) keeps increasing.
.
James Burke, he of the BBC Connections television series, hosted a BBC TV propaganda piece called The Day the Universe Changed.
It showed this was going to happen in the future and that was going to happen in the future, on and on.
Of course everything was nice in this future and everyone lived well in this future to the point that the show wasn't exactly riveting.
.
Then out of a clear blue sky he said breathlessly: "We need a carbon tax". Of course I made a funny face because their was no correlation between this warmer future and a carbon tax.
Unfortunately this carbon tax will only serve to impoverish most people and force them into depressing crowded urban ghettos.
.
BTW characterizing my posts as idiocies and lies is very poor form. Usually this type of post comes from someone with no facts to back up their assertions. IOWs, your posts are weak and full of regurgatory drivel
.
Have a pleasant part time shift of serving lattes, mochas and muffins.
Boy, you are pulling out all of the unproven and debunked claims.

The gamma ray claim has not been supported by actual studies. It was a wild donkeyed guess by someone who did not know what he was talking about.

The Greenhouse effect is the sort of science that you should like. It is demonstrable in the lab. It has been known to be a fact over 100 years. CO2 is a provable greenhouse gas. I can even find a video that a fool like you could understand.

Since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas why do you think that almost doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere would have no effect?

You are simply another uneducated Christian denier. Now I don't like the Al Gore approach to global warming, but that does not make it a fake problem.
Cod

Houston, TX

#20 Sep 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, you are pulling out all of the unproven and debunked claims.
The gamma ray claim has not been supported by actual studies. It was a wild donkeyed guess by someone who did not know what he was talking about.
The Greenhouse effect is the sort of science that you should like. It is demonstrable in the lab. It has been known to be a fact over 100 years. CO2 is a provable greenhouse gas. I can even find a video that a fool like you could understand.
Since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas why do you think that almost doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere would have no effect?
You are simply another uneducated Christian denier. Now I don't like the Al Gore approach to global warming, but that does not make it a fake problem.
Your proofs and conclusions are ridiculous, all false.

CO2 very weak greenhouse gas and it is FACT that CO2 is an outcome of warming and not a cause of warming. As for gamma rays are you saying they are not a cause of cloud formation? Are you saying that the energy output of the Sun does not effect the gamma ray flux? Are you saying the delta in global cloud cover does not effect he global temperature?
.
Oh don't worry turn on MSNBC, Ricky Maddow will make it all better.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Paul Porter1 168,912
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Paul Porter1 141,831
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 3 hr Brian_G 6,217
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr ChristineM 19,788
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 22 hr Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web