Should we take Ray Comfort Serious? If no, what not?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Well, typed, but yes - A for effort!
In labs, where scientists studied the fossils, dated them and compared their anatomic similarities.
Meanwhile, you can't even find any evidence at all for your religious beliefs. How sad for you!
Notice that Jan has the same standard answer to any question posed to his claims.
He's just like the kid in a kindergarten playground who says, "I know you are, but am I?"
You’re trying so hard to hurt me.
You need to realise it’s over.
Nobody cares man.
97% of scientists plus the vast majority of people on Earth care. You do realize you're in a very small, shrinking minority, right?
You’re trying so hard to hurt me.
Like when you said that picture of the cyclops was my wife? Can't wait to show her that post.
I can't comment on any of that unless you have details, preferably with suitable evidence and references.
When you say "way older", how much older are you referring to?
Where were these remains found? Which strata were they in? How was this discovery "swept under the carpet"? How do you know about it?
You give no details, so there's no way (so far) to check your story of a Grand Scientific Conspiracy.
Those pictures merely give you a summary of the timeline, based on the actual science. Don't kid yourself that the pictures are all there is.
You're obviously not interested in the details of the evidence, anyway. You have no wish to learn about evolution. That much is clear.
No.
It doesn't at all follow that people will automatically believe something just because it is true. Even you would agree with that, given your belief that God is real, combined with the obvious fact that lots of people don't believe it.
In your own case, you're desperate to deny evolution because you feel that it threatens your religious faith. That is, you deny a truth because it is more important to you to believe that it is false than to take an objective look at things.
Where? What? Who found them? You sure you're talking about Homo sapiens there?
Last edited:
Of course it wasn’t.
a) I don’t know that he is a man (I do now because he talked about his wife)
b) I didn’t know he was married.
c) He may be gay, as far as I know.
d) l only use the pronoun “he” because he only just now, mentioned his wife.
e) It’s obviously not his wife (cyclops)
f) I’m willing to bet his wife will find it amusing rather than offensive.
g) when are you going to give him a warning for continuously describing me as subhuman?
Your post which triggered the response you quoted, had the same amount of information, that I gave in my response.
If I wanted a references for what you said, rather than ask you, it would have been easier for me to go and look for myself. I also expect that from you.
Last edited:
That’s rather narrow-minded of you, isn’t it? In this day an age, having a wife is insufficient information to know that the person is a man. However (Q) identifies, referencing the wife is referencing the wife, as well as everything else it stands for.
(Q) needn’t be to take offence, or for the comment you made to be insulting. It really only determines whether you are insulting one or both of them.
He may be, or she may be. You’re really digging a hole for yourself here. Time to stop digging?
Nope, you carry on digging.
Then why insult (Q) by asking if it was?
It’s not a matter of whether the person being referred to finds it offensive, but whether the person you made the comment to does. Are your social skills really so poorly developed?
I also find it rather doubtful that anyone would find it amusing to be likened to a gigantic one-eyed Harry Harryhausen creation, especially by someone they don’t know in any way at all. But hey, if you’d find it amusing, I guess that’s okay then.
Maybe when you stop acting like you are?g) when are you going to give him a warning for continuously describing me as subhuman?
Sorry - couldn’t resist that last one. But, well, you know, you seem to consider insulting people to be amusing, right?
If your post had been intended as humour then you shot rather wide of the mark. And perhaps best you put the “humour pistol” down, as you seem to be a liability to yourself.
How does it warrant an official warning?
Who would I be insulting, if he wasn’t married?
Not digging any hole.
I would have been wrongly accused of being offensive to nobody. Because he wouldn’t have a wife for me to offend.
Running out of ideas are we?
You can do better than that.
Why assume it was an insult?
Surely that’s what you have to determine.
Guilty till proven innocent? Is that your style?
You’ve yet to prove that I was being offensive, and not playful. The dialogue between me and Q was based on playfulness. Unless Q hasn’t been playing . Then it begs the question why I am the only one being punished.
That could be down to you having an incredibly poor sense of humour. Als your analysis is entirely subjective.
