Evolution debate confounds evangelicals


 Religions > Atheism > Evolution debate confounds evangelicals

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 4 of 6

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "loose cannon"
Date: 13 Jun 2005 11:47:26 PM
Object: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/11867477.htm
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
BY PAUL NUSSBAUM
PHILADELPHIA - Can God and evolution coexist?
For many evangelical Christians, the debate over teaching evolution in
public schools touches a vital spiritual nerve. Some see evolution as a
path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
handiwork.
A legal battle in Dover, Pa., over the teaching of evolution and
"intelligent design" has focused attention on the issue, as have
proposals in Kansas to change how evolution is taught.
For David Wilcox, a biology professor at the evangelical college of
Eastern University, the challenge is to teach students that it's
possible to embrace evolution "without intellectual schizophrenia."
"They've been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism,
and they just shut it out," said Wilcox, author of "God and Evolution:
A Faith-Based Understanding." "They say, 'Why do I have to learn this
stuff - don't you know that God hates science?' "
"God doesn't hate science - he invented it. We try to get them to see
that evolution happened, and it's not so scary ... that evolution is
the way God did it."
"Evolutionary theists" such as Wilcox are part of an effort by the
scientific establishment to defend evolution against advocates of
creationism, intelligent design and other concepts that challenge the
theory of natural selection in whole or in part.
Evangelical Christians are as divided as much of the rest of the
nation.
"No topic in the world of science and Christianity has created the
intensity of discussion and disharmony with evangelicals as the source
of biological diversity," asserts the American Scientific Affiliation,
an organization of scientists who are Christians. "Today's spirited
discussion often pits Christian versus Christian and scientist versus
scientist."
The nation's leading science organizations and the majority of
scientists accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the
origin of all living things, but Americans in general are much less
convinced.
Offered three explanations for the origin of humans in a CBS News/New
York Times poll six months ago, 13 percent of respondents said they
believed "we evolved from less-advanced life forms over millions of
years, and God did not directly guide this process." Twenty-seven
percent believed "we evolved from less-advanced life forms over
millions of years, but God guided this process." And 55 percent
believed "God created us in our present form." The poll, which
questioned 885 people, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3
percentage points.
Evangelicals who are "young Earth" fundamentalists dismiss evolution
and subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of
creation, believing Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
They often see the teaching of evolution as undermining Christianity
and paving the way to immorality.
"What you believe about where you came from directly affects your
worldview," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a
fundamental creationist organization that is building a
50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. "If you can use
man's ideas to reinterpret the book of Genesis, then why not use man's
ideas to reinterpret morality?"
One of the newest wrinkles in a debate that has percolated ever since
Charles Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species" in 1859 is
"intelligent design."
That is the concept at the heart of the battle in Dover, 25 miles south
of Harrisburg.
Eleven parents have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Dover school
board from requiring biology teachers to present "intelligent design"
as an alternative to evolution.
The parents say intelligent design is a religious argument and teaching
it violates a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against teaching
creationism as science.
Intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot explain all of
the complex developments observed in nature and that an unspecified
intelligent designer must be involved. Its adherents say it is a
scientific, not a religious, concept based on scientific observations,
although they acknowledge its theological implications.
Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, Pa., and the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution," is an intelligent-design proponent and is
scheduled to be an expert witnesses for the Dover school board when the
case goes to trial in the fall.
He says religion is "clearly why (intelligent design) evokes such
emotion. ... It's not just another issue of science. If it were, no one
would care."
Christian supporters of evolution say intelligent design seems to
require periodic intervention by the designer.
Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and the
author of "Finding Darwin's God," is an ardent proponent of evolution
and opponent of intelligent design.
He is slated to be an expert witness for the parents in the Dover case.
"I think there is a God, and he is the creator of the universe," said
Miller, who is Catholic. "But the God of the intelligent-design
movement is way too small. In their view, he designed everything in the
world and yet he repeatedly intervenes and violates the laws of his own
creation.
"Their God is like a kid who is not a very good mechanic and has to
keep lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine."
Many evangelical Protestants, like many Catholics and other Christians,
argue that faith and science complement each other and need not collide
over evolution.
The scientific establishment is trying harder to present evolution as
something apart from, not a threat to, religion.
"It's not science versus religion - that misses the point entirely,"
said Jay Labov, senior adviser for education and communication for the
National Academy of Sciences. "Science cannot begin to look into the
supernatural. That's beyond the realm of science."
The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, sent a letter in
March to members, urging them "to confront the increasing challenges to
the teaching of evolution in public schools."
The academy also gathered the signatures of more than 4,000 Christian
clergy - including evangelicals - supporting evolution as "a
scientific truth." The clergy, in the letter, "ask that science remain
science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but
complementary, forms of truth."
The theory of intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot
explain all of the complex developments observed in nature and that an
unspecified intelligent designer must be involved.
.

User: "Jon."

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 14 Jun 2005 07:16:42 PM
brutus wrote:

"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118775804.362492.33890@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


brutus wrote:

"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:

Not true at all, complete hogwash.

There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element hydrog=

en

to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it n=

ot

have been G-d that created hydrogen?


It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.

Jon.
aa #703

So we kind of have to take science on faith, right?


No. That is a moronic argument frequently advanced by anti-science
theists who are trying to say that "evolution is just another
religion." It's *****.

Every theory advanced by science is open to being disproven by contrary
facts, observed and recorded in an objective fashion and replicated by
other scientists. That is how science advances (and why religion
doesn't). Only someone with no understanding of the scientific method
would suggest that "we kind of have to take science on faith."

Jon.
aa #703

Jon - I would easily venture to guess that my "understanding of the
scientific method" FAR surpasses yours. And, after spending most of my l=

ife

reviewing scientific "discoveries", theories and "facts", I have come to =

the

conclusion that it takes just as much faith to accept science as a Supreme
Being. Scientific discoveries in many fields constantly disprove existing
theories.

And that is exactly why science is not to be taken on faith. If it
were, then we would have scientific jihads, witchhunts and inquisitions
whenever a discovery challenged an existing theory! Remember, as the
eminent Mr. Sagerquist pointed out, science does not burn people at the
stake for disagreeing!

I don't claim that science is, in and of itself, a "religion",
but most of my Evangelical friends would dispute the claim that Christian=

ity

is a "religion" as well. (I doubt that you can grasp the facts in the la=

st

statement I made but please try)

I expect they would say that Christianity is not *one* religion - that
there are so many variants that it is not correct to call it one
religion. I don't think I would agree, but it is clearly a matter of
semantics.
Jon.
aa #703
.

User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 14 Jun 2005 11:56:10 PM
Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS have been
disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed as an act of
faith.
Religion does evolve, and if you cared to study any ancient history,
philosophy, and anthropology, you might know this.
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118775804.362492.33890@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
brutus wrote:

"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton wrote:

Not true at all, complete hogwash.

There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the
atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element
hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it
not
have been G-d that created hydrogen?


It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.

Jon.
aa #703

So we kind of have to take science on faith, right?

No. That is a moronic argument frequently advanced by anti-science
theists who are trying to say that "evolution is just another
religion." It's *****.
Every theory advanced by science is open to being disproven by contrary
facts, observed and recorded in an objective fashion and replicated by
other scientists. That is how science advances (and why religion
doesn't). Only someone with no understanding of the scientific method
would suggest that "we kind of have to take science on faith."
Jon.
aa #703
.
User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 12:53:29 AM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS have
been disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed as an act
of faith.

Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have faith that
a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW you cannot
disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove is a hypothesis or
theory.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
User: "brutus"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 10:31:48 AM
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B5F78FD4BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS have
been disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed as an act
of faith.


Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have faith that
a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW you cannot
disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove is a hypothesis or
theory.


Klazmon.

Yes, I do have faith that the light bulb is going to turn on, and I am
disappointed when it doesn't. Howerver, having faith that a device that has
been engineered for a task will accomplish a task it has done over and over
and having faith that an unprovable theory is totally without error are two
different things - especially when the theory is based on gathered evidence
and pure speculation.
Brutus
.
User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 05:13:18 PM
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:ERXre.4479$hK3.1633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B5F78FD4BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS have
been disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed as an
act of faith.


Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have faith
that a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW you
cannot disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove is a
hypothesis or theory.


Klazmon.


Yes, I do have faith that the light bulb is going to turn on, and I am
disappointed when it doesn't. Howerver, having faith that a device
that has been engineered for a task will accomplish a task it has done
over and over and having faith that an unprovable theory is totally
without error are two different things - especially when the theory is
based on gathered evidence and pure speculation.

For what reason do you have a problem with gathered evidence? It is
gathered evidence that allowed the development of the theory of
electromagnetism (also theories of thermodynamics, atomic & nuclear
physics too) that allowed the engineering of the power system that caused
the switch to work. I agree with you on the "pure speculation" point but
there is such a thing as informed speculation - i.e speculation based on
accumulated knowledge and study of a field. It is informed speculation
that generally leads to the advance of science.
Klazmon.


Brutus



.
User: "brutus"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 07:49:23 PM
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967767F223E4FKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:ERXre.4479$hK3.1633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B5F78FD4BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS have
been disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed as an
act of faith.


Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have faith
that a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW you
cannot disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove is a
hypothesis or theory.


Klazmon.


Yes, I do have faith that the light bulb is going to turn on, and I am
disappointed when it doesn't. Howerver, having faith that a device
that has been engineered for a task will accomplish a task it has done
over and over and having faith that an unprovable theory is totally
without error are two different things - especially when the theory is
based on gathered evidence and pure speculation.


For what reason do you have a problem with gathered evidence? It is
gathered evidence that allowed the development of the theory of
electromagnetism (also theories of thermodynamics, atomic & nuclear
physics too) that allowed the engineering of the power system that caused
the switch to work. I agree with you on the "pure speculation" point but
there is such a thing as informed speculation - i.e speculation based on
accumulated knowledge and study of a field. It is informed speculation
that generally leads to the advance of science.

Klazmon.

Do you accept informed speculation based on accumulated knowledge and study
of a field? Do you thing that experientialism carriesas much weight as
speculation and theories?
Brutus
.
User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 09:43:00 PM
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:n04se.5003$jX6.320@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967767F223E4FKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:ERXre.4479$hK3.1633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B5F78FD4BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS
have been disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed
as an act of faith.


Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have faith
that a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW you
cannot disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove is a
hypothesis or theory.


Klazmon.


Yes, I do have faith that the light bulb is going to turn on, and I
am disappointed when it doesn't. Howerver, having faith that a
device that has been engineered for a task will accomplish a task it
has done over and over and having faith that an unprovable theory is
totally without error are two different things - especially when the
theory is based on gathered evidence and pure speculation.


For what reason do you have a problem with gathered evidence? It is
gathered evidence that allowed the development of the theory of
electromagnetism (also theories of thermodynamics, atomic & nuclear
physics too) that allowed the engineering of the power system that
caused the switch to work. I agree with you on the "pure speculation"
point but there is such a thing as informed speculation - i.e
speculation based on accumulated knowledge and study of a field. It
is informed speculation that generally leads to the advance of
science.

Klazmon.


Do you accept informed speculation based on accumulated knowledge and
study of a field?

The point of such speculation is to know what to investigate. The
speculation doesn't gain the status of theory until it is well supported
by the empirical evidence.

Do you thing that experientialism carriesas much
weight as speculation and theories?

Theory in science is a well supported explanation of a phenomena. I,e is
in agreement with the evidence from nature. Examples of theory are
quantum theory, electrodynamics, general relativity, statistical
thermodynamics etc etc etc. It is applied *theory* that brings the power
to the switch I was talking about before. You are confusing the
scientific meaning of theory with the general public usage where it means
a wild speculation. An informed speculation is certainly more plausable
than a wild one but in the end it is only the empirical evidence from
nature that decides if the speculation is any good. As far as
"experientialism" is concerned, I have no idea what that means, is it
some sort of new age philosophy?
Klazmon.


Brutus



.
User: "brutus"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 11:07:55 AM
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967795ABA35CCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:n04se.5003$jX6.320@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967767F223E4FKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:ERXre.4479$hK3.1633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B5F78FD4BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS
have been disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed
as an act of faith.


Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have faith
that a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW you
cannot disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove is a
hypothesis or theory.


Klazmon.


Yes, I do have faith that the light bulb is going to turn on, and I
am disappointed when it doesn't. Howerver, having faith that a
device that has been engineered for a task will accomplish a task it
has done over and over and having faith that an unprovable theory is
totally without error are two different things - especially when the
theory is based on gathered evidence and pure speculation.


For what reason do you have a problem with gathered evidence? It is
gathered evidence that allowed the development of the theory of
electromagnetism (also theories of thermodynamics, atomic & nuclear
physics too) that allowed the engineering of the power system that
caused the switch to work. I agree with you on the "pure speculation"
point but there is such a thing as informed speculation - i.e
speculation based on accumulated knowledge and study of a field. It
is informed speculation that generally leads to the advance of
science.

Klazmon.


Do you accept informed speculation based on accumulated knowledge and
study of a field?


The point of such speculation is to know what to investigate. The
speculation doesn't gain the status of theory until it is well supported
by the empirical evidence.

Do you thing that experientialism carriesas much
weight as speculation and theories?


Theory in science is a well supported explanation of a phenomena. I,e is
in agreement with the evidence from nature. Examples of theory are
quantum theory, electrodynamics, general relativity, statistical
thermodynamics etc etc etc. It is applied *theory* that brings the power
to the switch I was talking about before. You are confusing the
scientific meaning of theory with the general public usage where it means
a wild speculation. An informed speculation is certainly more plausable
than a wild one but in the end it is only the empirical evidence from
nature that decides if the speculation is any good. As far as
"experientialism" is concerned, I have no idea what that means, is it
some sort of new age philosophy?

Klazmon.

No, it isn't. Get out your dictionary and look it up. Why does a beautiful
sunset take your breath away? Why do you smile when you see a newborn baby?
Why do you get angry when you see injustice? Why do you turn away from
gruesome scenes? Why does thinking about a loved one comfort you? In the
same way people claim to "feel" the presence of a "Supreme Being". They see
things happening in their lives that are outside of the reals of science.
They have inner peace, resoluteness, comfort, strength beyond what science
can understand. Their experiences are proof to them that there is a
"Supreme Being". You cannot deny their experiences. True, a few are wigged
out but the vast majority (Billions) are pretty well as normal as you and I.
Brutus
.
User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 06:00:42 PM
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:vthse.5214$jX6.1152@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967795ABA35CCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:n04se.5003$jX6.320@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967767F223E4FKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:ERXre.4479$hK3.1633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B5F78FD4BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS
have been disproved -- therefore they were actually only
believed as an act of faith.


Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have
faith that a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW
you cannot disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove
is a hypothesis or theory.


Klazmon.


Yes, I do have faith that the light bulb is going to turn on, and
I am disappointed when it doesn't. Howerver, having faith that a
device that has been engineered for a task will accomplish a task
it has done over and over and having faith that an unprovable
theory is totally without error are two different things -
especially when the theory is based on gathered evidence and pure
speculation.


For what reason do you have a problem with gathered evidence? It is
gathered evidence that allowed the development of the theory of
electromagnetism (also theories of thermodynamics, atomic & nuclear
physics too) that allowed the engineering of the power system that
caused the switch to work. I agree with you on the "pure
speculation" point but there is such a thing as informed
speculation - i.e speculation based on accumulated knowledge and
study of a field. It is informed speculation that generally leads
to the advance of science.

Klazmon.


Do you accept informed speculation based on accumulated knowledge
and study of a field?


The point of such speculation is to know what to investigate. The
speculation doesn't gain the status of theory until it is well
supported by the empirical evidence.

Do you thing that experientialism carriesas much
weight as speculation and theories?


Theory in science is a well supported explanation of a phenomena. I,e
is in agreement with the evidence from nature. Examples of theory are
quantum theory, electrodynamics, general relativity, statistical
thermodynamics etc etc etc. It is applied *theory* that brings the
power to the switch I was talking about before. You are confusing the
scientific meaning of theory with the general public usage where it
means a wild speculation. An informed speculation is certainly more
plausable than a wild one but in the end it is only the empirical
evidence from nature that decides if the speculation is any good. As
far as "experientialism" is concerned, I have no idea what that
means, is it some sort of new age philosophy?

Klazmon.


No, it isn't. Get out your dictionary and look it up.

Just did. It is a hokey new age philosophy LOL.

Why does a
beautiful sunset take your breath away? Why do you smile when you see
a newborn baby? Why do you get angry when you see injustice? Why do
you turn away from gruesome scenes? Why does thinking about a loved
one comfort you?

Those things are part of the norm of human nature but they are not
universal. Why do you think horror movies are so popular. I must say you
appear to be dodging to the direct points I made by dishing out a red
herring.

In the same way people claim to "feel" the presence
of a "Supreme Being". They see things happening in their lives that
are outside of the reals of science. They have inner peace,
resoluteness, comfort, strength beyond what science can understand.
Their experiences are proof to them that there is a "Supreme Being".

Anecdotal evidence is not proof of a supreme being. If it were the case,
you would have to believe in every god ever invented. It is interesting
to note that these gods invariably agree with their supporters LOL. The
gods never speak up for themselves. The funniest thing is that some of
these gods were supposed to create the universe and yet many of their
followers deny the physical evidence about that creation as revealed by
science, in favour of an ancient bronze age goat herders book of fairy
tales.

You cannot deny their experiences.

Sure I can. Provide verifiable objective evidence and I will consider it.

True, a few are wigged out but the
vast majority (Billions) are pretty well as normal as you and I.

The vast majority probably don't even think about it. They just go along
with what they were indoctrinated with as children.
Klazmon.


Brutus


.

User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 11:25:40 AM
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:vthse.5214$jX6.1152@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967795ABA35CCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:n04se.5003$jX6.320@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967767F223E4FKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:ERXre.4479$hK3.1633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B5F78FD4BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...

"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:YnOre.87013$lQ3.31687@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Rubbish -- Science evolves and many so-called SCIENTIFIC FACTS
have been disproved -- therefore they were actually only believed
as an act of faith.


Same fallacy of equivocation as posted by Brutus. Do you have faith
that a light bulb will glow when you turn on the power. BTW you
cannot disprove a fact by definition. What you can disprove is a
hypothesis or theory.


Klazmon.


Yes, I do have faith that the light bulb is going to turn on, and I
am disappointed when it doesn't. Howerver, having faith that a
device that has been engineered for a task will accomplish a task it
has done over and over and having faith that an unprovable theory is
totally without error are two different things - especially when the
theory is based on gathered evidence and pure speculation.


For what reason do you have a problem with gathered evidence? It is
gathered evidence that allowed the development of the theory of
electromagnetism (also theories of thermodynamics, atomic & nuclear
physics too) that allowed the engineering of the power system that
caused the switch to work. I agree with you on the "pure speculation"
point but there is such a thing as informed speculation - i.e
speculation based on accumulated knowledge and study of a field. It
is informed speculation that generally leads to the advance of
science.

Klazmon.


Do you accept informed speculation based on accumulated knowledge and
study of a field?


The point of such speculation is to know what to investigate. The
speculation doesn't gain the status of theory until it is well supported
by the empirical evidence.

Do you thing that experientialism carriesas much
weight as speculation and theories?


Theory in science is a well supported explanation of a phenomena. I,e is
in agreement with the evidence from nature. Examples of theory are
quantum theory, electrodynamics, general relativity, statistical
thermodynamics etc etc etc. It is applied *theory* that brings the power
to the switch I was talking about before. You are confusing the
scientific meaning of theory with the general public usage where it

means

a wild speculation. An informed speculation is certainly more plausable
than a wild one but in the end it is only the empirical evidence from
nature that decides if the speculation is any good. As far as
"experientialism" is concerned, I have no idea what that means, is it
some sort of new age philosophy?

Klazmon.


No, it isn't. Get out your dictionary and look it up. Why does a

beautiful

sunset take your breath away?

It doesn't, but if it did, it would be because it was nice to look at.

Why do you smile when you see a newborn baby?

Because they are cute.

Why do you get angry when you see injustice?

Because it offends me

Why do you turn away from gruesome scenes?

I don't, but if I did, it would be becuase it was unpleasant to view.

Why does thinking about a loved one comfort you?

Because it is nice to know you're not alone.

In the same way people claim to "feel" the presence of a "Supreme Being".

They see

things happening in their lives that are outside of the reals of science.

No I don't.

They have inner peace, resoluteness, comfort, strength beyond what science
can understand.

Nope, just what courage we can muster up.

Their experiences are proof to them that there is a "Supreme Being".

Nope, just an excuse for one.

You cannot deny their experiences.

No, but I can and do deny your conclusions

True, a few are wigged
out but the vast majority (Billions) are pretty well as normal as you and

I.
Trying to use events to justify faith is like trying to empty the Pacific
Ocean with a strainer.
Mickey
.

User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 11:57:59 AM
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:vthse.5214$jX6.1152@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
snip


No, it isn't. Get out your dictionary and look it up. Why does a

beautiful

sunset take your breath away?

Who said it does?

Why do you smile when you see a newborn baby?

What makes you think everyone does? Some people can't stand kids.

Why do you get angry when you see injustice?

See above.
Why do you turn away from

gruesome scenes?

See above.

Why does thinking about a loved one comfort you?

See above.
In the

same way people claim to "feel" the presence of a "Supreme Being".

As in, it's a subjective experience and doesn't apply to everyone? Gotcha.
They see

things happening in their lives that are outside of the reals of science.
They have inner peace, resoluteness, comfort, strength beyond what science
can understand. Their experiences are proof to them that there is a
"Supreme Being". You cannot deny their experiences.

True, but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with reality.
True, a few are wigged

out but the vast majority (Billions) are pretty well as normal as you and

I.
And you know this because........................?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 12:05:08 PM
brutus wrote:


No, it isn't. Get out your dictionary and look it up. Why does a beautiful
sunset take your breath away? Why do you smile when you see a newborn baby?
Why do you get angry when you see injustice? Why do you turn away from
gruesome scenes? Why does thinking about a loved one comfort you? In the
same way people claim to "feel" the presence of a "Supreme Being". They see
things happening in their lives that are outside of the reals of science.
They have inner peace, resoluteness, comfort, strength beyond what science
can understand. Their experiences are proof to them that there is a
"Supreme Being". You cannot deny their experiences.

Of course not, but these perceived experiences are not scientific proof
that there is a Supreme Being. This constant mixing of spheres of
knowledge, the religious with science and the scientific with religion,
creates a lot of the problem. Of course at some level the two do
intertwine, and currently that is clearly the case with ultimate
origins. The trouble comes from taking proofs that are fine in one field
and foisting them on the other. Both sides here seem loath to stop doing
that.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.








User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 14 Jun 2005 11:53:33 PM
We don't need "gods" because there is no such thing as "gods". However,
you cannot in anyway whatsoever say that a ONE-LIVING-UNIVERSAL-POWER,
that most humans in English decide to call "God", does not exist.
I am not forcing anyone to believe in my premise or my belief, but you
cannot disprove it -- but of course you can be immature and make fun of
it, and of me, and pretend that you are 'god', and be a self-centred,
egotistical, self-righteous, "holier-than-thou", JERK.
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton wrote:

Not true at all, complete hogwash.

There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element
hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it
not
have been G-d that created hydrogen?

It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.
Jon.
aa #703
.
User: "Jon."

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 11:25:44 AM
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:

"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:

Not true at all, complete hogwash.

There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the
atom or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop
on its own. For instance we know the universe had to have the
element hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it
not have been G-d that created hydrogen?


It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.


We don't need "gods" because there is no such thing as "gods". However,
you cannot in anyway whatsoever say that a ONE-LIVING-UNIVERSAL-POWER,
that most humans in English decide to call "God", does not exist.

True. I cannot disprove "a ONE-LIVING-UNIVERSAL-POWER". However,
no-one has proven it either, at least not to my satisfaction. It
therefore falls into the same categories as Prometheus, the Raven, and
multitudinous other gods invented by mankind. When you can explain to
me why you believe in what you call "G-d" and not in any of the other
gods, we might have something to talk about.

I am not forcing anyone to believe in my premise or my belief

True. You would find that very hard to do, especially over the
internet.

but you cannot disprove it --

True. But you cannot prove it.

but of course you can be immature and make fun of
it, and of me, and pretend that you are 'god', and be a self-centred,
egotistical, self-righteous, "holier-than-thou", JERK.

It was not me that started the name-calling, and I will not perpetuate
it. If you consider that to be "holier than thou", well, if the shoe
fits, I guess...
Jon.
aa #703
.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 05:01:35 PM
No, it doesn't all the mythological/pagan gods haven been disproved...
try again.
I believe in the only G-d that exists -- which is irrelevant to the
discussion.
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118852744.589229.164940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
True. I cannot disprove "a ONE-LIVING-UNIVERSAL-POWER". However,
no-one has proven it either, at least not to my satisfaction. It
therefore falls into the same categories as Prometheus, the Raven, and
multitudinous other gods invented by mankind. When you can explain to
me why you believe in what you call "G-d" and not in any of the other
gods, we might have something to talk about.

I am not forcing anyone to believe in my premise or my belief

True. You would find that very hard to do, especially over the
internet.

but you cannot disprove it --

True. But you cannot prove it.

but of course you can be immature and make fun of
it, and of me, and pretend that you are 'god', and be a self-centred,
egotistical, self-righteous, "holier-than-thou", JERK.

It was not me that started the name-calling, and I will not perpetuate
it. If you consider that to be "holier than thou", well, if the shoe
fits, I guess...
Jon.
aa #703
.
User: "Jon."

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 06:13:28 PM
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:


"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118852744.589229.164940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...


True. I cannot disprove "a ONE-LIVING-UNIVERSAL-POWER". However,
no-one has proven it either, at least not to my satisfaction. It
therefore falls into the same categories as Prometheus, the Raven, and
multitudinous other gods invented by mankind. When you can explain to
me why you believe in what you call "G-d" and not in any of the other
gods, we might have something to talk about.

I am not forcing anyone to believe in my premise or my belief


True. You would find that very hard to do, especially over the
internet.

but you cannot disprove it --


True. But you cannot prove it.

but of course you can be immature and make fun of
it, and of me, and pretend that you are 'god', and be a self-centred,
egotistical, self-righteous, "holier-than-thou", JERK.


It was not me that started the name-calling, and I will not perpetuate
it. If you consider that to be "holier than thou", well, if the shoe
fits, I guess...

Jon.
aa #703
No, it doesn't all the mythological/pagan gods haven been disproved...
try again.

Disproved how? Please elaborate, providing disproofs for at least two
gods or creation myths.

I believe in the only G-d that exists -- which is irrelevant to the
discussion.

If you consider the existence of god(s) to be irrelevant to a
discussion of evolution vs. creationism, then you are acknowledging the
correctness of the evolutionary position.
Jon.
aa #703
.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 08:28:57 PM
Is English not your first language?
I said, "My belief if G-d exists or does not exist is irrelevant to the
discussion"
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118877208.902660.91240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If you consider the existence of god(s) to be irrelevant to a
discussion of evolution vs. creationism, then you are acknowledging the
correctness of the evolutionary position.
Jon.
aa #703
.
User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 10:01:04 PM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in news:9w4se.16488
$zm.957@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

Is English not your first language?

I said, "My belief if G-d exists or does not exist is irrelevant to the
discussion"

Could be. Where is your disproof of the pagan gods that you claimed to
have? Or are you back tracking on that one?
Klazmon.
.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 11:21:11 PM
Zeus was a pagan god, you have proof for him?
JUPITER, SATURN, should I go on???
We now know these were just planets and MYTHS.
Good fucking grief! People who just wan to fucking argue or to be
fucking right!
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967798BBBCFDDKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:9w4se.16488
: $zm.957@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
:
: > Is English not your first language?
: >
: > I said, "My belief if G-d exists or does not exist is irrelevant to
the
: > discussion"
: >
:
: Could be. Where is your disproof of the pagan gods that you claimed to
: have? Or are you back tracking on that one?
:
: Klazmon.
.
User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 06:08:51 PM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in news:xX6se.99148
$CR5.22806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

Zeus was a pagan god, you have proof for him?

I didn't say I did. You however claimed to be able to provide a disproof.
Where is it?

JUPITER, SATURN, should I go on???

Provide disproofs of as many gods as you like. I haven't seen any of your
disproofs so far.

We now know these were just planets and MYTHS.

I agree that the planets were named after some Roman gods, how does that
prove that these gods are not real. You claimed to be able to disprove
these gods. So where is your disproof. Put up or shut up.


Good fucking grief! People who just wan to fucking argue or to be
fucking right!

Well don't make false claims then.
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.

User: "Dave Lister"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 15 Jun 2005 11:25:21 PM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in news:xX6se.99148
$CR5.22806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

Zeus was a pagan god, you have proof for him?

JUPITER, SATURN, should I go on???

We now know these were just planets and MYTHS.

Good fucking grief! People who just wan to fucking argue or to be
fucking right!

They are as real as any other god.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 12:18:53 AM
PROVE IT -- You pathetic thick *****.
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9676D9EBBCEDBretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:xX6se.99148
: $CR5.22806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
:
: > Zeus was a pagan god, you have proof for him?
: >
: > JUPITER, SATURN, should I go on???
: >
: > We now know these were just planets and MYTHS.
: >
: > Good fucking grief! People who just wan to fucking argue or to be
: > fucking right!
:
: They are as real as any other god.
:
: --
: Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
:
: Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
:
.
User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 11:05:00 AM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:yO7se.99166$CR5.96607@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

PROVE IT -- You pathetic thick *****.

Ae you capable of replying to anyone that does not agree with you WITHOUT
proving what a vulgar drunken Irishman you are?
Mickey




"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9676D9EBBCEDBretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:xX6se.99148
: $CR5.22806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
:
: > Zeus was a pagan god, you have proof for him?
: >
: > JUPITER, SATURN, should I go on???
: >
: > We now know these were just planets and MYTHS.
: >
: > Good fucking grief! People who just wan to fucking argue or to be
: > fucking right!
:
: They are as real as any other god.
:
: --
: Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
:
: Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
:


.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 12:18:58 PM
You can ***** too, you fucking hypocrite!
You have used vulgar words as well, just in a post today!!!
You just can't stop attacking me can you? So when are you going to prove
that I am a drunk, you racist fucking ***** calling all Irish people
drunks, you are no better than a NAZI, you BEN ZONA.
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Y5mdnZeVRd8HPyzfRVn-1A@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:yO7se.99166$CR5.96607@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
: > PROVE IT -- You pathetic thick *****.
:
: Ae you capable of replying to anyone that does not agree with you
WITHOUT
: proving what a vulgar drunken Irishman you are?
:
: Mickey
:
: >
: >
: >
: > "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:Xns9676D9EBBCEDBretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
: > : "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
: > news:xX6se.99148
: > : $CR5.22806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
: > :
: > : > Zeus was a pagan god, you have proof for him?
: > : >
: > : > JUPITER, SATURN, should I go on???
: > : >
: > : > We now know these were just planets and MYTHS.
: > : >
: > : > Good fucking grief! People who just wan to fucking argue or to
be
: > : > fucking right!
: > :
: > : They are as real as any other god.
: > :
: > : --
: > : Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
: > :
: > : Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
.
User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 12:20:58 PM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:joise.102526$8S5.60615@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

You can ***** too, you fucking hypocrite!

You have used vulgar words as well, just in a post today!!!

You just can't stop attacking me can you? So when are you going to prove
that I am a drunk, you racist fucking ***** calling all Irish people
drunks, you are no better than a NAZI, you BEN ZONA.

When you stop using such vulgar language in a forum you know is attended by
ladies. There are some words a gentleman simply does not use in mixed
company, but you seem to lack that inhibition.
Mickey
.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 06:04:05 PM
Sorry, I am not a SEXIST idiot like you, I treat women as equals. If
they can't fight beside me in the military, they can hear the word
'*****'.
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7KCdnWd5vpPGKSzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:joise.102526$8S5.60615@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: > You can ***** too, you fucking hypocrite!
: >
: > You have used vulgar words as well, just in a post today!!!
: >
: > You just can't stop attacking me can you? So when are you going to
prove
: > that I am a drunk, you racist fucking ***** calling all Irish
people
: > drunks, you are no better than a NAZI, you BEN ZONA.
:
: When you stop using such vulgar language in a forum you know is
attended by
: ladies. There are some words a gentleman simply does not use in mixed
: company, but you seem to lack that inhibition.
:
: Mickey
:
:
.
User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 07:04:43 PM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:uonse.102669$CR5.27233@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

Sorry, I am not a SEXIST idiot like you, I treat women as equals. If
they can't fight beside me in the military, they can hear the word
'*****'.

I see, so now being a gentleman is sexist... you're a hopeless idiot. All
you have a loud, vulgar mouth. Not a word of useful information, just
ranting and swearing. You are a VERY poor excuse for a man, and an even
worse excuse for a Jew.
Mickey





"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7KCdnWd5vpPGKSzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:joise.102526$8S5.60615@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: > You can ***** too, you fucking hypocrite!
: >
: > You have used vulgar words as well, just in a post today!!!
: >
: > You just can't stop attacking me can you? So when are you going to
prove
: > that I am a drunk, you racist fucking ***** calling all Irish
people
: > drunks, you are no better than a NAZI, you BEN ZONA.
:
: When you stop using such vulgar language in a forum you know is
attended by
: ladies. There are some words a gentleman simply does not use in mixed
: company, but you seem to lack that inhibition.
:
: Mickey
:
:


.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 08:17:24 PM
Judge not...
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0LWdnR9GIrdljy_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:uonse.102669$CR5.27233@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
: > Sorry, I am not a SEXIST idiot like you, I treat women as equals. If
: > they can't fight beside me in the military, they can hear the word
: > '*****'.
:
: I see, so now being a gentleman is sexist... you're a hopeless idiot.
All
: you have a loud, vulgar mouth. Not a word of useful information, just
: ranting and swearing. You are a VERY poor excuse for a man, and an
even
: worse excuse for a Jew.
:
: Mickey
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > news:7KCdnWd5vpPGKSzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
: > : "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: > : news:joise.102526$8S5.60615@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: > : > You can ***** too, you fucking hypocrite!
: > : >
: > : > You have used vulgar words as well, just in a post today!!!
: > : >
: > : > You just can't stop attacking me can you? So when are you going
to
: > prove
: > : > that I am a drunk, you racist fucking ***** calling all Irish
: > people
: > : > drunks, you are no better than a NAZI, you BEN ZONA.
: > :
: > : When you stop using such vulgar language in a forum you know is
: > attended by
: > : ladies. There are some words a gentleman simply does not use in
mixed
: > : company, but you seem to lack that inhibition.
: > :
: > : Mickey
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
.
User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 08:25:23 PM
"ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:xrpse.23091$zm.3570@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

Judge not...

Judge away, I've nothing to hide.
Mickey





"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0LWdnR9GIrdljy_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:uonse.102669$CR5.27233@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
: > Sorry, I am not a SEXIST idiot like you, I treat women as equals. If
: > they can't fight beside me in the military, they can hear the word
: > '*****'.
:
: I see, so now being a gentleman is sexist... you're a hopeless idiot.
All
: you have a loud, vulgar mouth. Not a word of useful information, just
: ranting and swearing. You are a VERY poor excuse for a man, and an
even
: worse excuse for a Jew.
:
: Mickey
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > news:7KCdnWd5vpPGKSzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
: > : "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: > : news:joise.102526$8S5.60615@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: > : > You can ***** too, you fucking hypocrite!
: > : >
: > : > You have used vulgar words as well, just in a post today!!!
: > : >
: > : > You just can't stop attacking me can you? So when are you going
to
: > prove
: > : > that I am a drunk, you racist fucking ***** calling all Irish
: > people
: > : > drunks, you are no better than a NAZI, you BEN ZONA.
: > :
: > : When you stop using such vulgar language in a forum you know is
: > attended by
: > : ladies. There are some words a gentleman simply does not use in
mixed
: > : company, but you seem to lack that inhibition.
: > :
: > : Mickey
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:


.
User: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton"

Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals 16 Jun 2005 09:17:09 PM
Right because you are perfect and a mensch, and a Tzadik!!!
BAWAHAHAHAWAHAHAHAHAHA
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1_udnbru0u1MuC_fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:xrpse.23091$zm.3570@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
: > Judge not...
:
: Judge away, I've nothing to hide.
:
: Mickey
:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > news:0LWdnR9GIrdljy_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
: > :
: > : "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: > : news:uonse.102669$CR5.27233@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
: > : > Sorry, I am not a SEXIST idiot like you, I treat women as
equals. If
: > : > they can't fight beside me in the military, they can hear the
word
: > : > '*****'.
: > :
: > : I see, so now being a gentleman is sexist... you're a hopeless
idiot.
: > All
: > : you have a loud, vulgar mouth. Not a word of useful information,
just
: > : ranting and swearing. You are a VERY poor excuse for a man, and an
: > even
: > : worse excuse for a Jew.
: > :
: > : Mickey
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > : > news:7KCdnWd5vpPGKSzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
: > : > : "ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
message
: > : > : news:joise.102526$8S5.60615@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: > : > : > You can ***** too, you fucking hypocrite!
: > : > : >
: > : > : > You have used vulgar words as well, just in a post today!!!
: > : > : >
: > : > : > You just can't stop attacking me can you? So when are you
going
: > to
: > : > prove
: > : > : > that I am a drunk, you racist fucking ***** calling all
Irish
: > : > people
: > : > : > drunks, you are no better than a NAZI, you BEN ZONA.
: > : > :
: > : > : When you stop using such vulgar language in a forum you know
is
: > : > attended by
: > : > : ladies. There are some words a gentleman simply does not use
in
: > mixed
: > : > : company, but you seem to lack that inhibition.
: > : > :
: > : > : Mickey
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
.


















  Page 4 of 6

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 


Related Articles