Is Evolution a Fact?

Religions > Atheism > Is Evolution a Fact?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 4 of 12

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"John Clancy McDonald kookwoman1\@kooksof theworld.net"
Date:	20 Jan 2008 07:04:36 PM
Object:	Is Evolution a Fact?

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many
scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things
may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with
subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name
implies what many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish
the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has
observed, which they call macroevolution.
You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his
famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin
said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or
so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved—by means of “extremely
slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on
earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and
produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes
into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution.
To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small
changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big
changes over long periods of time?’
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be
considered a fact?
.

User: "mariposas rand mair fheal"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 05:51:19 PM

Ah, but there's another problem. You see, one side has mechanisms
sufficient to explain the whole mess, mechanisms _sufficient_ to explain

it is possible for air molecules to come together in the right configuration
to create life out of thin air
however the probablilty of that is so small we would not expect it to happen
wihtin this universe
i dont dispute that randomness is a possible explanation
but i have never seen anybody derive from an assumption about the randomness
to a predicted rate of some aspect of evolution
which can be compared to observed rate and a computed confidence
chemistry and physics are a much stronger position
because they can start with low level assumptions
like the shell structure of an atom or the probability wave of an electron
and derive measurable prediction which match very closely with observation

it. Which means that this unknown intelligence, using unknown
mechanisms, is not simply unknown, but *completely unnecessary* to
explain the processes.

it is only unnecessary if you can prove the observed rate of evolution
is close to a predicted rate derived from the assumptions of randomness
or if you have observed a statistically signficant number of genome changes
as they occur
(putting x in a black box and then pulling out a y
does itself not constitute proof
that the label on the black box is correct)

Yes, boys and girls, you heard that right; there is absolutely no reason,
whatsoever, to include the whole "intelligence" part of "intelligent
design". So why have ID at all?

if seti receives prime numbers we have strong evidence of intelligence
because as sagan pointed out there is no known natural process
that will generate prime numbers
it does not require observing the intelligence or understanding it
it is simply that some events have no other known explanation
if the rate of evolution is provably faster than randomness can support
than some nonrandom mechanism must be present

Good question. Go find a frothing religious nutjob and ask him, because
nobody else in the universe takes the whole thing seriously.

wegener was a nutjob too

which means if we really want to be logical and rational we cannot turn
to evolution as evidence that there is god nor there is no god

Your notions are, at best, silly.

wegeners mechanism was silly too
therefore the entire hypothesis is wrong
correct?

We cannot predict where a particular lightning strike will occur. This
does not mean our notions of electricity should be chucked in favour of
some mystic nonsense, it means that some aspects of some processes are
not amenable to complete predictability.

we now understand the process of charge transport on air motion
and dielectric breakdown
predicting the actual path of a strike is impossible
because it involves the state of each molecule and free electron
but the overall process is pretty well established (finally)
and meteorology is getting more accurate
about predicting the amount of lightening from observations of the air
will polar bears be extinct within a century?
derive the probability of that evetn

While you're doing that, though, what say you run along and play
elsewhere, let the big boys do the science and other hard thinking.

gosh
thank you for you condescension dr science
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 10:35:58 PM

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:51:19 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:

Ah, but there's another problem. You see, one side has mechanisms
sufficient to explain the whole mess, mechanisms _sufficient_ to
explain

it is possible for air molecules to come together in the right
configuration to create life out of thin air

Air molecules? Not freakin' likely.

however the probablilty of that is so small we would not expect it to
happen wihtin this universe

Not if random processes are all that's involved.

i dont dispute that randomness is a possible explanation

Explanation of _what_?

but i have
never seen anybody derive from an assumption about the randomness to a
predicted rate of some aspect of evolution which can be compared to
observed rate and a computed confidence

