On 14 Apr., 18:20, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:

Things such as natural selection and adaptation are easy to observe,
yet I
see no real mathematical formulae modeling any of evolution's
hypotheses
and
correlating them with empirical data.

You are gibbering now.

Nah. You are.
You can not escape the power of superior intellect and reason.

Wanna discuss your arrest in 1997 for indecent exposure?

for DUI?

Sorry, but "superior intellect" and "convicted perverse" don't go
together...

Thanks for the laugh though...

On 14 Apr., 18:20, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:

Things such as natural selection and adaptation are easy to observe, yet I
see no real mathematical formulae modeling any of evolution's hypotheses
and
correlating them with empirical data.

You are gibbering now.

Nah. You are.
You can not escape the power of superior intellect and reason.

Wanna discuss your arrest in 1997 for indecent exposure? for DUI?
Sorry, but "superior intellect" and "convicted perverse" don't go
together...
Thanks for the laugh though...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:20:31 -0400, in alt.atheism
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in
<Dc7Uh.10591$qB4.7495@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ies123lamfcissg276uaodllcse6n8d0a1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:58:38 -0400, in alt.atheism
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in
<D75Uh.2274$Pq5.282@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:jkl123tg30mm9v4a40df0i889j00moues8@4ax.com...

...

It is generally the anti-science religious zealots who claim that
Darwin was an atheist, because they falsely think that somehow
Darwin's discoveries are less real if he were.

Hmm. I would say it is from ignorance and nothing else.

No, it's generally from a dishonest desire to ignore reality rather
than try to reconcile religious doctrines with reality.

Your personal dishonest desires do not extend to others as you falsely
believe.

You have demonstrated your dishonesty. Because of that, no one has any
reason to accept any of your claims without supporting evidence.

I wouldn't think anyone who really knew would try to propagandize the
issue.

Evolution happened. The religious zealots know that. They have to
lie to themselves to deny it.

I can not accept Evolution as a theory.

I really don't care. You have demonstrated that your opinion here is
completely based on religious doctrines and that you have chosen to
ignore the scientific evidence. In short, your opinion is dishonestly
arrived at and needs to be treated that way.

Again, you are falling as you resort to accusation rather than to
verifiable proof.

Your assertions are the evidence that you do not know what you are
talking about and/or are proudly dishonest. As I said, I have no reason
to accept any claims you make, you have demonstrated that you are
willing to make any number of dishonest and false statements.

It does NOT meet the requirements of rigorous proof to substantiate it
as a
*theory*.

Here is an excellent example of your dishonesty in approaching it. A
theory is not and does not require rigorous proof.

*****, you IDIOT!

Keep proving your ignorance and dishonesty. We need more people to see
what you are like.

You either know that or chose intentionally not to know it.

Not so, you idiot.
Theory is proven.

Thanks for showing us how ignorant you are of science.

Hypothesis is conjecture.

Either way, you are being dishonest here.

Not so, understudy.

I also notice that you never, ever expect theists to
provide a shred of evidence to support their claims, let alone
rigorous proof.

Why is it they are not calling their presentment theory?
LOL!
They are NOT required to prove that which they do not present as THEORY!

How many times will you repeat your false claims about what a theory is.
Remember that the propaganda procedure called "The Big Lie" is only
effective if people aren't pointing out that it is a lie. Since you have
been caught lying and people keep pointing out that you are lying, your
propaganda will not work.

It has too many unproven aspects to be accepted as a *theory*.

Once again, you use words in a way that show your intentional
ignorance or dishonesty.

Nah.
Theories are proven.

Still wrong.

Knowledgeable persons such as myself who have much experience with
proof and
experimentation do not accept Evolution as a theoretical subject.

You are lying, once again. If you are going to assert that we should
accept your opinion because you have special knowledge of the area in
question, you need to provide evidence that you are knowledgeable. So
far, you have not done so.

Look up standards of proof online if you do not believe me.

I'll assume that you did look up a description of a scientific theory
and that now you are only lying, that ignorance is no longer a defense
on your part.

I am not concerned with your insufficent vapidness.

Wow.

We can at best accept parts of it as hypothesis.

More dishonest dismissiveness.

I am not being dishonest at all, you propagandizing fool.

As long as you misrepresent science, you will be lying.

Things such as natural selection and adaptation are easy to observe,
yet I see no real mathematical formulae modeling any of evolution's
hypotheses and
correlating them with empirical data.

You are gibbering now.

Nah. You are.
You can not escape the power of superior intellect and reason.

Ah, I see, now you're trying to persuade me that you're really an
anti-creationist who is parodying the creationists greatest lies.

You also are ignoring the data.

What data that are proven to conform to any physical or mathematical
formula am I ignoring?

The data that was gathered by scientists that showed why and how
evolution occurs.

It's hard to take you seriously when you make claims about the lack of
evidence that are
completely untrue.

I see nothing to verify evolution as science.

Open your eyes. Start reading. Learn. Stop acting the fool.

I wish you evolution 'zealots' would get an education and begin to
realize what is actually required for something to be regarded as a
theory and stop
acting as if some unproven hypotheses are actually incontrovertible
laws without any exception to them whatsoever.

You do a very nice job of mischaracterizing what is happening.

I am not mischaracterizing that you think trilobites and men have
identical DNA.

All known life on earth uses DNA and RNA to code genes. I really don't
know what you are trying to say here.

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:obs123d22bvohcar6l3vngnkum86t5q6v7@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:00:37 -0400, in alt.atheism
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in
<t95Uh.2276$Pq5.1849@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:37m123tkpmd5oifr6i2lu9ehmg6f5ujsi8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:27:57 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:09:21 -0400, in alt.atheism
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in
<pp4Uh.2250$Pq5.870@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176504322.029012.160300@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

His Holiness is a wise and pious man. How anyone could think
otherwise
is unfathomable.

I think it is really funny how atheists put so much faith in
Darwinism/Evolution while if they actually knew about Darwin they
would know
that Darwin never was an atheist.

He started off as a believer - in a culture that partitioned religion
on Sunday from science and reality the rest of the week. Later in
life he became an agnostic and remained one until his death.

Methinks you have it backwards there.
How about reading up on Darwin again.
I had read that he was agnostic and became a believer later in his
life, and
that after many years of his work.

Whoever wrote that lied. Lying about Darwin is a very common religious
exercise. Don't be fooled by the lies of theists.

You mean to say that the Biography of Darwin I read in high school was
written by a liar?

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:obs123d22bvohcar6l3vngnkum86t5q6v7@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:00:37 -0400, in alt.atheism
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in
<t95Uh.2276$Pq5.1849@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:37m123tkpmd5oifr6i2lu9ehmg6f5ujsi8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:27:57 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:09:21 -0400, in alt.atheism
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in
<pp4Uh.2250$Pq5.870@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176504322.029012.160300@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

His Holiness is a wise and pious man. How anyone could think
otherwise
is unfathomable.

I think it is really funny how atheists put so much faith in
Darwinism/Evolution while if they actually knew about Darwin they would
know
that Darwin never was an atheist.

He started off as a believer - in a culture that partitioned religion
on Sunday from science and reality the rest of the week. Later in life
he became an agnostic and remained one until his death.

Methinks you have it backwards there.
How about reading up on Darwin again.
I had read that he was agnostic and became a believer later in his life,
and
that after many years of his work.

Whoever wrote that lied. Lying about Darwin is a very common religious
exercise. Don't be fooled by the lies of theists.

You mean to say that the Biography of Darwin I read in high school was
written by a liar?

You mean to say that Darwin never sailed on the Beagle and that he didn't
sire 19 children?
You mean to say that they lied about natural selection and adaptation and
the duckbilled platypus?
What else did they lie about?
Why is it you atheistic types have such tunnelvision and in an effort to
defend your atheism you lash out at one thing when contesting the real
account shows you to be nothing more than a disagreeable fool who has
nothing more than mental instability to rely upon in your disputations?