Q himself likened my comment to the comments he made about me, which could construed as equally derogatory, if indeed they are to be considered derogatory.
...You’re trying so hard to hurt me.
You need to realise it’s over.
Nobody cares man.
Damn, it was so good he couldn’t wait to show it to his wife. That does sound like being offended, to me.
On what grounds do you accuse of acting as a lower order of being, compared to a human being?
You didn't get an official warning for assuming (Q) is male.
(Q), of course. And there's no "would I"... you did. You insulted his choice of partner, which insults both the partner, if there is one, and him through his choice of that partner.
It's not rocket science.
You were with your continuing assumptions. And even more so now with your obliviousness to your insult.
You still don't get that you offend him through what you even considered to be his choice of wife. There doesn't need to be an actual wife for that to be considered by (Q) as offensive. Are you that socially inept?
Just watching you dig holes.
If someone posts a picture of a cyclops and asks if that is my wife, whether I have a wife or not, that would be insulting. The assumption that (Q) would also find it insulting is thus quite rational.
Being playful in intent does not mean you can't be unintentionally insulting. Or is that too much of a stretch for you to grasp.
Noone has been "playing" with you, Jan. People are trying to get you to understand a few basics, and you're just being childish. You may think that your comment was based on playfulness, but that doesn't stop it being insulting.
That must be it, Jan, everyone else having an incredibly poor sense of humour, as you sit in the corner and laugh alone at your own joke, everyone else just shaking their head with pity.
I think he rather raised the question of whether you thought they were really comparable, the inference drawn being that he really didn't think they were.
Well, given your clear lack of social awareness and inability to read situations and reactions, I guess you probably would think that you haven't insulted anyone.
Needless to say you did, and your apparent lack of apology on the matter is also telling, whether you had intended it or not.
But hey, I've said my piece now. I'll leave you to your pointless trolling of threads.
If you act like a troll, I'm presumably at liberty to consider you one.
Your sniveling excuses and attempts to backpedal tell us a lot about you. You don't even have the spine to stand behind your own words.
How do you know?
Q made no complaint, prior to the official warning (at least not publicly), of being insulted.
So how did you determine that he was insulted?
Irrelevant.
There was no mention of insult by any of the people involved. That description is purely subjective.
You have to show that it was considered an offence at the time. Otherwise that is pure speculation.
Irrelevant line of questioning.
Irrelevant.
That does not show that I was being insulting.
Did James R, or Q, accuse me of insulting.
If not, that description has no bearing in this conversation. I urge you to stick to the facts.
It is also quite rational to assume he would take it as a joke. As he didn’t say he was insulted, we cannot include that as part of any evidence.
Yes it is.
Can you elaborate?
Which then means I was responding to insults levelled at me, by Q.
So why was I the only party to be warned?
James should either officially warn Q as well, or revoke my official warning. Unless he is discriminating unfairly.
Your insults are unnecessary.
I understand the basics.
That you don’t agree, is not my problem.
It doesn’t make it insulting either.
You’re misrepresenting me.
I said it could be down to YOU, no one else.
What you think is kind of irrelevant?
All we have to go on is the evidence, which only indicates a likeness.
Irrelevant.
Your opinion amount to speculation, and clearly your bias is toward Q.
Your guesswork is irrelevant, not to mention incorrect, and emotional.
As you cannot provide any evidence that it was an actual insult.
Your accusation are nothing but an opportunity to vent your emotions.
I rest my case.
You irrational.
You should get your dad to talk on your behalf, so we can have a grown up conversation.
It was a clearly a joke. Nobody’s wife looks like that.
Last edited:
It could have been done to get a humorous reaction from him. He originally posted it as a reaction to a message I aimed at Alex. It had nothing to do with the post I made, but nevertheless I saw it as humorous, and playfully put it back to him. It wasn’t meant to provoke an angry reaction.
That's "you're irrational."
Like posting pictures of monsters and comparing them to people's wives? "Grown up" like that?
You tried to get a good insult in. It blew up in your face. Grow a pair, own it and move on.