The great lie that is evolution

Science > Abortion > The great lie that is evolution

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 7

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Xomicron"
Date:	27 May 2004 09:43:13 PM
Object:	The great lie that is evolution

I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
changes in the first place.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
our position.
Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
.

User: "Snit"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	27 May 2004 11:38:05 PM

"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in 5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca
on 5/27/04 7:43 PM:

I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
changes in the first place.

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
our position.

Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
suppose, etc. but they don't "know."

Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.

Ahhh, it has been a while since I have seen anyone come in here with this
particular troll.
Cool.
So, what is the scientific evidence you have to support creationism, what
form of creationism do you believe in.
This should be fun for a round or two...
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
.

User: "Shiva"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 07:09:23 AM

"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

Science is objective, religion is what you (want to) believe. Science tries
to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. The methods being
used by evolutions are scientific methods. Of course, science cannot explain
everything yet. They've already proven that much faith, religion is nothing
but *****. For example, in the old days the Germans believed that thunder
and lightning were caused by Gods like Thor and Wodan. Science has proven
that to be untrue.
Now what do you think is more reliable?

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
our position.

I'm very interested in your objective, scientific evidence. I'm pretty sure
that you will fail, once again.

Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
suppose, etc. but they don't "know."

Religion is what you want to believe. A religious fanatic BELIEVES, he
doesn't KNOW. Otherwise it wouldn't be called FAITH.

Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.

People already labeled you as a troll. I hope you're not, otherwise I'm
really wasting my time. But the fact the matter is, your controversial
viewpoints cause long threads. And yes, that's what any troll is up to,
isn't he?
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 07:16:53 AM

"Shiva" <shiva87@hotmail.com> wrote

Science tries
to prove things through experiments that can be repeated.

Oh well. There go quantum and string theories.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "Timberwoof"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 12:42:00 AM

In article <c98dol.1684.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx>,
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:

"Shiva" <shiva87@hotmail.com> wrote

Science tries
to prove things through experiments that can be repeated.

Oh well. There go quantum and string theories.

Well, yes. And no. "String Theories" are mostly hypotheses. They have
made some predictions, but these are difficult to prove yet. But the
status of string theory as hypothesis has no bearing on the status of
evolutionary theory as fact.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 12:51:17 AM

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
Please be so kind as stare your total fuckwittery right in the face...

theory as fact.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You fucktard.
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
That figures.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "Godzilla"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 09:45:30 AM

Shiva wrote:

Science is objective,

Or so the scientists want you to believe...
.

User: "Timberwoof"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 12:43:26 AM

In article <egItc.32971$Ol3.19026@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Godzilla <abuse@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

Shiva wrote:

Science is objective,

Or so the scientists want you to believe...

Is Xomicron objective in his critique of evolutionary theory? Are you
objective in your critique of science in general?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
.

User: "Martin Edwards"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 01:59:28 PM

Do you have fairies at the bottom of your garden too?
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.
Eddy Valiant.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/

.

User: "James Q. Morrissey"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 05:40:19 AM

this is a non-sequitor. it's like saying i can't have taken the bus to work
today because i'm hungry.
why can't man observe changes in other living beings because he is a product
of changes?
JQM
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 05:45:48 AM

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote:

this is a non-sequitor.

Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "James Q. Morrissey"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 10:59:42 AM

this is a non-sequitor.

Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.

well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass :-)
JQM
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 11:18:47 AM

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

this is a non-sequitor.

Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.

well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass

:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "James Q. Morrissey"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 12:16:28 PM

this is a non-sequitor.

Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.

well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this"

mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass

:-)

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non%20sequitur
"non sequitur
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a
conclusion that does not follow from the premises"
JQM
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 05:50:47 PM

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

You work it out, you fucking moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
your chances of figuring it out.
I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
notion escapes them.
Even more shocking than that, there is an ever increasing number of
Blitshitters who have a similarly weak grasp on Engrish words and meanings.
And they claim to have invented the fucking language. Shame on them, eh.
Shame on them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non%20sequitur

"non sequitur
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a
conclusion that does not follow from the premises"

Why are you telling me that, you fucktard?
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "Xomicron"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 11:34:48 AM

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c99it8.m94.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx:

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly
twisted notion escapes them.

Reality proves otherwise.
.

User: "James Q. Morrissey"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 07:58:03 PM

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

this is the point where i stopped reading because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) but you were ignorant,
arrogant, and instead of having any interest in debate were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. nice try, troll,
but i'm not buying.
feel free to type out whatever slanderous, ill-founded and poorly structured
counter arguments and/or obscenities (are you able to make the distinction?)
you wish but i won't be reading them, as i generally killfile the people who
post your sort of drivel.
JQM
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	28 May 2004 08:09:42 PM

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

You work it out, you fucking moron. Of course, you'll have to contend

with

self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't

fancy

your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly

twisted

notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical philosphies
are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

Here, choke on this, fucktard... focus the single, beady, close-set eye that
sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words 'Part 1
demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this
sentence is unprovable".'
PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+
If you cannot prove that you are you, how can you logically
expect anyone to prove that God exists?
This is a two part proof. Part 1 is an argument. Part 2 is
a logical proof of the conclusion of Part 1.
1) You cannot prove that you are you.
Corollary 1 of 1): Only you know that you are you.
Corollary 2 of 1): Truth outruns provability.
Proof by argument:
Assume you are requested to prove your identity
to someone or some government agency.
Assume you provide bank statements, photo drivers'
license, birth certificate and passport.
Those things are erroneously labelled as proof.
They are actually only reasonable evidence of who
you are, and the assumption of proof is ascribed to
the documents. That is to say, the documents are
not proof, but are assumed to be reasonable as proof.
This can be further illustrated by the fact that
false documentation is often accepted as "proof" of
identity.
The corollary of that argument is that if these
documents were indeed proof of identity, then false
documentation would not be accepted as proof at all,
in any scenario. That is to say, lies cannot prove
truth.
In other words, the documents are not proof, but
reasonably assumed to be proof.
Now, let's assume you decide that you can actually
prove that you are you by taking a DNA test. One
could reasonably infer that the final proof would
lie there. However that is a wholly fallacious
position, and this is why:
I have here a report from an actual DNA test. It
states, and I quote verbatim:
There are two figures given in the Report:
(i) A Paternity Index - a number which is
the ratio of the likelihood of the
putative father being the true father,
as compared to a male chosen at random
from the population.
(ii) A Relative Chance of Paternity - a
percentage probability based on the
Paternity Index.
1) In this case, the Paternity Index of
137,649 means that X is about 137,649
times more likely to be the father of
Y than is another male chosen at
random from the Australian population.
2) In this case, the probability of X
being the father of Y is 99.9993%.
So, there you have it. 99.9993% is still not 100% proof.
Now, to further complicate matters, even if we grant that
99.9993% is so close to 100% that it doesn't actually
matter, all that has been proven is that you are the
child of parents W and X. You still have not established
that you are you. Only you know that you are you.
Of course, you could always argue that you're an only
child, but again, how do you PROVE that to be true?
Statutory declarations from your parents and other
relatives? Again, they are documents that are not
proof, but can be assumed to be reasonable as proof
for different purposes.
Conclusion: Truth outruns provability.
PART 2: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+
The logical proof for the conclusion of Part 1 is G�del's First
Incompleteness Theorem. The following section deals with the
applicability of this proof.
Applicability of the logical proof:
+=================================+
The formal proof applies directly to the conclusion of Part 1, viz
truth outruns provability. I have argued at other times that G�del's
First Incompleteness Theorem applies to the self but this has been
disputed a number of times. However the arguments against it have
been outright assertions based on a fixed notion that the proof only
applies to formal mathematical systems. For the sake of illustration,
I will go into that argument in more detail. When the proof is
presented, it will be in support of the conclusion of Part 1, not in
support of my claim that the theorem does indeed apply to the self.
Other objections have been based entirely on the meaning of two words,
computable and provable. These objections are petty but have been dealt
with below.
Part 1 shows that the self is an incontrovertible instance of truth, and
that all forms of proof are inadequate to prove the self. Furthermore
Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of
"this sentence is unprovable".
Only the knowledge that the self has of itself is adequate. This
knowledge that the self has of itself constitutes a clear self-reference.
"I know that I am I." In this instance, the conclusion is that the truth
of the self is beyond proof.
Since the self is self-referential, it has the fundamental
trait required of a formal system for it to be a G�delian
self-referential system. The self has been shown by argument
in Part 1 as being equivalent to the statement "this sentence
is unprovable".. The argument in Part 1 should be sufficient
to convince the most hardened opponent that the self is a
G�delian self-referential system, however additional support
for the position is provided below.
"The proof, published by Kurt G�del in 1931, of the existence
of formally undecidable propositions in any formal system of
arithmetic. More precisely, his first incompleteness theorem�
states that in any formal system S of arithmetic, there will be
a sentence P of the language of S such that if S is consistent,
neither P nor its negation can be proved in S. �This makes it
possible to show that there must be a sentence P of S which can
be interpreted (very roughly) as saying 'I am not provable'.
A Dictionary Of Philosophy. Second edition. (Pan Books 1984). Page 133.
Source: http://www.faragher.freeserve.co.uk/godeldef2.htm
Part 1 clearly shows that the self is equivalent to the statement
'I am not provable'. That is so despite "formally undecidable
propositions in any formal system of arithmetic".
The next question to be decided is if the self is actually
a formal system that constitutes an adequately axiomatisable
system.
I will define a part of the human mind that directly deals with
encoding and decoding syntactic notions of things like "formula",
"sentence" and "proof"', that also applies axioms, evaluates
assumptions for validity and so on, as being a system - Sf.
In order to demonstrate the existence of Sf, one should only need
point to what is going on inside your own head...
Answer this question:
"Ten plus five minus two equals what?"
If you get 13, there is direct evidence that Sf decoded the
syntactic notions of a formula from an encoded sentence, also
applied axioms (add and subtract rules) and possibly performed
a verification process before it accepted the output as correct,
then encoded it back to a formula, which Sf expressed as the
number 13.
A) The human mind Sf can encode and decode syntactic notions
of things like "formula", "sentence" and "proof"', can apply
axioms (rules), evaluate assumptions for validity and so on
to arrive at a rational output.
To apply the logical proof to the self, the following assumption
is required:
ASSUMPTION: The human mind Sf can encode sequences of numbers
and can computably generate axioms. Consequently it can encode
the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence" and "proof".
Logical Proof - Truth Outruns Provability
+=======================================+
Purpose: To prove that truth outruns provability
Definitions:
Computable: Capable of being computed, numbered, or reckoned.
Note: The definition of computable does not imply machine
computation. The mind is capable of performing
such computations and can apply rules (axioms)
to those computations independently of a machine.
Provable: Capable of being proved; Capable of being established as
truth.
Truth: Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with
that which is, or has been; or shall be. Conformity to
rule; exactness.
Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the set
of numbers which encode sentences which are provable from the given axioms.
Thus for any sentence s,
(1) < s > is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs which use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE
is definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
By Tarski, s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE.
Thus
(3) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE iff s is not
provable.
Now (excluded middle again) s is either true or false.
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable.
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
Source:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness
For Tarski, see same page.
Conclusion: There are statements that are true but cannot be proved.
Corollary: Truth outruns provability.

nice try, troll,

Me? A troll?
<aside>
WEIL
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "1"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 10:08:20 AM

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

You work it out, you fucking moron. Of course, you'll have to contend

with

self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't

fancy

your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such

tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly

twisted

notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

Here, choke on this, fucktard... focus the single, beady, close-set eye

that

sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words 'Part 1
demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this
sentence is unprovable".'

PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 10:34:46 AM

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in

message

news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

You work it out, you fucking moron. Of course, you'll have to

contend

with

self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't

fancy

your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have

such

tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly

twisted

notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical

philosphies

are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

Here, choke on this, fucktard... focus the single, beady, close-set eye

that

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

<FUCKING WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
You didn't read it, did you, fucktard? Don't say you did, because DNA was
dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, and to
a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
You may now ***** right off and die, you dumb *****.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "Xomicron"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 11:36:21 AM

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx:

Is this the extent of your lame argument?
.

User: "1"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 10:39:31 AM

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in

message

news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

You work it out, you fucking moron. Of course, you'll have to

contend

with

self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I

don't

fancy

your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have

such

tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly

twisted

notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical

philosphies

are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

Here, choke on this, fucktard... focus the single, beady, close-set

eye

that

sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words 'Part

demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this
sentence is unprovable".'

PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

<FUCKING WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>

You didn't read it, did you, fucktard? Don't say you did, because DNA was
dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, and

a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.

You may now ***** right off and die, you dumb *****.

Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the same
lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing.
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 10:45:11 AM

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in

message

news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

You work it out, you fucking moron. Of course, you'll have to

contend

with

self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I

don't

fancy

your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans

have

such

tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most

mildly

twisted

notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical

philosphies

are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

Here, choke on this, fucktard... focus the single, beady, close-set

eye

that

sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words

'Part

demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this
sentence is unprovable".'

PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

<FUCKING WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>

You didn't read it, did you, fucktard? Don't say you did, because DNA

was

dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, and

a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.

You may now ***** right off and die, you dumb *****.

Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the same
lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing.

Then counter argue, fucktard, otherwise you have nothing other than
empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.
.

User: "1"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 11:21:36 AM

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message

news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in

message

news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

You work it out, you fucking moron. Of course, you'll have to

contend

with

self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I

don't

fancy

your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans

have

such

tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most

mildly

twisted

notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth

outrunning

provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical

philosphies

are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

Here, choke on this, fucktard... focus the single, beady,

close-set

eye

that

sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words

'Part

demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of

"this

sentence is unprovable".'

PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
+=======================================+

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

<FUCKING WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>

You didn't read it, did you, fucktard? Don't say you did, because DNA

was

dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument,

and

a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.

You may now ***** right off and die, you dumb *****.

Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the

same

lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing.

Then counter argue, fucktard, otherwise you have nothing other than
empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.

Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
A little louder. Im almost there
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 11:29:31 AM

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05...

Then counter argue, fucktard, otherwise you have nothing other than
empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.

Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
A little louder. Im almost there

Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to?
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "1"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 01:27:03 PM

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9bguc.1814.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05...

Then counter argue, fucktard, otherwise you have nothing other than
empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.

Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
A little louder. Im almost there

Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to?

Oh yeah... that's it... louder this time...
.

User: "CPi"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 10:47:07 AM

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical
philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

Who said that?
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 10:57:43 AM

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical
philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

Who said that?

Who said what, fucknuts?
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "CPi"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 11:07:17 AM

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

Who said that?

Who said what, fucknuts?

There it is again!!
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 11:08:57 AM

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de...

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

Who said that?

Who said what, fucknuts?

There it is again!!

--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
.

User: "CPi"
Title: Re: The great lie that is evolution	29 May 2004 11:14:11 AM

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de...

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote
in message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

This statement cannot be proved.

which one, and why?

this is the point where i stopped reading

You are a liar.

because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)

Shame on you, eh.

but you were ignorant,
arrogant,

And that's a revelation to you, is it?

and instead of having any interest in debate

Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is
very interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
eh.

were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.

SLAP!
Fingerprints and DNA

Who said that?

Who said what, fucknuts?

There it is again!!

Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried.
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."
.

Page 1 of 7

Post reply

Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses."
gh
Re: GOP Smear Machines Lie about Richard Clarke
601st GI Killed by Bush's Big Lie. Mission Accomplished!!!!!!!!!!
613th GI Killed By Bush's Big Lie. Where Are All You ***** AWOL Chickenhawk Neocaon Cowards Now?
Another Anti-choice lie exposed
Fittingly, Kerry Campaign Ending on a Big Lie - And It Will Be His Downfall
Oh Look, Lying NeoCon Bill Bonde Caught in Yet Another Lie

To clarify a lie told by Adam H.
Whats a little White Lie ???
GOP Lie of the Day: There Was No Surplus Under Clinton (GOP, The Party of Treason and Irresponsibililty)
Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked)
Bush Lie of the Day: "We Told Congress" (GOP, The Party of Treason)
I Dare You Pro-Lie Fuckers Stop This Abortion! (GOP, The Party of Rapists' Rights)
Bush Lie of the Day, CIA Agent Fired For Leaking Info

NEWER

pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER