| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"LunarSurface" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2006 01:23:45 PM |
| Object: |
Even the Brits have it right |
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
.
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 05:27:42 PM |
|
|
"LunarSurface" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:894eaa60601011123i6a615ce0n1b54b58f7cf47b17@mail.gmail.com...
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
We do love and laughf at the way you Twit Christians, just cannot help lie
to yourselves.
No one, (except a few Jubus Freek nutters!) , has any truck with
infantile Islamo/Jusus 'fairly tales', on this side of the pond!
But you will keep trying to sell your Cretin Creationist/Santa Claus
fantacy!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
02 Jan 2006 08:22:02 AM |
|
|
"LunarSurface" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:894eaa60601011123i6a615ce0n1b54b58f7cf47b17@mail.gmail.com...
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
liar liar pants on fire!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 02:05:18 PM |
|
|
In article
<894eaa60601011123i6a615ce0n1b54b58f7cf47b17@mail.gmail.com>,
LunarSurface <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported:
[snip]
Not "reported": "OPINED."
--
655321
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 09:24:39 PM |
|
|
LunarSurface wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported...
Until and unless you present the source (URL if online?) I will call you the
liar you are almost guaranteed to be.
Unless that "medical journal" is really a fundy propaganda tract, of course.
What you quoted is pure nonsense and every decent scientist should know
that. No one but cretinists and IDiots babbles such *****.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 01:48:33 PM |
|
|
LunarSurface wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
Tell us what issue and page number that quote appears on, so we can
actually look it up ourselves. I believe you are a liar for Christ
and fabricated it. Prove me wrong.
Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 11:34:05 PM |
|
|
Richard wrote:
LunarSurface wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
Tell us what issue and page number that quote appears on, so we can
actually look it up ourselves. I believe you are a liar for Christ
and fabricated it. Prove me wrong.
I was under the impression He warned them 'do not bear false witness'
Something is wrong somewhere [unless it is all a myth, of course]
Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Cooper" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
02 Jan 2006 12:57:37 AM |
|
|
"on Call" has been referened a number of times.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information in the following
sites- just a listing of the times it has been quoted. I have not been
able to trace the journal, but "yellowbird"
seems to quote it sometimes.
References in google groups to "On Call"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/search?q=%22on+call%22&start=20&
filter=0&
The fruit fly dilema
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Oct 2 1997, 1:59 pm by JABRIOL - 64 messages - 34 authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Feb 25 1999, 3:37 pm by - 391 messages - 91
authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Feb 25 1999, 11:00 am by - 391 messages - 91
authors
Peppered Moths
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using the
example of peppered
moths to try to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is
an
....
Mar 28 2000, 7:24 pm by - 140 messages - 41 authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Feb 25 1999, 10:17 pm by - 391 messages - 91
authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Feb 24 1999, 11:44 pm by - 10 messages - 1
author
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... What'd you expect, a duck? Hence, the English medical journal On
Call
referred to
using this example to try to prove evolution as "notorious." Got a
citation? ...
Feb 24 1999, 5:09 am by mel turner - 391 messages - 91 authors
The fruit fly dilema
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Oct 2 1997, 2:50 am by JABRIOL - 64 messages - 34 authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Feb 24 1999, 8:29 pm by Sue Healy - 391 messages - 91 authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Feb 25 1999, 8:10 pm by - 391 messages - 91
authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Check. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using
this example
to try to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an
excellent ...
Feb 24 1999, 9:02 am by Kalandros M - 391 messages - 91 authors
resend: the Fruit fly dilema
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Oct 2 1997, 1:15 pm by JABRIOL - 2 messages - 2 authors
Evolution Contrary to Scientific Fact
.... Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this
example to try
to prove evolution as "notorious." It declared: "This is an excellent
....
Feb 25 1999, 2:40 am by - 10 messages - 1 author
Peppered Moths
.... Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia
Americana
acknowledged ...
Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred ... ...
Mar 28 2000, 2:28 am by Derek Stevenson - 140 messages - 41 authors
The fruit fly dilema
.... On Call reports: "Breeders usually find that after a few
generations,
an optimum
is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there
has
been ...
Oct 2 1997, 11:54 am by Kevin Rockel - 64 messages - 34 authors
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "~ jan jjspond" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 05:10:38 PM |
|
|
This nym-shifting troll just wants to flood other newsgroups with garbage.
If you must reply, please remove the other newsgroups but your own, or
don't hit reply to "All Newsgroups". Don't feed the trolls, they're New
Years resolution is to lose weight (with us)...... ~ jan :)
LunarSurface wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:48:33 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
Tell us what issue and page number that quote appears on, so we can
actually look it up ourselves. I believe you are a liar for Christ
and fabricated it. Prove me wrong.
Richard
~ jan/WA
Zone 7a
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 11:31:02 PM |
|
|
LunarSurface wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
HA HA HA
Goddidit
........and produced those in his image that sometimes arrive as a
deformed fetus, so deformed the mother never gets to see it.
Your god also created Recessive DNA Disorders, often when cousin's marry,
that produce mentally retarded children.
Your god also put at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean life formes of a
totally different mature that only live close to the hot lava spouts that
have in the last couple of years been discovered at these depths. These
life forms can only exist in this environment.
'
All of the above point to an evolutionaryu process.
Your gobbledeegook mumbo jumbo points to human mythology only without a
jot of evidence to support it. Not to mention the thousands of other
religions that claim their deity created us.
Grow up
bob
Humanist Brit.
For the creationist, when it comes to evolution, no evidence is good
enough. However, when it comes to their religious beliefs, no evidence is
good enough.
[Acknowledgements to John Baker. Posted November 2005]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 03:37:50 PM |
|
|
LunarSurface wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
funny how a search of the MSU faculty site returns no matches.
http://isweb1.cl.msu.edu/cgi-bin/peopleldap.cgi?lname=John%20Moore&fname=
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Bla" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 07:12:40 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1136151470.270607.171290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
LunarSurface wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
funny how a search of the MSU faculty site returns no matches.
http://isweb1.cl.msu.edu/cgi-bin/peopleldap.cgi?lname=John%20Moore&fname=
Here;
http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/gk12/GK12_faculty.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 08:59:09 PM |
|
|
the link to his profile doesn't work, and still nothing about the
supposed article
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 02:42:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, LunarSurface
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported:
"Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of
basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known
to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is
indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University
scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make
sense in view of today's
knowledge."
And what EXACTLY is the name of that journal and
where is its web address?
More important, who was actually quoted in this
journal and what is his area of expertise?
What kind of 'scientist' is John Moore anyway?
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you to
share your views with them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 03:22:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, LunarSurface
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
How's the weather under that bridge?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 01:51:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, LunarSurface
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
What was in the ellipses you snipped, Liar For God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 06:35:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:51:39 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, LunarSurface
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
What was in the ellipses you snipped, Liar For God?
Pharque-me-dead.
The arch-liar Jabriol changes sock puppets more often than he
breathes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
01 Jan 2006 09:50:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, in alt.atheism , LunarSurface
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<894eaa60601011123i6a615ce0n1b54b58f7cf47b17@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
When did _On Call_ print that Jabriol? More to the point, why do you
insist on this behavior? You said you had treatment and you really did
seem better, now you have gone off this odd ever changing name
trolling. Get more help.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right - crossposting troll from ARJ-W runs amuk! |
02 Jan 2006 12:08:34 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:1m8hr1pcq3g75rq1hn8hs065o3o1m8bq3t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, in alt.atheism , LunarSurface aka
JABRIOL
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<894eaa60601011123i6a615ce0n1b54b58f7cf47b17@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
When did _On Call_ print that Jabriol? More to the point, why do you
insist on this behavior? You said you had treatment and you really did
seem better, now you have gone off this odd ever changing name
trolling. Get more help.
=========================
If JABRIOL doesn't change his name several times a day no one responds to
his endless creation v. evolution messages we've all see 1000 times before.
He's on some kind of cross-posting frenzy to see how many NGs he can destroy
that I'm on - in his quest to silence me and drive me off Usenet. Anything
crossposted to rec.ponds and/or alt.free.newsservers are only posted to
harass the people on those groups. It's a typical troll tactic. And
anyone who doesn't REMOVE them before going for Jabber's stale old bait is
helping him harass everyone on said NGs........
The people on ARJ-W aren't interested in the evolution/creation debate
either.
--
CR ...............
New Light anyone?
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part4.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Even the Brits have it right |
02 Jan 2006 04:43:38 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 03:50:21 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, in alt.atheism , LunarSurface
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<894eaa60601011123i6a615ce0n1b54b58f7cf47b17@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
When did _On Call_ print that Jabriol? More to the point, why do you
insist on this behavior? You said you had treatment and you really did
seem better, now you have gone off this odd ever changing name
trolling. Get more help.
The liar has never heard of the Lancet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
