| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2006 09:32:29 PM |
| Object: |
How a Mouse Became a Bat |
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/how_to_make_a_bat.php#more
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/bat_development.php#more
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
27 Apr 2006 04:39:13 PM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:n0sv42tlvbceabkc6udhq0rliina9j2lco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:43:00 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:5rlv425t7qk7lon3lpa363b7mmcaald8ub@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:32:26 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
snip
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/macro.html
Ok??
No, far from it.
You offer a religious site, offering nothing more than an enlargement of your
argument from incredulity, and call it evidence.
Forget the site and look at the evidence we have (don't have) and the fucking arguments
Geez.
All you have is incredulity, warm fuzzies, and wishful thinking.
That is not evidence.
Like the warm and fuzzy feelings you get when imagining jumping mice becoming
flying bats at the end of the line? Right, we *all* saw that happen.
Show us something solid, that proves that it couldn't have happened.
Even your probability sums, ignore certain facts,
They ignore the organic combinations that occur automatically, right up to self
replicating molecules, but include inorganic combinations, that are irrelevant .
and they are based on a modern oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, and ecology.
oh dear.. can't browl with you on this, sorry.
They also demand that a very complex organism, a complete cell, occurs, which
would not be abiogenesis, but spontaneous generation.
Suuuure, anything that fits
All of which is dishonest.
But beyond that, they miss one very simple point: This is a probability that
you are talking about, and a sequence with a probability of .1, that is 10:1,
can happen the first time, as can a .0000000000000000000001, probability, and so
on.
?- whatever.
It does not matter how many billions of billions to one, the odds are, against
the right combination, that does not mean that it will only happen on the last
try.
You say: It does not matter how many billions of billions to one, the odds are...
is this for real? then certainly God can exist,
Funny how you people never come up with an equation to support *that* assertion.
If myriads of chaotic inorganic particles can start grouping eachother with billions and
billions to one as odds, then why the heck can't gas particles or strings,plasma or other
energy forms have started and becoming angels and God?
Tell me that! Remember, eternity is at hand, everything's allowed (evolutionistic paradigm
in a nutshell).
if those are the probabilities we're talking about!
That is the funny thing about probabilities, no matter how small the odds,
there is always a positive value after the zeros, and the number of zeros can be
counted.
sure.
This is because probabilities are based on known data, empirical evidence.
(Although that does not seem to be something that creationists bother about, in
their calculations)
I don't have to, to make stupid wannabe evidence for what I see all over the place (ID).
There is no known data, that points to the existence of a god, which makes the
probability, "one over infinity",
DNA, programming, biotechnology, aerodynamics, brain, heart, all the systemes,
moon in correct orbit for earth to function, cycle of nature, atmospheric regulations,
shall I go on? which one of these don't carry a intelligent programming in it?
Why can't humans make ONE functional cell out of inorganic matter?
It cannot be anything else, because there is zero, empirical evidence, for a
god, and the reciprocal of zero, is infinity.
As infinity cannot be subdivided, then one over infinity, is an impossibility,
pure imagination
Unless you have some empirical evidence, of course.
see above.
In fact, they assume that life does not begin before the single cell, level, but
refuse to define life.
They will argue that a couple of cells, multiplying, is life, but a couple of
molecules, doing the same thing, is not: How do they differentiate?
I'm not a molecular scientist, but the probability thing you said proves the point.
So you don't know either: Nothing new there, then.
The odds are stacked up no matter how you WANT it to have happened.
You don't know that, you are guessing, based on your own need to believe that a
god is necessary.
I don't believe out of necessity, I'd have a fine life without a God, maybe even wilder as
I wouldn't have to consider anybody elses wellbeing unless in was in my interest also.
I could have been a corrupt murderer, or anything goes, but hey, I guess I have to
think, because of the God. So how is it necessary for me?
I would farther suggest that it will never matter how much evidence you are
presented with, you will always do as you do now: You will deny it.
You will, somehow, convince your self that it is false, because your whole
existence is pointless, if it is true.
see above, no *need* of some moral guardian God, if I'd really want to go crazy I could.
S
Ain't that right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
27 Apr 2006 07:44:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:39:13 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:n0sv42tlvbceabkc6udhq0rliina9j2lco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:43:00 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:5rlv425t7qk7lon3lpa363b7mmcaald8ub@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:32:26 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
snip
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/macro.html
Ok??
No, far from it.
You offer a religious site, offering nothing more than an enlargement of your
argument from incredulity, and call it evidence.
Forget the site and look at the evidence we have (don't have) and the fucking arguments
Geez.
All you have is incredulity, warm fuzzies, and wishful thinking.
That is not evidence.
Like the warm and fuzzy feelings you get when imagining jumping mice becoming
flying bats at the end of the line? Right, we *all* saw that happen.
So now you would do my imagining for me?
Well, I suppose it saves me a job, and of course, it is so much easier for you
to defeat a figment of your own imagination.
snip
You say: It does not matter how many billions of billions to one, the odds are...
is this for real? then certainly God can exist,
Funny how you people never come up with an equation to support *that* assertion.
If myriads of chaotic inorganic particles can start grouping eachother with billions and
billions to one as odds, then why the heck can't gas particles or strings,plasma or other
energy forms have started and becoming angels and God?
That is not an equation.
What it is, is a standard xtian fanatic response to a question they cant answer.
"Yes, But what if <insert your own fantasy>?".
"But what if " is not evidence.
Besides, that would contradict Xtian, Jewish, and Islamic, teaching, that "God",
has ALWAYS, existed.
snip
There is no known data, that points to the existence of a god, which makes the
probability, "one over infinity",
DNA, programming, biotechnology, aerodynamics, brain, heart, all the systemes,
moon in correct orbit for earth to function, cycle of nature, atmospheric regulations,
shall I go on? which one of these don't carry a intelligent programming in it?
Unless you can show that they couldn't happen without divine intervention, then
that are not evidence.
Why can't humans make ONE functional cell out of inorganic matter?
According to xtians, your god, always existed, that means that it had an
infinite amount of time to work out how to make a cell.
We have had just over a century to try and work it out.
But we're getting there.
It cannot be anything else, because there is zero, empirical evidence, for a
god, and the reciprocal of zero, is infinity.
As infinity cannot be subdivided, then one over infinity, is an impossibility,
pure imagination
Unless you have some empirical evidence, of course.
see above.
I did, so it stands, Zero evidence, unless you can show that it couldn't happen
without divine intervention
In fact, they assume that life does not begin before the single cell, level, but
refuse to define life.
They will argue that a couple of cells, multiplying, is life, but a couple of
molecules, doing the same thing, is not: How do they differentiate?
I'm not a molecular scientist, but the probability thing you said proves the point.
So you don't know either: Nothing new there, then.
The odds are stacked up no matter how you WANT it to have happened.
You don't know that, you are guessing, based on your own need to believe that a
god is necessary.
I don't believe out of necessity,
No?
I'd have a fine life without a God, maybe even wilder as
I wouldn't have to consider anybody elses wellbeing unless in was in my interest also.
I could have been a corrupt murderer, or anything goes, but hey, I guess I have to
think, because of the God. So how is it necessary for me?
So it is necessity, your very survival depends on it.
I would farther suggest that it will never matter how much evidence you are
presented with, you will always do as you do now: You will deny it.
You will, somehow, convince your self that it is false, because your whole
existence is pointless, if it is true.
see above, no *need* of some moral guardian God, if I'd really want to go crazy I could.
Yes, we are more than aware of the absence of self morality, in xtians.
Without your little book, to tell you what to do, what is moral, and what is
not, you would not survive a week.
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
28 Apr 2006 08:12:15 AM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:f1o2525crvjchepuk3ijoducmos078qdui@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:39:13 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:n0sv42tlvbceabkc6udhq0rliina9j2lco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:43:00 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i melding
news:5rlv425t7qk7lon3lpa363b7mmcaald8ub@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:32:26 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
snip
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/macro.html
Ok??
No, far from it.
You offer a religious site, offering nothing more than an enlargement of your
argument from incredulity, and call it evidence.
Forget the site and look at the evidence we have (don't have) and the fucking arguments
Geez.
All you have is incredulity, warm fuzzies, and wishful thinking.
That is not evidence.
Like the warm and fuzzy feelings you get when imagining jumping mice becoming
flying bats at the end of the line? Right, we *all* saw that happen.
So now you would do my imagining for me?
Well, I suppose it saves me a job, and of course, it is so much easier for you
to defeat a figment of your own imagination.
snip
You say: It does not matter how many billions of billions to one, the odds are...
is this for real? then certainly God can exist,
Funny how you people never come up with an equation to support *that* assertion.
If myriads of chaotic inorganic particles can start grouping eachother with billions and
billions to one as odds, then why the heck can't gas particles or strings,plasma or other
energy forms have started and becoming angels and God?
That is not an equation.
What it is, is a standard xtian fanatic response to a question they cant answer.
"Yes, But what if <insert your own fantasy>?".
"But what if " is not evidence.
Like your belief about 'what if this was a creature on its way of transforming into a horse'?
Same *****.
Besides, that would contradict Xtian, Jewish, and Islamic, teaching, that "God",
has ALWAYS, existed.
snip
There is no known data, that points to the existence of a god, which makes the
probability, "one over infinity",
DNA, programming, biotechnology, aerodynamics, brain, heart, all the systemes,
moon in correct orbit for earth to function, cycle of nature, atmospheric regulations,
shall I go on? which one of these don't carry a intelligent programming in it?
Unless you can show that they couldn't happen without divine intervention, then
that are not evidence.
Why can't humans make ONE functional cell out of inorganic matter?
According to xtians, your god, always existed, that means that it had an
infinite amount of time to work out how to make a cell.
We have had just over a century to try and work it out.
But we're getting there.
It cannot be anything else, because there is zero, empirical evidence, for a
god, and the reciprocal of zero, is infinity.
As infinity cannot be subdivided, then one over infinity, is an impossibility,
pure imagination
Unless you have some empirical evidence, of course.
see above.
I did, so it stands, Zero evidence, unless you can show that it couldn't happen
without divine intervention
In fact, they assume that life does not begin before the single cell, level, but
refuse to define life.
They will argue that a couple of cells, multiplying, is life, but a couple of
molecules, doing the same thing, is not: How do they differentiate?
I'm not a molecular scientist, but the probability thing you said proves the point.
So you don't know either: Nothing new there, then.
The odds are stacked up no matter how you WANT it to have happened.
You don't know that, you are guessing, based on your own need to believe that a
god is necessary.
I don't believe out of necessity,
No?
I'd have a fine life without a God, maybe even wilder as
I wouldn't have to consider anybody elses wellbeing unless in was in my interest also.
I could have been a corrupt murderer, or anything goes, but hey, I guess I have to
think, because of the God. So how is it necessary for me?
So it is necessity, your very survival depends on it.
I would farther suggest that it will never matter how much evidence you are
presented with, you will always do as you do now: You will deny it.
You will, somehow, convince your self that it is false, because your whole
existence is pointless, if it is true.
see above, no *need* of some moral guardian God, if I'd really want to go crazy I could.
Yes, we are more than aware of the absence of self morality, in xtians.
Without your little book, to tell you what to do, what is moral, and what is
not, you would not survive a week.
buh, I'm bored with this.
S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 04:53:08 PM |
|
|
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:zzS2g.8035$tT.4006@news01.roc.ny...
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:(snip)
It doesn't take more than a few sentances to disprove evolutionism.
How does one disprove heritable genetic change in reproducing populations
over time in a few sentences??
He didn't say "sentences", he said "sentances".
One "sentance" = 100 bullshits
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
24 Apr 2006 03:22:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:45:03 GMT, Elmer <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:(snip)
It doesn't take more than a few sentances to disprove evolutionism.
How does one disprove heritable genetic change in reproducing
populations over time in a few sentences??
It ain't in the bible, ergo, it is disprove n.
...and a cow DID jump over the moon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 03:06:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:16:28 +0200, in alt.talk.creationism
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in
<QOudnVMMi4PqK9bZ4p2dnA@telenor.com>:
"Charlië" <invalid@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding news:444a32ec@usenet.zapto.org...
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:eIOdnRMgT-UHYtTZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
-->it's all about the wishful thinking of evolutionists, .........
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of wishful thinking, lying,
fabricating and cheating and that only YOU have the truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant
but it's totally dishonest on your part. There's something wrong with your thinking.
You say you don't read Creationist blather then you send people to a Creationist-Religion website
that produces not one shred of evidence for a magical creation.
--
I don't have to read any sites, I have learned what I need from elsewhere. But if
I do use a site or two, it's to get even better arguments, such as the probability
right there in black and white, disproving the possibility of evoution happening in
a big scale. And that the predictions of the intelligent design vs. evolutionism
clearly favours ID. It doesn't take more than a few sentances to disprove evolutionism.
You repeat falsehoods. Your ignorance of science and the scientific
method is clear to all to see. Your arrogance and self-worship is
pitiable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
22 Apr 2006 01:33:03 PM |
|
|
"Charlië" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:444a32ec@usenet.zapto.org...
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:eIOdnRMgT-UHYtTZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
-->it's all about the wishful thinking of evolutionists, .........
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU have
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dishonest
on
your part. There's something wrong with your thinking.
You say you don't read Creationist blather then you send people to a
Creationist-Religion website that produces not one shred of evidence for a
magical creation.
--
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 12:19:43 PM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3$b81$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU have
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dishonest
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Charli=EB?=" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 08:50:16 PM |
|
|
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:GeSdnTnJV6feKtbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to
other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the
same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Where is your proof evolution is a lie? Some Creationist website? Where is
your scientific evidence there was a magical and fantastical creation?
CH......
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
26 Apr 2006 12:26:02 PM |
|
|
"Charlië" <invalid@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding news:444c2ee5@usenet.zapto.org...
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:GeSdnTnJV6feKtbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Where is your proof evolution is a lie? Some Creationist website? Where is your scientific
evidence there was a magical and fantastical creation?
If one looks at the beings that appear in recent earth layers, they are fixed, formed fully
as the animals we know of today. NO tiny horses with ratmouses or other freakshows.
Just look at the fucking evidence how hard can it be?
S
CH......
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
26 Apr 2006 04:04:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:26:02 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
If one looks at the beings that appear in recent earth layers,
Define "recent", according to your usage in this context.
they are fixed, formed fully
as the animals we know of today. NO tiny horses with ratmouses or other freakshows.
Just look at the fucking evidence how hard can it be?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
23 Apr 2006 02:11:23 PM |
|
|
-=ACno sabe nada-=AC lied:
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3$b81=
$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU have
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dishone=
st
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; =
or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealiz=
ed)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to oth=
er
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the s=
ame
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Here you go declaring it a lie by your own fiat. Do you honestly think
you're god that you declare something and it's so?. We're still
waiting on you supporting that **LIE**. Where's your **EVIDENCE**?
I've personally asked you for it a dozen times now and every time
you've run away. This proves beyond contestation that it is **YOU WHO
ARE LYING**.
Is that what Jesus would do? Lie and run away?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
23 Apr 2006 04:21:49 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145819483.762907.267960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
-¬no sabe nada-¬ lied:
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3$b81$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU have
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dishonest
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Here you go declaring it a lie by your own fiat. Do you honestly think
you're god that you declare something and it's so?. We're still
waiting on you supporting that **LIE**. Where's your **EVIDENCE**?
I've personally asked you for it a dozen times now and every time
you've run away. This proves beyond contestation that it is **YOU WHO
ARE LYING**.
Is that what Jesus would do? Lie and run away?
Budikka
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small catsized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the same age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
S
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Charli=EB?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
23 Apr 2006 08:55:44 PM |
|
|
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:caOdnahKLJ9tctbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small
catsized creatures
before, which is a lie,
Uh, it's you who are lying as I *SAW* the entire range of skeletons at the
Museum of Natural History in NYC USA. A child could see and understand the
progression from a small 4 toed animal to modern day horse.
as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the same age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
And you read this on another *creationist* website (like the one below) no
doubt with PROOF they're all the same age... right?
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
Where is the SCIENTIFIC proof of what this fundy-creationist site claims?
CH.........
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
26 Apr 2006 12:24:20 PM |
|
|
"Charlië" <invalid@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding news:444c302d@usenet.zapto.org...
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:caOdnahKLJ9tctbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small catsized creatures
before, which is a lie,
Uh, it's you who are lying as I *SAW* the entire range of skeletons at the Museum of Natural
History in NYC USA. A child could see and understand the progression from a small 4 toed animal
to modern day horse.
Nope, not very easy to see the development unless some evolutionists stack up
some bones glued together to fit their own agenda about it.
The horse evolution thing is now recognized as horse-*****, a huge imbarassment
for the evolutionists, but it's still in childrens curriculum books, hard as these
lies are to fight out because of the status of humbug science like this
S
as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the same age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
And you read this on another *creationist* website (like the one below) no doubt with PROOF
they're all the same age... right?
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
Where is the SCIENTIFIC proof of what this fundy-creationist site claims?
CH.........
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
23 Apr 2006 04:30:01 PM |
|
|
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding=20
news:1145819483.762907.267960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
-=ACno sabe nada-=AC lied:
=20
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3$b=
81$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU ha=
ve
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dishon=
est
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated b=
y
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding;=
or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unreali=
zed)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to o=
ther
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the=
same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
=20
=20
Here you go declaring it a lie by your own fiat. Do you honestly think=
you're god that you declare something and it's so?. We're still
waiting on you supporting that **LIE**. Where's your **EVIDENCE**?
I've personally asked you for it a dozen times now and every time
you've run away. This proves beyond contestation that it is **YOU WHO
ARE LYING**.
=20
Is that what Jesus would do? Lie and run away?
=20
Budikka
=20
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small cats=
ized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the sa=
me age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
=20
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
=20
The site makes one basic (and blatantly false) assumption about evolution=
:
"The smallest horses are not older than the bigger horses (as evolution=20
would require)."
Evolution does not require the older species to die out to make way for=20
the newer species.
A more evolved horse can easily overlap the lesser-evolved horse, for=20
thousands, if not millions, of years.
For example, human ancestors Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanus =
lived together, timewise, for 100,000 years.
The "coexisting" conjecture that creationists try to attack=20
evolutionists with is one of many lies about evolution that they use.=20
Another is "monkeys evolving into humans" conjecture which no=20
"evolutionist" says.
--=20
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
26 Apr 2006 12:15:52 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> skrev i melding
news:444bf03c$0$15406$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145819483.762907.267960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
-¬no sabe nada-¬ lied:
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3$b81$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU have
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dishonest
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Here you go declaring it a lie by your own fiat. Do you honestly think
you're god that you declare something and it's so?. We're still
waiting on you supporting that **LIE**. Where's your **EVIDENCE**?
I've personally asked you for it a dozen times now and every time
you've run away. This proves beyond contestation that it is **YOU WHO
ARE LYING**.
Is that what Jesus would do? Lie and run away?
Budikka
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small catsized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the same age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
The site makes one basic (and blatantly false) assumption about evolution:
"The smallest horses are not older than the bigger horses (as evolution
would require)."
Evolution does not require the older species to die out to make way for
the newer species.
A more evolved horse can easily overlap the lesser-evolved horse, for
thousands, if not millions, of years.
For example, human ancestors Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanus
lived together, timewise, for 100,000 years.
The "coexisting" conjecture that creationists try to attack
evolutionists with is one of many lies about evolution that they use.
Another is "monkeys evolving into humans" conjecture which no
"evolutionist" says.
--->so the tiny catsized horse that they timed to be of modern horse's age,
is exactly where to be found? lol, I guess it died out yesterday, haha. That tiny
horse never existed, *****.
Saba
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
26 Apr 2006 11:31:47 PM |
|
|
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> skrev i melding=20
news:444bf03c$0$15406$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
=20
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding=20
news:1145819483.762907.267960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
-=ACno sabe nada-=AC lied:
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3$=
b81$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU h=
ave
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally disho=
nest
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated =
by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding=
; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unreal=
ized)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to =
other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in th=
e same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Here you go declaring it a lie by your own fiat. Do you honestly think=
you're god that you declare something and it's so?. We're still
waiting on you supporting that **LIE**. Where's your **EVIDENCE**?
I've personally asked you for it a dozen times now and every time
you've run away. This proves beyond contestation that it is **YOU WHO
ARE LYING**.
Is that what Jesus would do? Lie and run away?
Budikka
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small cats=
ized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the sa=
me age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
=20
=20
The site makes one basic (and blatantly false) assumption about evoluti=
on:
=20
"The smallest horses are not older than the bigger horses (as evolution=
would require)."
=20
Evolution does not require the older species to die out to make way for=
the newer species.
=20
A more evolved horse can easily overlap the lesser-evolved horse, for
thousands, if not millions, of years.
=20
For example, human ancestors Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanu=
s
lived together, timewise, for 100,000 years.
=20
The "coexisting" conjecture that creationists try to attack
evolutionists with is one of many lies about evolution that they use.
Another is "monkeys evolving into humans" conjecture which no
"evolutionist" says.
=20
=20
<Insult-filter activated>
--->so the tiny catsized horse that they timed to be of modern horse's =
age,
is exactly where to be found? That tiny
horse never existed.
So, what is this, then?
http://www.palaeontology.geo.uu.se/Kurser/kvallskurs/Ovningar/OVNING11(05=
)_files/image020.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/s4f3x
<Insult-filter deactivate>
Putz.
--=20
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
27 Apr 2006 04:28:40 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> skrev i melding
news:44504955$0$23975$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> skrev i melding
news:444bf03c$0$15406$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145819483.762907.267960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
-¬no sabe nada-¬ lied:
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3$b81$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU have
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dishonest
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in the same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Here you go declaring it a lie by your own fiat. Do you honestly think
you're god that you declare something and it's so?. We're still
waiting on you supporting that **LIE**. Where's your **EVIDENCE**?
I've personally asked you for it a dozen times now and every time
you've run away. This proves beyond contestation that it is **YOU WHO
ARE LYING**.
Is that what Jesus would do? Lie and run away?
Budikka
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small catsized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the same age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
The site makes one basic (and blatantly false) assumption about evolution:
"The smallest horses are not older than the bigger horses (as evolution
would require)."
Evolution does not require the older species to die out to make way for
the newer species.
A more evolved horse can easily overlap the lesser-evolved horse, for
thousands, if not millions, of years.
For example, human ancestors Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanus
lived together, timewise, for 100,000 years.
The "coexisting" conjecture that creationists try to attack
evolutionists with is one of many lies about evolution that they use.
Another is "monkeys evolving into humans" conjecture which no
"evolutionist" says.
<Insult-filter activated>
--->so the tiny catsized horse that they timed to be of modern horse's age,
is exactly where to be found? That tiny
horse never existed.
So, what is this, then?
http://www.palaeontology.geo.uu.se/Kurser/kvallskurs/Ovningar/OVNING11(05)_files/image020.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/s4f3x
<Insult-filter deactivate>
Putz.
hhahaha! That insult filter better be good, cause here it comes: that is a pityful piece of *****
wannabe 'evidence' for a horse. Maybe in ya'lls minds, where things magically becomes facts!
But hell, God is more evidenced than that proving a horse was a tiny little cat thing before.
How exactly did thouse mice start flying (as they grew batwings)? moahahah!
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a LIAR |
27 Apr 2006 10:52:40 PM |
|
|
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> skrev i melding=20
news:44504955$0$23975$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
=20
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> skrev i melding=20
news:444bf03c$0$15406$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding=20
news:1145819483.762907.267960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
-=ACno sabe nada-=AC lied:
"Mindfucked" <mindfucked@bulldoghome.com> skrev i melding news:e2dsr3=
$b81$1@emma.aioe.org...
You're pretty darn arrogant to accuse *ALL* scientists, worldwide, of=
wishful thinking, lying, fabricating and cheating and that only YOU =
have
the
truth of our origins. It's not only arrogant but it's totally dish=
onest
on
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated=
by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure fundin=
g; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrea=
lized)
other factors!
Funny how otherwize bright and critical minds just turns all blank to=
other
important matters of fact, such that not *ALL* scientists belive in t=
he same
lie (evol.), or other factors ruling the show.
Here you go declaring it a lie by your own fiat. Do you honestly thin=
k
you're god that you declare something and it's so?. We're still
waiting on you supporting that **LIE**. Where's your **EVIDENCE**?
I've personally asked you for it a dozen times now and every time
you've run away. This proves beyond contestation that it is **YOU WHO=
ARE LYING**.
Is that what Jesus would do? Lie and run away?
Budikka
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small cat=
sized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the s=
ame age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
The site makes one basic (and blatantly false) assumption about evoluti=
on:
"The smallest horses are not older than the bigger horses (as evolution=
would require)."
Evolution does not require the older species to die out to make way for=
the newer species.
A more evolved horse can easily overlap the lesser-evolved horse, for
thousands, if not millions, of years.
For example, human ancestors Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanu=
s
lived together, timewise, for 100,000 years.
The "coexisting" conjecture that creationists try to attack
evolutionists with is one of many lies about evolution that they use.
Another is "monkeys evolving into humans" conjecture which no
"evolutionist" says.
=20
=20
<Insult-filter activated>
=20
--->so the tiny catsized horse that they timed to be of modern horse's =
age,
is exactly where to be found? That tiny
horse never existed.
=20
=20
So, what is this, then?
http://www.palaeontology.geo.uu.se/Kurser/kvallskurs/Ovningar/OVNING11(=
05)_files/image020.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/s4f3x
=20
<Insult-filter deactivate>
=20
Putz.
=20
hhahaha! That insult filter better be good, cause here it comes: that i=
s a pityful piece of *****
wannabe 'evidence' for a horse. Maybe in ya'lls minds, where things mag=
ically becomes facts!
But hell, God is more evidenced than that proving a horse was a tiny li=
ttle cat thing before.
How exactly did thouse mice start flying (as they grew batwings)? moaha=
hah!
So, you have no answer, then. Great. Thanks for the concession.
--=20
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************=09
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Saba Gracile is a Vacuous Coward |
23 Apr 2006 07:29:07 PM |
|
|
No Sabe Nada Lied:
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small catsized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the same age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
Your reference is a creationist web site? I asked you for
scientifically valid positive evidence for creation and the best you
can do is an anonymous article on a creationist web site posted
undoubtedly by some idiot who doesn't even have an academic degree in
the appropriarte scientific field?
Your "evidence" is a website that says "no it isn't". It contains zero
science and the simple fact is that you're too acedmically illiterate
to realise this doesn't constitute a science publication.
Okay, I'll see your cheesey amateur website and raise you a scientific
description by real scientists that directly refutes your lies:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
Now that you've had your dumb ***** kicked once more, let's get back to
the question you've been running from since I first challenged you:
**DO YOU HAVE ANY POSTIVE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?
ANSWER YES OR NO.**
Butikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Saba Gracile is a Vacuous Coward |
26 Apr 2006 12:20:55 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145838547.149888.172740@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
No Sabe Nada Lied:
-->run away from your own lies, then. You belive horses were small catsized creatures
before, which is a lie, as the small ones used as 'evidence' are the same age as
the modern horses itself, among other things.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
Your reference is a creationist web site? I asked you for
scientifically valid positive evidence for creation and the best you
can do is an anonymous article on a creationist web site posted
undoubtedly by some idiot who doesn't even have an academic degree in
the appropriarte scientific field?
-->you refer to stupid evolutionistical websites, and that's supposed to be any
better? get a grip.
Your "evidence" is a website that says "no it isn't". It contains zero
science and the simple fact is that you're too acedmically illiterate
to realise this doesn't constitute a science publication.
Okay, I'll see your cheesey amateur website and raise you a scientific
description by real scientists that directly refutes your lies:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
--->more lies I assume, claiming to be scientific, up to a point: up to where they
can sit and fib about horses have being small as rats before, etc etc. Now that is
fucking hilarious. What were it before that? a fish? nothing is possible in Alice in
Wonderland land i guess. I suggest you see what they have found in the earth
layers, and then we talk.
Now that you've had your dumb ***** kicked once more, let's get back to
the question you've been running from since I first challenged you:
**DO YOU HAVE ANY POSTIVE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?
ANSWER YES OR NO.**
Butikka
S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 05:29:54 AM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
And you're a pretty braindead ***** to generalise once again from the
particular and imply that scientists, all over the world, of every
discipline, of every nationality, of every faith and lack of faith are
in some sort of evolution conspiracy. What are you, fifteen years old
or just a moron?
Clearly you lack the intellectual wherewithal to even look at, let
alone understand the massive weight of 150 years of solid scientific
support for the Theory of Evolution. No surprises there.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 09:29:46 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1145788194.546235.228970@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mindfucked wrote:
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding;
or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently
unrealized)
other factors!
And you're a pretty braindead ***** to generalise once again from the
particular and imply that scientists, all over the world, of every
discipline, of every nationality, of every faith and lack of faith are
in some sort of evolution conspiracy. What are you, fifteen years old
or just a moron?
I have not suggested anything about 'conspiracy' - I am merely stating that
scientists operate within the current scientific canon - a referential
framework influenced by many factors that will not be realized until the
current paradigm if overthrown and an new paradigm is adopted - as happened
throughout the history of scientific discovery. You are operating from
within the current paradigm - you will never accept that science is never
'neutral' and will always be influenced by politics, economics, human error
and prior 'received beliefs' - I expect to be ridiculed for not accepting
your fundamentalist attitude to science - It's what fundamentalists of all
kinds do - If it doesn't fit your 'received beliefs' it's wrong and worthy
of ridicule.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 05:38:12 AM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2006 03:29:54 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Mindfucked wrote:
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
And you're a pretty braindead ***** to generalise once again from the
particular and imply that scientists, all over the world, of every
discipline, of every nationality, of every faith and lack of faith are
in some sort of evolution conspiracy. What are you, fifteen years old
or just a moron?
It's a standard creationist canard. I first heard it from a colleague
whom I followed from an internal bulletin board to alt.atheism and
talk.origins where he was a well-known loony. Sixteen years ago.
It's a lie promulgated by creationist leaders to their gullible and
ignorant followers who are too stupid to think about it.
Some of them really are so paranoid and stupid they really do imagine
there is a world-wide conspiracy to deny "facts".
Clearly you lack the intellectual wherewithal to even look at, let
alone understand the massive weight of 150 years of solid scientific
support for the Theory of Evolution. No surprises there.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 12:23:26 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> skrev i melding
news:iqlm42prbv7ali70aphrq45a3ous6rlgde@4ax.com...
On 23 Apr 2006 03:29:54 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Mindfucked wrote:
You're rather darn naive to assume that scientists are not motivated by
'peer acceptance' issues; or influenced by the need to secure funding; or
ethnocentrism and probably many unknown (or at least currently unrealized)
other factors!
And you're a pretty braindead ***** to generalise once again from the
particular and imply that scientists, all over the world, of every
discipline, of every nationality, of every faith and lack of faith are
in some sort of evolution conspiracy. What are you, fifteen years old
or just a moron?
It's a standard creationist canard. I first heard it from a colleague
whom I followed from an internal bulletin board to alt.atheism and
talk.origins where he was a well-known loony. Sixteen years ago.
It's a lie promulgated by creationist leaders to their gullible and
ignorant followers who are too stupid to think about it.
Some of them really are so paranoid and stupid they really do imagine
there is a world-wide conspiracy to deny "facts".
Clearly you lack the intellectual wherewithal to even look at, let
alone understand the massive weight of 150 years of solid scientific
support for the Theory of Evolution. No surprises there.
Budikka
It's so damn revealing what makes these pushers of their theory so fanatical.
Everything else it handled with care and critique. But why is evolution not also
treated with reservations? It is not that it is somehow self-evident to anyone
familiar with the evidence, rather, the evidence is inconclusive and can support
either viewpoint. Is there not also some room for skepticism about evolution?
NO! because these are PHANATIX !
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
23 Apr 2006 02:20:45 PM |
|
|
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
It's so damn revealing what makes these pushers of their theory so fanati=
cal.
Everything else it handled with care and critique. But why is evolution n=
ot also
treated with reservations? It is not that it is somehow self-evident to a=
nyone
familiar with the evidence, rather, the evidence is inconclusive and can =
support
either viewpoint. Is there not also some room for skepticism about evolut=
ion?
We're still waiting on you providing even one iota of science to refute
the Theory of Evolution. Every time you've been asked, **YOU HAVE RUN
AWAY**. Do you seriously think that *anyone* believes you, you
pathetic little impotent coward?
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory subject to exactly the
same tests requirements and constraints as every other scientific
theory. What evidence do you have that this is not so? Do you
seriously think you are god and can declare it invalid on your own fiat
alone? How blasphemous!
Why are you not seeking to tear down the theory of gravity? Do you
think it won't float?
Why are you not trying to infect us with your thoughts on why germ
theory is nothing but a fanatical belief?
Why are you not jumping on quantum theory?
Which part of "*THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS PASSED EVERY TEST TO WHICH
IT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED FOR ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS** is it that's
over your kindegarten reading level?
Once again, where is **your** evidence refuting the Theory of
Evolution? Nowhere. You have none. We have a de facto admission of
this from you.
So, on the one side we have 150 years of evidence supporting evolution.
On your side we have **N-O-T-H-I-N-G**
So where does the preponderance of evidence come down?
The fanatic is the braindead moron who insists he is right not because
of the evidence but in spite of it. And that would be you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
26 Apr 2006 12:06:38 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145820044.958853.246800@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:
It's so damn revealing what makes these pushers of their theory so fanatical.
Everything else it handled with care and critique. But why is evolution not also
treated with reservations? It is not that it is somehow self-evident to anyone
familiar with the evidence, rather, the evidence is inconclusive and can support
either viewpoint. Is there not also some room for skepticism about evolution?
We're still waiting on you providing even one iota of science to refute
the Theory of Evolution. Every time you've been asked, **YOU HAVE RUN
AWAY**. Do you seriously think that *anyone* believes you, you
pathetic little impotent coward?
-->The numbers. For one. Second, only screwballs can honestly say all animals
had totally shapeshifted forms than now once upon the time. And then, a thousands
different shapes and forms, when we know this isn't the way reproduction goes on.
And *if* it happens, then it goes back to normalcy as soon as the condition that caused
this, is removed. It SEEKS back to its own normal shape and form as we see and
have seen in the layers of the ground (high up in the ground too, the animals are young,
and in one fixed form every time!). If this isnt' evidence enough, then I can't talk to you.
You are crazy then.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory subject to exactly the
same tests requirements and constraints as every other scientific
theory. What evidence do you have that this is not so? Do you
seriously think you are god and can declare it invalid on your own fiat
alone? How blasphemous!
Why are you not seeking to tear down the theory of gravity? Do you
think it won't float?
-->gravity? funny about that one, we see the effect of it, but theres no instrument
that can measure it per se. nobody denies it's existance though, and calls it gravity.
I call the force and the intelligence that came up with ideas for all the living beings
on earth God. But I don't have an instrument to measure him by.
Why are you not trying to infect us with your thoughts on why germ
theory is nothing but a fanatical belief?
Why are you not jumping on quantum theory?
---> I don't know, why should I, it's not fanatical believes like the whole evolution
tale. It is a nice idea, but nothing more than a thought creation, based on a few,
most proven wrong, assumptions. The science bit goes wide astray on that issue,
there's no science left only the input of imagined beliefs.
Which part of "*THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS PASSED EVERY TEST TO WHICH
IT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED FOR ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS** is it that's
over your kindegarten reading level?
Once again, where is **your** evidence refuting the Theory of
Evolution? Nowhere. You have none. We have a de facto admission of
this from you.
So, on the one side we have 150 years of evidence supporting evolution.
On your side we have **N-O-T-H-I-N-G**
So where does the preponderance of evidence come down?
The fanatic is the braindead moron who insists he is right not because
of the evidence but in spite of it. And that would be you.
-->Somehow you know you're a wild fanatic, but I don't expect you to admit it.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
26 Apr 2006 08:06:32 PM |
|
|
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145820044.958853.246800@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
It's so damn revealing what makes these pushers of their theory so fana=
tical.
Everything else it handled with care and critique. But why is evolution=
not also
treated with reservations? It is not that it is somehow self-evident to=
anyone
familiar with the evidence, rather, the evidence is inconclusive and ca=
n support
either viewpoint. Is there not also some room for skepticism about evol=
ution?
We're still waiting on you providing even one iota of science to refute
the Theory of Evolution. Every time you've been asked, **YOU HAVE RUN
AWAY**. Do you seriously think that *anyone* believes you, you
pathetic little impotent coward?
-->The numbers. For one.
And this constitutes scientific evidence in what way?
**WHICH PART OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE** is it that gives you problems?
Because I've asked you for this every time I've responded to you and
you haven't offered a shred of it. All you can offer is infantile
blather. Are you somehow laboring under the chronic delusion that your
typing a message equals providing scientific evidence?
Second, only screwballs can honestly say all animals
had totally shapeshifted forms than now once upon the time.
No, scientists don't *say* that, they support what they say with
evidence. So now you're a hypocrite and a liar, because you pretend
that all scientists do is say stuff, when it is **YOU** who does
nothing but say stuff, while scientists have supplied 150 years worth
of solid science to support what they say.
And then, a thousands
different shapes and forms, when we know this isn't the way reproduction =
goes on.
More unsupported ***** infantile blather. No reproduction doesn't,
but evolution does and you're too fundamentally stupid to distinguish
the two.
And *if* it happens, then it goes back to normalcy as soon as the conditi=
on that caused
this, is removed.
More inconsequential unsupported ***** infantile blather.
It SEEKS back to its own normal shape and form as we see and
have seen in the layers of the ground (high up in the ground too, the ani=
mals are young,
and in one fixed form every time!). If this isnt' evidence enough, then I=
can't talk to you.
You are crazy then.
More inconsequential unsupported ***** infantile blather.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory subject to exactly the
same tests requirements and constraints as every other scientific
theory. What evidence do you have that this is not so? Do you
seriously think you are god and can declare it invalid on your own fiat
alone? How blasphemous!
Why are you not seeking to tear down the theory of gravity? Do you
think it won't float?
-->gravity? funny about that one, we see the effect of it, but theres no =
instrument
that can measure it per se.
More inconsequential unsupported ***** infantile blather.
nobody denies it's existance though, and calls it gravity.
I call the force and the intelligence that came up with ideas for all the=
living beings
on earth God. But I don't have an instrument to measure him by.
You have zero evidence for this god, yet you insist there is one.
Science has 150 years of evidence for evolution, yet you insist there
isn't any. That's why you're fucking certified moron, a liar, a
hypocrite, a coward, and a piece of stinking pigshit. Get it now?
Why are you not trying to infect us with your thoughts on why germ
theory is nothing but a fanatical belief?
Why are you not jumping on quantum theory?
---> I don't know, why should I, it's not fanatical believes like the who=
le evolution
tale. It is a nice idea, but nothing more than a thought creation, base=
d on a few,
most proven wrong, assumptions. The science bit goes wide astray on that=
issue,
there's no science left only the input of imagined beliefs.
Quantum theory is as factual as anything else in science, and, like
evolution, a lot better supported than the infantile god you pretend
exists but cannot fofer a shred of proof, evidence, rationale, or
logical argument for.
Which part of "*THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS PASSED EVERY TEST TO WHICH
IT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED FOR ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS** is it that's
over your kindegarten reading level?
Once again, where is **your** evidence refuting the Theory of
Evolution? Nowhere. You have none. We have a de facto admission of
this from you.
So, on the one side we have 150 years of evidence supporting evolution.
On your side we have **N-O-T-H-I-N-G**
So where does the preponderance of evidence come down?
The fanatic is the braindead moron who insists he is right not because
of the evidence but in spite of it. And that would be you.
-->Somehow you know you're a wild fanatic, but I don't expect you to admi=
t it.
This from the pigshit for brains ***** who insists there's a god with
no evidence and that there's no evoltuion with 150 years of evidence?
That's why I'm shitcanning you. Your too fucking stupid to waste any
more time on. Get it Sadsack Graceless?
***** you and your mother, you pig-ignorant waste of DNA.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: How a Mouse Became a Bat |
26 Apr 2006 08:55:53 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1146099992.150879.158720@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
This from the pigshit for brains ***** who insists there's a god with
no evidence and that there's no evoltuion with 150 years of evidence?
That's why I'm shitcanning you. Your too fucking stupid to waste any
more time on. Get it Sadsack Graceless?
***** you and your mother, you pig-ignorant waste of DNA.
Someone needs anger management therapy!...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
