Jesus came from an incestuous line

Originally posted by divegeester
Oh dear.

Your dodge is noted.

Originally posted by vivify
Your dodge is noted.

Yeah sure, I think it's ok for fathers to have sex with their daughters, why not.

🙄

Originally posted by divegeester
Yeah sure, I think it's ok for fathers to have sex with their daughters, why not.

🙄

The devil is in the details.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm scared now, please stop.

If you ask nicely 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
Yeah sure, I think it's ok for fathers to have sex with their daughters, why not.

🙄

Based on your reply, it seems you don't approve of incest. Correct?

Originally posted by vivify
Based on your reply, it seems you don't approve of incest. Correct?

Based on your reply I'd say you were below average intelligence, correct?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you ask nicely 🙂

Let's pick up discussion again sometime, I'm sure we have lots of productive insights to exchange and niether of us will stoop to ignoring the other, as some here do.

Originally posted by divegeester
Let's pick up discussion again sometime, I'm sure we have lots of productive insights to exchange and niether of us will stoop to ignoring the other, as some here do.

Sure.

Do you at least now get my point that there is no biological requirement for any species to ever have a low population? You may believe (not saying you do) that there was an actual Adam and Eve, but that is based on faith, not science. If it had ever actually happened then we would expect to see it in the genetics. We do not.

Secondly, in case you didn't get it when I said it before, there is no clear dividing line when species change. Its more of a continuum. There is no 'first population' of humans. There is only a continuous evolution from the ancestors of humans and chimps to what we see today. Species names are an artificial construct invented by humans for categorisation purposes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sure.

Do you at least now get my point that there is no biological requirement for any species to ever have a low population? You may believe (not saying you do) that there was an actual Adam and Eve, but that is based on faith, not science. If it had ever actually happened then we would expect to see it in the genetics. We do not.

Secondly, in case ...[text shortened]... today. Species names are an artificial construct invented by humans for categorisation purposes.

Thanks, useful information.
My disagreement with you is largely over style, not substance.

Originally posted by divegeester
Thanks, useful information.
My disagreement with you is largely over style, not substance.

My disagreement with you is over both. The main problem being that you style, makes getting at the substance practically impossible. Why do you always do that?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My disagreement with you is over both. The main problem being that you style, makes getting at the substance practically impossible. Why do you always do that?

If you reflected your own posting style and attitude you may find that a different approach may illicit a different response. My point being that you refuse to accept any responsibility for your clashes with people; therefore you don't change. I have lots of clashes but never (or rarely) does the exchange get closed down. I fully accept my part in our clashes.

Originally posted by divegeester
If you reflected your own posting style and attitude you may find that a different approach may illicit a different response. My point being that you refuse to accept any responsibility for your clashes with people; therefore you don't change. I have lots of clashes but never (or rarely) does the exchange get closed down. I fully accept my part in our clashes.

I do not refuse to accept any responsibility. I do accept that I play a part in our clashes. But I do maintain that the escalation in both recent clashes was initiated and maintained by you. And I suspect, that it was done so purely to avoid dealing with a difficult issue or a point where you knew you were wrong. Whenever I try to get the conversation back on track you deliberately derail it again.

Originally posted by divegeester
Based on your reply I'd say you were below average intelligence, correct?

Your second dodge is noted.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do accept that I play a part in our clashes. But I do maintain that the escalation in both recent clashes was initiated and maintained by you.

I accept my part, but here you are again blaming it on me. I really don't want to discuss this anymore.

Originally posted by vivify
Your second dodge is noted.

What dodge are you talking about?

If I say I don't agree with incest, will you feel appeased?