Here's an easier one for you: if a freak weather condition happens here,
today, in our town, what effects will there be on the global weather
patterns tomorrow, a week from now, a year from now, a decade from now?
On the one hand, the _mechanisms_ of how weather patterns work may be
reasonably well known, and how air particles interact with each other may
be known to a quite significant degree of specificity, yet despite that
you cannot predict the outcome. Why is that?
Apply the same reasoning here. We can know the effects of, say,
radiation on genetic information, we can now approximate breeding rates
for the species, we can know how likely a given mutation is to be passed
on in any given mating, all well and good - but this tells us *nothing*
about whether the mutation *is* passed on. Or whether, if passed on, the
offspring are eaten or fall off a cliff. Or whether, if it's passed on
through the population at large, the population at large isn't wiped out
by a disease or a natural disaster or simply a cold or hot snap.
Even in a lab setting, you're still dealing with probabilities: the
probability that the given mutation will be passed on, the probability
that it will result in a beneficial, neutral or detrimental trait, the
probability it will be expressed at all even if passed on.
Nor have you accounted for different environments. Sickle cell anemia
and Tay Sachs are beneficial in some areas and thus conserved, yet they
are detrimental in other areas and thus tend to be weeded out.
Now that said, we know that mutations _do_ occur, and several mechanisms
which cause them. We know that mutations _do_ get passed on. We know
that mutations _do_ result in different traits.
We also know that competition occurs, putting selection pressures on
populations.
That is quite sufficient to require that the process occurs. The _rate_
at which it occurs, however, involves far too many variables to be
subject to computational analysis, much as the weather, despite what we
know of the mechanisms involved, is likewise not amenable to such
analysis.

it. Which means that this unknown intelligence, using unknown
mechanisms, is not simply unknown, but *completely unnecessary* to
explain the processes.

it is only unnecessary if you can prove the observed rate of evolution
is close to a predicted rate derived from the assumptions of randomness

Er, no, not correct. You'd need to show that the observed rate of
mutation is somewhere in the ballpark of expected rate of mutation,
nothing else, and that only to answer the question of _rate_. Not of
viability of process.

Yes, boys and girls, you heard that right; there is absolutely no
reason, whatsoever, to include the whole "intelligence" part of
"intelligent design". So why have ID at all?

if seti receives prime numbers we have strong evidence of intelligence
because as sagan pointed out there is no known natural process that will
generate prime numbers

Makes sense.

it does not require observing the intelligence

No, but it *does* require showing something which *requires* the
intelligence. Recall, I said "either". Either the intelligence must be
demonstrated, or the _need_ for an intelligence must be demonstrated.
Neither apply.

which means if we really want to be logical and rational we cannot
turn to evolution as evidence that there is god nor there is no god

Your notions are, at best, silly.

wegeners mechanism was silly too
therefore the entire hypothesis is wrong correct?

Weneger, if we're talking about the same fellow, observed something real,
which led him to conclude continents drifted apart. He attempted to
explain how that could occur, though his explanations were wrong.
I note that Wegener, despite his errors, was not arguing that some
mystical intelligence nobody had ever seen or even been giving reason to
suspect existed, was moving the continents about for the amusement of
said intelligence.
I'm sure you had a point there, but it's not clear what it is, as his
attempts at explanation and IDers' attempts at explanation involve two
entirely different things. One relies on the real world, the other
invokes magic. Sorry, this is science. If you want to bring magic in,
you'll have to demonstrate it exists, first.

we now understand the process of charge transport on air motion and
dielectric breakdown
predicting the actual path of a strike is impossible because

"Because" is irrelevant. The fact is, we do not, even *cannot*, know
where it will strike. Thus, if we apply this bizarre notion that
absolute predictability is a requirement to take something seriously, we
must discard every notion we have about electricity, as we cannot
absolutely predict a phenomenon in which it is the prime factor.
This, of course, is silly, but then, so is this notion that if you cannot
predict all outcomes then the basic notion must be chucked. I *did* say
it was silly, didn't I?

While you're doing that, though, what say you run along and play
elsewhere, let the big boys do the science and other hard thinking.

gosh
thank you for you condescension dr science

You're welcome. Hey, if you want to bring magic and superstitious
nonsense into the world of science - or the science class - it's up to
*you* to demonstrate it.
--
I have less tolerance for pagan women because they seem to
particularly lack respect for men and thereby depart from God even
further than do pagan men. -- (Jim Staal, Promise Keeper)
.

User: "mariposas rand mair fheal"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	29 Jan 2008 08:00:14 AM

but i have
never seen anybody derive from an assumption about the randomness to a
predicted rate of some aspect of evolution which can be compared to
observed rate and a computed confidence

some aspects of weather are still not understood
rather than being satisfied with mere qualitative descriptions of such
meteorologists actively seek out new information
to better their understanding

On the one hand, the _mechanisms_ of how weather patterns work may be
reasonably well known, and how air particles interact with each other may
be known to a quite significant degree of specificity, yet despite that
you cannot predict the outcome. Why is that?

the models do not converge to a single prediction
but the models do converge to a set of possible values
with a probability assigned to each possible outcome
and the models are good predictors up to a week
(longer periods are currently not possible
because it is difficult to measure the current state that accurately)
within the limits of the input data weather models are accurate predictors

Apply the same reasoning here. We can know the effects of, say,
radiation on genetic information, we can now approximate breeding rates
for the species, we can know how likely a given mutation is to be passed
on in any given mating, all well and good - but this tells us *nothing*

planck couldnt predict the actual behavior of individual radiating loci
but based on assumptions about their possible behaviors
he had a math that could derive black body radiation prediction
and then match that against observed approximate black bodies
incidentally to do this he had to make an assumption
that could not be directly observed at that time
but later was incorporated in einsteins nobel prize work

Now that said, we know that mutations _do_ occur, and several mechanisms
which cause them. We know that mutations _do_ get passed on. We know
that mutations _do_ result in different traits.

i already know that biology is not quantized to the degree physics is
i dont know if it ever will be
because it is not quantized some assertions
like rate of evolution can be explained by pure chance
are not evidence backed derivations
but they are statements of faith and dogma
until biology is quantized sufficiently
these kinds of arguments are not of science
but of religion and politics

That is quite sufficient to require that the process occurs. The _rate_
at which it occurs, however, involves far too many variables to be
subject to computational analysis, much as the weather, despite what we
know of the mechanisms involved, is likewise not amenable to such
analysis.

unless you can do the computation
or you can observe a significant number of events as they naturally happen
you have no evidence to support the statement
you only have faith

you seem to be reviving old tobacco institute arguments
correlation of exposure and disease was established decades ago
long before biochemistry could provide a causation
the cigarette manufacturers argued that without actual causation
the correlation was not sufficient to act on
this is contrary to actual principles of the scientific method
which discovers correlations and then by attempting to alter a single variable
induces a cause-effect relation by observing the outcomes of the alteration
science has never been required to show actual causation actual mechanism
to induce the existence of a cause-effect relation
we have plenty of evidence that genetic variation increases with time
thats all we currently have

I note that Wegener, despite his errors, was not arguing that some
mystical intelligence nobody had ever seen or even been giving reason to
suspect existed, was moving the continents about for the amusement of
said intelligence.

im not arguing some mystical intelligence either
because i am not claiming intelligent design is correct
what i am doing is pointing out the evidence supporting darwin
can also support an intelligent design hypothesis
and we do not have any evidence to distinguish them
therefore logically they are currently undecidable

I'm sure you had a point there, but it's not clear what it is, as his
attempts at explanation and IDers' attempts at explanation involve two

your characterizing what others say and attribute it to me
because you cannot dispute what i myself have said

we now understand the process of charge transport on air motion and
dielectric breakdown
predicting the actual path of a strike is impossible because

predictions have how much lightening will strike a region already exist
and are becoming more accurate

You're welcome. Hey, if you want to bring magic and superstitious
nonsense into the world of science - or the science class - it's up to
*you* to demonstrate it.

i am bringing only the magic of logic
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.

User: "Michael"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 05:48:23 PM

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:47:39 +0000, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Ah, but there's another problem. You see, one side has mechanisms
sufficient to explain the whole mess, mechanisms _sufficient_ to explain
it.

Your point is made, and can be made, without your exaggeration that turns
an excellent piece into another advocacy piece that falls short of truth.
PART of your sufficient explanation is this:
BANG
Make that a "Big Bang".
See what I mean? Also, while scientists have thought they understood
mechanisms, there is hardly a month goes by that Scientific American does
not report some startling new discovery in these *mechanisms* revealing
thereby that at all previous moments in time, this side of which you speak
so highly did NOT have mechanisms sufficient to explain it.
Furthermore, sexual reproduction assures rapid convergence on a new best
fit as compared to waiting for mutations. The possible permutations are
ENORMOUS at each generation, especially when you consider that not only
are the chromosomes randomly selected, genes can jump ship multiplying the
permutations by vast numbers. In fact, some genes are switched on or off
by environmental factors; temperature can choose the sex of lizards and
frogs.
www.livescience.com/animals/070419_lizard_sex.html
There's nothing in Mendel's Laws of inheritance to allow for such a thing.
Therefore, while these mechanisms do exist they are NOT as well
understood as you would have everyone believe.
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 09:49:45 PM

[snips]
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:23 -0700, Michael wrote:

Make that a "Big Bang".

See what I mean?

No, I don't. You see, the topic at hand is evolution versus ID, and
since this of necessity limits the subject to matters of biological
inheritance and adaptation, bringing in a big bang, which has nothing
whatsoever to do with the matter, is at best disingenuous.
It is even *more* disingenuous when one stops to realize that whatever
issues science may have with explaining the subject, the IDers have
*nothing whatsoever* to offer on the subject, and will *never* have
anything to offer on the subject, unless and until they can demonstrate
either the supposed intelligence involved, or, at the very least, the
necessity for such an intelligence, neither of which they've come close
to doing.
In short, you're trying to use one area where you've got nothing but
smoke and mirrors to support claims made in another area where you've got
nothing but smoke and mirrors - do you expect anyone to take that crap
seriously?
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 02:24:20 AM

mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-992E1C.07313726012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:

Dobzhansky did this and ended up with two very different populations
that would not voluntarily interbreed.

this proves evolution occurs but it still doesnt prove darwin is right
nor does it prove intelligent design is wrong

Intelligent design cannot be disproved by the scientific method. It may
be right or it may be wrong. But it isn't science.

you can express both in almost the same way with one difference
darwin - the method of genetic change is pure random
id - the method of genetic change is not pure random

The randomness of new mutations with respect to needed functions is
observed, not hypothesized. If there is some kind of divine intervention
occurring on an ongoing basis, then its actual mechanisms are invisible
to our scientific investigations. Attempts to substitute rhetorical
appeals to incredulity and other such fallacies are not going to convince
scientists, as appealing as they might be to a mass audience.

there is no scientific observation of the majority of actual genetic
change as it happens
nor does biology have a mathematics that allows us to compute
from these assumptions observables like speciation rate

This is just plain 180 degreews wrong. A good deal of measurements jave
been effected and we know, in fact, that the current, observed rate of
morphological change is very close to the rate inferred from the fossil
record.

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
accept or reject the idea on faith. And that's fine with most
Christians. But some are so insecure in their faith that they must
needs manufacture evidence out of whole cloth and then insist that we
should teach the phony "controversy" they have created themselves to
unsuspecting high school and elementary students.. THAT is illegal (not
to mention how the apologetic is suborning violations of God's
commandments).

so if after five years we observe speciation
we cannot prove that pure chance could operate that quickly
nor can we prove that pure change would require more time

What else was at work here?

at this point the argument devolves to unsupported claims
about blind watchmakers and evolution being too fast

You're sputtering.

at this point theres a general cry of ockham ockham
darwin is the simpler therefore must be true
death to the beleivers bwahahaha

if you really want to invoke ockham
and avoid all matters of faith all assumptions and dogma
there is actually a simpler theory
mu - the method of genetic change cannot currently be characterized

scientifically mu is supported by the evidence

You're sputtering (and making incorrect claims about the evidence).

politically mu is problematic
because it doesnt decide whether there is a design or designer
rather it is agnostic on the issue pending a mathematics of biology
or better evidence on the actual change

which means if we really want to be logical and rational
we cannot turn to evolution as evidence that there is god nor there is
no god

I never claimed we could. God's existence (or nonexistence) is a
philosophical and religious question that science has now way of testing.

as usual such statements are not statements of fact available to
humans they are statements of faith and opinion

Mitation rates are readily measured. They are not statements of faith.

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple

Was this meant to be in English or is it just random word salad?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "adman"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 03:01:05 AM

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Science goes on faith also. Science also uses faith-based theories to
explane its positions.
Take gravity as an example. The effects of gravity can be measured. But
gravity itself cannot be seen or measured as an physical substance. Science
goes on faith that gravity exists because of the effects that gravity has on
the physical world. IE, the apple fell to the ground so gravity must exist.
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	29 Jan 2008 12:36:52 AM

"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in
news:9Rgnj.61522$vt2.49765@bignews8.bellsouth.net:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We accept or reject the idea on faith.

Science goes on faith also. Science also uses faith-based theories to
explane its positions.

Science requires faith in certain propositions. Let's look at some of
them:
1. There is a real physical universe and observations of it are
meaningful.
2. Logical inference produces correct conclusions when its premises are
correct.

Take gravity as an example. The effects of gravity can be measured.

Unfortunately nobody has been able to produce repeatable evidence of
divine intervention. Repeatable evidence of gravity abounds.

But gravity itself cannot be seen or measured as an physical
substance. Science goes on faith that gravity exists because of the
effects that gravity has on the physical world. IE, the apple fell to
the ground so gravity must exist.

Perhaps, but that faith does not grow out of some scholasticism but out
of actual observations of nature.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Elmer"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 07:53:11 AM

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?
Sheest!
.

User: "adman"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 08:13:30 AM

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not gravity
itself.

Sheest!

User: "ebataitis"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 08:59:47 AM

adman wrote:

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not gravity
itself.

Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But
taxes itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.
.

User: "adman"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 09:45:00 AM

"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not
gravity itself.

Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.

Exactly.
Can you prove that taxes exist? No, you can only measure the effect that
taxes have on your paycheck that indicate tax must exist.Can you see taxes?
Can you hold taxes in your hand? No. But you can feel the effect of taxes.
Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot hold gravity
and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to believe gravity
exist based on the effects of gravity.
Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience from that
creator
The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years is science
itself.
.

User: "adman"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 10:25:40 AM

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4f1197e-5e7b-4cf4-af3e-9640ec78cb56@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 28, 8:45 am, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> wrote:

"ebataitis" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Elmer" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Science goes on faith also. Science also uses faith-based theories
to
explane its positions.

Take gravity as an example. The effects of gravity can be measured.
But
gravity itself cannot be seen or measured as an physical substance.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not
gravity itself.

Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But
taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.

Exactly.

Can you prove that taxes exist? No, you can only measure the effect that
taxes have on your paycheck that indicate tax must exist.Can you see
taxes?
Can you hold taxes in your hand? No. But you can feel the effect of
taxes.

Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot hold
gravity
and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to believe
gravity
exist based on the effects of gravity.

Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience from
that
creator

The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years is
science
itself.

Wow! Are you guys bad (or good) at making comparisons and analogies
that are completely invalid. Perhaps you should actually look at the
analogies you make and the validity of the comparison. Really quite
laughable....

The feelings you experience are attributable to a myriad of gods,
hovering life-giving plasma, or other such things - for instance, just
you and your brain firing and chemicals floating around inside. It is
completely subjective and not the least scientific. It is not
falsifiable. Et cetera, etc.

Yet, you want to compare that with gravity? HA! Gravity can be
measured, it is falsifiable, it is testable. Gotta love the
creationists and education gone awry...

Science goes on reason. It goes on evidence. You establish a
hypothesis, you make predictions or tests on that hypothesis - then
you either invalidate or substantiate that hypothesis. It is self-
correcting and self-critical, which is one of many things that make it
beautiful. It is open for the competent to come in and analyze it or
even refute it. But that analysis and refutation is based on evidence,
measurable, quantifiable, falsifiable....

Religion goes "god did it" and "god exists 'cause I feel him" and then
talks about the faith of scientists? Please..... what a mockery.

Here is a hypothesis "god can overcome gravity" - Here is a
prediction: god will allow me to overcome gravity and be able to jump
off a cliff and not fall. Here is an experiment: jump off a cliff.
Here is the data: report back on your experiment...

Naturally, I am teasing but seriously people....

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
.

User: "adman"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 04:16:46 PM

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae04bacb-a844-4acf-9a7d-b2058435a5de@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

Only with the creationists must one go over gravity....Hummm... other
than the orbits of planets which have been repeatedly studied and have
a bulk of empirical evidence? Other than many, many measurements of
the acceleration of objects due to gravity? Other than the bending of
light confirming relativity? Other than....

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27589
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity. It only measures the
EFFECTS that gravity produces.
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Or do you not understand the word empirical and HARD data
.

User: "adman"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 06:37:31 PM

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5fd7830-f608-4c9c-82e9-5c0674bc5eca@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

"None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity. It only
measures the EFFECTS that gravity produces. "

Adman, I am getting the impression you know nothing about science.
What is more, gravity is the bending of space time. I have already
provided you evidence of the bending of space time. Gravity is just a
word to describe that bending. I have already provided you data.
Empirical and hard data. You can do the experiments yourself if you
were so inclined.

If i am wrong, then PROVE me wrong and i will appoligize. Prove gravity
exists.
.

User: "Ralph"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 08:03:28 PM

"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:Zyunj.84233$K27.37686@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5fd7830-f608-4c9c-82e9-5c0674bc5eca@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

If i am wrong, then PROVE me wrong and i will appoligize. Prove gravity
exists.

Gravity really doesn't exist. As the curvature of space-time causes the
sensation which we call gravity, gravity doesn't exist except as a word. Do
you understand that, Jabbers?
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 04:41:57 PM

"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> writes:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae04bacb-a844-4acf-9a7d-b2058435a5de@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity. It only measures the
EFFECTS that gravity produces.

I'm sorry, the effects that what produces?
-- cary
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	29 Jan 2008 12:09:10 AM

[snips]
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:16:46 -0600, adman wrote:

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity. It only measures
the EFFECTS that gravity produces.

Can you measure the effects of things which *don't* exist? Didn't think
so. Your measurement has adequately demonstrated that gravity exists.
.

User: "Richard Anacker"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 04:36:33 PM

adman , 01.28.2008:

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity. It only measures the
EFFECTS that gravity produces.

Oh, little man, go and study physiks and stop blathering this BS.
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
Jerusalem - Last Night of the Proms 06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 09:27:00 PM

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 2:16 PM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae04bacb-a844-4acf-9a7d-b2058435a5de@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity.

Except that gravity is a force and, therefore, not physical. Moron.

It only measures the
EFFECTS that gravity produces.

And that's the only thing you can get with a force.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

Drop a pen. Does it float? No? Gravity exists.

Or do you not understand the word empirical and HARD data

You don't seem to know anything about either subjects.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	28 Jan 2008 09:46:01 PM

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:27:00 -0800, DanielSan
<danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote:

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 2:16 PM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae04bacb-a844-4acf-9a7d-b2058435a5de@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity.

Except that gravity is a force and, therefore, not physical. Moron.

It only measures the
EFFECTS that gravity produces.

And that's the only thing you can get with a force.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

Drop a pen. Does it float? No? Gravity exists.

Or do you not understand the word empirical and HARD data

You don't seem to know anything about either subjects.

When did the net.psychopath Jabriol ever know amythhing?
.

User: "Masked Avenger"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	01 Feb 2008 08:33:01 AM

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:27:00 -0800, DanielSan
<danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote:

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 2:16 PM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae04bacb-a844-4acf-9a7d-b2058435a5de@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity.

Except that gravity is a force and, therefore, not physical. Moron.

It only measures the
EFFECTS that gravity produces.

And that's the only thing you can get with a force.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

Drop a pen. Does it float? No? Gravity exists.

Or do you not understand the word empirical and HARD data

You don't seem to know anything about either subjects.

When did the net.psychopath Jabriol ever know amythhing?

Chris ..... I don't think this fucking loon 'adman' is Jabbers .......
he's posting from 'Bell South' ..... his illiteracy is in a different
league to Jabbers ...... and he doesn't carry on about Carol at all
....... and we all know Jabbers obsession with Carol ........
oh he's a fuckwit alright ....... up there with Jabbers for sheer bloody
minded stupidity ....but I am strongly convinced he isn't 'our Jabriol'
.......
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.

User: "adman"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	01 Feb 2008 09:36:04 AM

"Masked Avenger" <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fnvao4$euk$1@austar-news.austar.net.au...

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:27:00 -0800, DanielSan
<danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote:

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 2:16 PM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae04bacb-a844-4acf-9a7d-b2058435a5de@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity.

Except that gravity is a force and, therefore, not physical. Moron.

It only measures the EFFECTS that gravity produces.

And that's the only thing you can get with a force.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

Drop a pen. Does it float? No? Gravity exists.

Or do you not understand the word empirical and HARD data

You don't seem to know anything about either subjects.

When did the net.psychopath Jabriol ever know amythhing?

Is ....it....possible.....for.....you....to.....be.....any.....dumbier......
No, i doubt it
.

User: "Masked Avenger"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	02 Feb 2008 04:24:37 AM

adman wrote:

"Masked Avenger" <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fnvao4$euk$1@austar-news.austar.net.au...

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:27:00 -0800, DanielSan
<danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote:

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 2:16 PM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae04bacb-a844-4acf-9a7d-b2058435a5de@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

None of this PROVES the physical existance of gravity.

Except that gravity is a force and, therefore, not physical. Moron.

It only measures the EFFECTS that gravity produces.

And that's the only thing you can get with a force.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

Drop a pen. Does it float? No? Gravity exists.

Or do you not understand the word empirical and HARD data

You don't seem to know anything about either subjects.

When did the net.psychopath Jabriol ever know amythhing?

Is ....it....possible.....for.....you....to.....be.....any.....dumbier......

No, i doubt it

so .... you are admitting to be one Antonio Santana ..... ?
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.

User: "Michael"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?	02 Feb 2008 12:24:52 PM

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:33:01 +1100, Masked Avenger wrote:

oh he's a fuckwit alright ....... up there with Jabbers for sheer bloody
minded stupidity ....but I am strongly convinced he isn't 'our Jabriol'

Another one bites the dust.
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: TQOTM Nomination (Was: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?)	28 Jan 2008 08:38:46 PM

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 8:25 AM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4f1197e-5e7b-4cf4-af3e-9640ec78cb56@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 28, 8:45 am, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> wrote:

"ebataitis" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Elmer" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not
gravity itself.

Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But
taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.

Exactly.

Can you prove that taxes exist? No, you can only measure the effect that
taxes have on your paycheck that indicate tax must exist.Can you see
taxes?
Can you hold taxes in your hand? No. But you can feel the effect of
taxes.

Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot hold
gravity
and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to believe
gravity
exist based on the effects of gravity.

Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience from
that
creator

The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years is
science
itself.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

</nominated portion>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
HAH! HAH! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH!!!!
S-s-s-seconds, please? BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAA!!!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.

User: "Gail Futoran"
Title: Re: TQOTM Nomination (Was: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?)	28 Jan 2008 09:01:02 PM

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:zrKdnee2ruK-DAPanZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com...

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 8:25 AM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4f1197e-5e7b-4cf4-af3e-9640ec78cb56@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 28, 8:45 am, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> wrote:

"ebataitis" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Elmer" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the
other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal
sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is
not
gravity itself.

Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured.
But taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.

Exactly.

Can you prove that taxes exist? No, you can only measure the
effect that
taxes have on your paycheck that indicate tax must exist.Can you
see taxes?
Can you hold taxes in your hand? No. But you can feel the effect
of taxes.

Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot
hold gravity
and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to
believe gravity
exist based on the effects of gravity.

Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of
faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience
from that
creator

The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years
is science
itself.

Wow! Are you guys bad (or good) at making comparisons and
analogies
that are completely invalid. Perhaps you should actually look at
the
analogies you make and the validity of the comparison. Really
quite
laughable....

The feelings you experience are attributable to a myriad of gods,
hovering life-giving plasma, or other such things - for instance,
just
you and your brain firing and chemicals floating around inside. It
is
completely subjective and not the least scientific. It is not
falsifiable. Et cetera, etc.

Yet, you want to compare that with gravity? HA! Gravity can be
measured, it is falsifiable, it is testable. Gotta love the
creationists and education gone awry...

Science goes on reason. It goes on evidence. You establish a
hypothesis, you make predictions or tests on that hypothesis -
then
you either invalidate or substantiate that hypothesis. It is self-
correcting and self-critical, which is one of many things that
make it
beautiful. It is open for the competent to come in and analyze it
or
even refute it. But that analysis and refutation is based on
evidence,
measurable, quantifiable, falsifiable....

Religion goes "god did it" and "god exists 'cause I feel him" and
then
talks about the faith of scientists? Please..... what a mockery.

Here is a hypothesis "god can overcome gravity" - Here is a
prediction: god will allow me to overcome gravity and be able to
jump
off a cliff and not fall. Here is an experiment: jump off a cliff.
Here is the data: report back on your experiment...

Naturally, I am teasing but seriously people....

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

</nominated portion>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!

HAH! HAH! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH!!!!

S-s-s-seconds, please? BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAA!!!

Sure, I'll second.
Gail
aa#2247

--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************

User: ""
Title: Re: TQOTM Nomination (Was: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?)	29 Jan 2008 12:30:16 PM

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:38:46 -0800, DanielSan
<danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote:

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 8:25 AM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4f1197e-5e7b-4cf4-af3e-9640ec78cb56@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 28, 8:45 am, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> wrote:

"ebataitis" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Elmer" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not
gravity itself.

Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But
taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.

Exactly.

Can you prove that taxes exist? No, you can only measure the effect that
taxes have on your paycheck that indicate tax must exist.Can you see
taxes?
Can you hold taxes in your hand? No. But you can feel the effect of
taxes.

Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot hold
gravity
and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to believe
gravity
exist based on the effects of gravity.

Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience from
that
creator

The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years is
science
itself.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

</nominated portion>

Oh Lordy :(
atheist@home#1554

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!

HAH! HAH! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH!!!!

S-s-s-seconds, please? BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAA!!!

User: "MarkA"
Title: Re: TQOTM Nomination (Was: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?)	29 Jan 2008 04:53:42 PM

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:30:16 -0600, atheist wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:38:46 -0800, DanielSan
<danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote:

adman said the following on 1/28/2008 8:25 AM:

"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4f1197e-5e7b-4cf4-af3e-9640ec78cb56@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 28, 8:45 am, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> wrote:

"ebataitis" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Elmer" <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...

adman wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other

There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.

Ever step on a scale?

The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not
gravity itself.

Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But
taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.

Exactly.

Can you prove that taxes exist? No, you can only measure the effect that
taxes have on your paycheck that indicate tax must exist.Can you see
taxes?
Can you hold taxes in your hand? No. But you can feel the effect of
taxes.

Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot hold
gravity
and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to believe
gravity
exist based on the effects of gravity.

Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience from
that
creator

The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years is
science
itself.

Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?

</nominated portion>

Oh Lordy :(

atheist@home#1554

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!

HAH! HAH! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH!!!!

S-s-s-seconds, please? BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAA!!!

I am NOT seconding this. This statement is too mind-numbingly stupid to
merit any such recognition. TQOTMs should be examples of brilliant,
possibly creative, ignorance, not just mundane stupidity.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.

User: "ebataitis"
Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact?