Challenging the theory of women by DJ's

[Craig Reeves]

I don't know what's up with the chicks on this board...but some of them seem to be such idiots.....

ESPECIALLY IQQI! Oh God! Is she a dike or something?

I remember that stupid ass post she made about female beauty and how sweet some bi!tch's punani was.....I cracked up at that dumbass's post....and also cracked up about her stupid birthday in Iqqiville post too...

Anyway.

As far as the whole "Birds are dinosaurs" thing goes.....that only disproves evolution....not support it.

Evolution states that the dinosarus died out 65 million years ago....if birds are dinosaurs...then I guess that aspect about evolution is wrong then....but then again, I forgot who was posting this stuff. Iqqi's probably too stupid to even know what the heck a bird looks like, hehe.

Evolution theory states that dinosaurs evolved over MILLIONS of years. We CERATINLY would have been able to find something like 70%, 80%, or hell, even 99% dinosars if they had really been evolving over millions of years, wouldn't we? But we have not. 100% dinosaur only.

As far as the second link goes....that talks about the extinction of the dinosaurs....I don't know why that had anything to do with what I was quoted on.

p.s. Hey Iqqi, they say I'm sexy now....so....how about it?

 

[Craig Reeves]

I dare say I've never met an intelligent fungi.

(I'm not saying evolution isn't a observable fact, I'm just saying that most mushrooms aren't very smart. Conversation with one is quite a bore.)

When I said "intellegent" life, I meant in scientific terms.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Craig Reeves
Evolution theory states that dinosaurs evolved over MILLIONS of years.

Wrong: Fossil records indicate that dinosaurs existed. Carbon dating gives us a time frame. It has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Quite different sciences when it comes right down to it.

Originally posted by Craig Reeves
We CERATINLY would have been able to find something like 70%, 80%, or hell, even 99% dinosars if they had really been evolving over millions of years, wouldn't we?

What? We can't even find 100% of the Egyptians whom we know by written record existed because their remains were washed away, buried too deeply generally knocked about and obliterated by the Nile inundation. Egyptians worked very hard to preserve their dead. As far as I know, dinosaurs didn’t have a similar burial program and Mother Nature has had a lot of time to destroy their unprotected remains.

What was your point?

 

[iqqi]

Originally posted by Eileen
What was your point?

that iqqi is a b!tch, yet he has an unhealthy fixation with her.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by iqqi
that iqqi is a b!tch, yet he has an unhealthy fixation with her.

- You go!

 

[Gonzalo]

Originally posted by Aramas

Evolution is a proven, observable and repeatable theory.

Sorry dawg, but Evolution is a fact. "Natural selection" is a theory, which attempts to explain evolution. Why do you need to go cursing if you dont even get that part right? G

 

[Paradox]

Can we keep this thread on topic?

Can we keep this thread on topic? This is not a thread about apes and birds. It is about choices.

Why does the short balding man end up with the 10? Is it because he bows to her OR is it just plain chemistry? How much does real science play a part in the choices that we make?

BTW mysterywoman, good topic.

 

[Kid-Icarus]

Dan i hate admitting this

I read the first post cuz i'm not gonna read 4pages of post....overall tho i gotta say MysteryWoman is right tho. No matter how much hrd to get you play ect, if a chik doesnt like you initially becuz of looks or whatever, it wont matter what you do.

i wont go into why because it was discussed in 4pages of post/replies and flames but admit. If you dont like someone romantically and/or sexually nothing they can do short to drugging you is gonna work in their favor... My 2cents

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by Craig Reeves
The theory of evolution is just that......a THEORY. It is NOT taught to educate people on how the origins of life on earth work. I know this for a fact.

Gravity is also a theory. We have yet to observe a graviton particle so we have yet to actually confirm the solid existence of how gravity works. Therefore it is reasonable to be skeptical about the existance of gravity.

edit: oh I see someone beat me to it...

This is pure, ignorant, rampant stupidity. Gravity is just a theory. Do you think you will float away if you stop believing it? Every modern structure on earth was designed with theories. WIll they all fall on your head when you proclaim their heresy? The great unwashed seem to confuse 'theory' with 'hypothesis'.

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[darwinian_sympathiser]

I'll make this short and brutally sweet:

Hearing this discussion here reminds me, again and again what the poet Schiller once said:

"Against stupidity the Gods themselves fight unvictorious"

I don't want to fight one unconquerable fool after another and I will not try . . .

Question from Eileen:

"The pedophile is a good example: Is he attracted to children because of genetics or because of some psychological issue?"

The reason is probably to due to sexual imprinting (read Lorenz) and it might possibly be genetic as well - we aren't sure because more research needs to be done. Don't make the mistake of gene determinisim, that's a common fallacy.

For example, and I predicted this some time ago, they ran a health check on the members of the British Civil service over a long period, and what they found was shocking. They found that your status determined your health. That is if you were a cleaner and you were slim, kept fit, ate healthily, and did not smoke etc . . you were more than TWICE as likely to have a heart attack than if you were the head of the department, smoked like a chimney, took no exercise and ate fatty foods. Environment have a terrible effect on genes. Genes are the programs that we have, the environment is the operating system that they exist in for want of a terribly crude analogy. I knew the outcome of this research simple because I heard about 2 years previously research on babboons that showed the Alpha male always had the best health and his subordinates always had the worse of health, and the lower the hierarchy you go the worse it got - regardless if they had healthy genes or not . . .

 

[elvis aint dead yet]

darwinian_sympathiser, the problem with all these theories, surveys, and research is one will dissprove the other.

Every other week another theory comes into existence. I mean last week, there is research claiming that CHOPSTICKS are very unhealthy.

A few years back EGGS were bad, then they were good, then they were bad, and now EGG whites are ok, egg yolks aren't.

There are about a billion theories, and most are trying to prove another theory wrong.

There are people who eat healthy, are the most fit in the world and live to 100. There are those who seem to be overweight, smokers, and the most unfit in the world and live to 100.

There are those who also are the fittest and die young. There are those who are very unhealthy and die young.

You can proclaim your theory is right until your blue in the face while somebody else proclaims their own theories. The problem is sometimes, neither of you are right or wrong. That is why they are theories.

As for this age old LOOKS vs Personality theory.

If you are not attracted to somebody, in a majority of cases, you will never give that person the time of day to show off their personality. End of story.

Too many people live in this Unrealistic TV is the real world lives.

While looks should not make you become a hobbit hidden in the woods, you should also accept the fact that some people won't like you no matter what kind of personality you have.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by darwinian_sympathiser
Question from Eileen:

"The pedophile is a good example: Is he attracted to children because of genetics or because of some psychological issue?"

The reason is probably to due to sexual imprinting (read Lorenz) and it might possibly be genetic as well - we aren't sure because more research needs to be done. Don't make the mistake of gene determinisim, that's a common fallacy.

That, I believe, was my point. (You might want to read my posts a little closer. We agree on many accounts.)

Without going into the studies done on the subject I submit that genetics has an ability only to predispose individuals to certain traits. In other words, some individuals might be more susceptible to obsessive behavior but conditions in the environment are what cause it to manifest.

It's a hard one to prove, but my personal life experiences and observations fit well into that model.

 

[Player_Supreme]

Originally posted by Eileen
That, I believe, was my point. (You might want to read my posts a little closer. We agree on many accounts.)

Without going into the studies done on the subject I submit that genetics has an ability only to predispose individuals to certain traits. In other words, some individuals might be more susceptible to obsessive behavior but conditions in the environment are what cause it to manifest.

It's a hard one to prove, but my personal life experiences and observations fit well into that model.

I agree with this theory. I've seen it too many times in real life. I have a step son who had no contact with his real father until much later in his life...and they have very similiar personality traits...actually we say they are identical but that is impossible.

I have another step son who is a go getter like his biological father who is a Navy Seals Commander. This one earned a scolarship by playing football and running track...went to college and now is a manager for Balleys fitness.

Both were raised in the same environment and are too opposites that are mirror images of their biological fathers whom neither of had contact with. I have been their only father figure.

I have two biological sons of my own and one lives and is going to school in Paris. He is the mirror image of my personality.

 

[Trogdawg]

Someone stop this thread please. It has evolved...into a subject that should either be stopped or moved to the anything else forum.

I have read this forum for years and I still have not ran into a single post from a woman that has helped me get women. Not one. So if you ladies would please take your arguments of evolution to another board. This one is about "secrets of meeting, dating, and attracting women".

To get closer to the original topic. Mysterywoman, you assume that looks is the only variable in relationships. You assume this by saying: beautiful women with average looking guys. You do not take into account confidence, status, job, skills, character, or any number of important characteristics of a human being.

 

[darwinian_sympathiser]

If you are not attracted to somebody, in a majority of cases, you will never give that person the time of day to show off their personality. End of story.

That's what BondJamesBond says, so does AntiDump, Pook (if you read carefully), DeepDish, TheUnknownDon etc. . .

If I remember correctly I keep on quoting BondJamesBond:

"A real man will simply walk away and stop wasting time. And idiot would make a 100 excuses why a chick is being cold towards him but will never accept the bottom line: she doesn't want to f*ck with you"

I never agreed with what ManOMan posted, I think it's partially rubbish.

Also MysteryWoman's obsession with looks will win her little if any friends. The fact that she proclaims it so openly and seem to put a very high premium on it tells me that she must be somehow be deeply insecure about something . . . . and I think most of us can definitely relate to that.