| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Dec 2005 12:19:03 PM |
| Object: |
Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
.
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 01:11:37 PM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
David H.
aa #2217
.
|
|
|
| User: "I KILLED YOUR GOD-IT WAS EASY!" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 03:13:53 PM |
|
|
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
David H.
aa #2217
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
--
I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented
myself from Christian assemblies.˛
-- Benjamin Franklin
AA #2241.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 01:22:56 PM |
|
|
David H. wrote:
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
Your evolution doesn't fit in a single description anyway.
It changes every time just like
a liar who once caught changes his story in an attempt
David H.
aa #2217
.
|
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 01:35:05 PM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135279376.908457.289130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David H. wrote:
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should
be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
Your evolution doesn't fit in a single description anyway.
It changes every time just like
a liar who once caught changes his story in an attempt
Now you're just writing babble. What you just wrote makes absolutely no
sense, (unless it comes from a point of reference that lies inside an
unbalanced mind).
I'm going to have to let you go.
David H.
aa #2217
.
|
|
|
| User: "I KILLED YOUR GOD-IT WAS EASY!" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
23 Dec 2005 07:12:38 AM |
|
|
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:JdDqf.3946$oW.2412@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135279376.908457.289130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David H. wrote:
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should
be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
Your evolution doesn't fit in a single description anyway.
It changes every time just like
a liar who once caught changes his story in an attempt
Now you're just writing babble. What you just wrote makes absolutely
no
sense, (unless it comes from a point of reference that lies inside an
unbalanced mind).
I'm going to have to let you go.
David H.
aa #2217
more like 'windbreaker".
--
I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented
myself from Christian assemblies.˛
-- Benjamin Franklin
AA #2241.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 11:52:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
David H. wrote:
" (Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
Your evolution doesn't fit in a single description anyway.
It changes every time just like
a liar who once caught changes his story in an attempt
Please revel in your little perfect world, praise your "god" and leave
thinking adults alone. Thank you.
David H.
aa #2217
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PerfectlyAble" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 05:12:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
David H. wrote:
" (Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
Your evolution doesn't fit in a single description anyway.
It changes every time just like
a liar who once caught changes his story in an attempt
You mean like Bushs' lying that keeps breeding terrorists
so that we can final prove to the Islamic world that dying
for a cause will not make the US go away.
There are lies and there are damn good lies.
Evolution is simple and beautiful. Even if wrong it
has changed the face of the world more than Jesus.
Hey why do you think Jesus freaks are so up in arms,
Evolution is prolonging their insipid little lives and Jesus
has no part to play in that narrative!
Shocking!
David H.
aa #2217
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 03:48:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:11:37 GMT, "David H."
<davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote:
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Before you use the moniker "codebreaker" don't you think you should be
able to figure out ***** that isn't coded first?
Well, his old nym, 'Not-Easily-Duped', wasn't exactly self-descriptive
either. :-)
David H.
aa #2217
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
23 Dec 2005 12:59:41 PM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
I suggest you go back to school and learn a little science.
Evolution needs NO help from any Judge.
Evolution is fully substantiated by tons of scientific objective verifiable
evidence.
The science of Evolution is not protected by any legal mandate. It is built
on a
foundation of solid evidence supported by the vast majority of the
scientific community.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
24 Dec 2005 10:38:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:59:41 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com>
wrote in message
news:1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
I suggest you go back to school and learn a little science.
Evolution needs NO help from any Judge.
Evolution is fully substantiated by tons of scientific objective verifiable
evidence.
The science of Evolution is not protected by any legal mandate. It is built
on a
foundation of solid evidence supported by the vast majority of the
scientific community.
Last night I tried explaining how cladistic tree structures drawn up
from DNA, protein chemistry, comparative morphology of modern
specimens and the observed fossils all confirmed each other, and they
didn't even need to rely on fossil sequences any more.
My jaw dropped when the guy I was talking with said that was nonsense
because they didn't get DNA from million-year-old fossils. But just
like all of them he leapt in with another silver bullet before I could
get a word in edgeways.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 03:25:12 PM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> writes:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention. If evolution were Science, it would not need
help from a judge. Evolution is the only SCIENCE protected, not by
reason, but by legal mandate
If there were a multi-million-dollar campaign to undermine the
credibility of chemistry, we might need legal action there as well.
Only biology has to put up with this crap; and only biology has had,
time and again, to demonstrate that it *is* crap.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 11:39:08 PM |
|
|
Easily-Duped wrote:
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
Thanks for your open confession of ignorance.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 11:52:45 PM |
|
|
John Baker hit that nail on the head. Creationists are famous for being
uneducated. The word they are looking for is ABIOGENESIS. Evolution is
not about where life comes from anyway. It is about how life evolves.
They are two different issues.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
23 Dec 2005 01:27:26 AM |
|
|
Not-Easily-Duped wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Does it bother you that you're wrong?
Science wouldn't need defence from anyone if it weren't for attacks by
people who don't give a rat's arse about science and promote - instead -
nonsense like "intelligent design" for which the only "proof" is their own
ignorance.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SteveL" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 03:11:21 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
The judge's ruling was about ID, not evolution.
The judge did not consider evolution.
Evolution was not the topic at hand.
Try to get something right.
HOW SAD.
For you, yeah.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 03:50:16 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
It doesn't. Evolutionary theory deals only with how life changes over
time, not with how it arose to begin with. Your point, other than the
one under you hat, would be?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 05:25:44 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped)"
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1135275543.804856.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
How sad indeed that you keep repeating your lie even though it has been
thoroughly explained to you that your statements are false and why they
are false.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 04:51:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding one's
true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge. Evolution
is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Sniff. Too bad you can't get any judges to protect creationism by legal
mandate, eh? Oddly enough, if *creationism* were Science, it would not
need help from a judge. I think you have your nouns mixed up, Einstein.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "yankfan" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 05:02:55 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding one's
true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge. Evolution
is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Sniff. Too bad you can't get any judges to protect creationism by legal
mandate, eh? Oddly enough, if *creationism* were Science, it would not
need help from a judge. I think you have your nouns mixed up, Einstein.
In the first place, do you honestly believe that this ruling by this
activist judge with delusions of grandeur will stand? Also, do you
honestly think that God needs protection or approval from the courts
for His existence? You're just as delusional as the judge.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 06:41:59 PM |
|
|
"yankfan" <Mmargarit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135292575.715158.264220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's
true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution
is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Sniff. Too bad you can't get any judges to protect creationism by legal
mandate, eh? Oddly enough, if *creationism* were Science, it would not
need help from a judge. I think you have your nouns mixed up, Einstein.
In the first place, do you honestly believe that this ruling by this
activist judge with delusions of grandeur will stand? Also, do you
honestly think that God needs protection or approval from the courts
for His existence? You're just as delusional as the judge.
Imagine that, an "activist judge" appointed by Bush! How can that be!
Your imaginary "god" does not need protection from the courts, but we need
protection from your imaginary god.
Wake up!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
23 Dec 2005 08:13:38 AM |
|
|
"yankfan" <Mmargarit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135292575.715158.264220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's
true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution
is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Sniff. Too bad you can't get any judges to protect creationism by legal
mandate, eh? Oddly enough, if *creationism* were Science, it would not
need help from a judge. I think you have your nouns mixed up, Einstein.
In the first place, do you honestly believe that this ruling by this
activist judge with delusions of grandeur will stand? Also, do you
honestly think that God needs protection or approval from the courts
for His existence? You're just as delusional as the judge.
What an incredibly stupid comment.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
23 Dec 2005 10:28:50 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"yankfan" <Mmargarit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135292575.715158.264220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's
true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution
is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Sniff. Too bad you can't get any judges to protect creationism by legal
mandate, eh? Oddly enough, if *creationism* were Science, it would not
need help from a judge. I think you have your nouns mixed up, Einstein.
In the first place, do you honestly believe that this ruling by this
activist judge with delusions of grandeur will stand? Also, do you
honestly think that God needs protection or approval from the courts
for His existence? You're just as delusional as the judge.
What an incredibly stupid comment.
"Push it babe, Push it"
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 06:31:10 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2005 15:02:55 -0800, "yankfan" <Mmargarit@gmail.com> in news
message <1135292575.715158.264220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding one's
true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge. Evolution
is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Sniff. Too bad you can't get any judges to protect creationism by legal
mandate, eh? Oddly enough, if *creationism* were Science, it would not
need help from a judge. I think you have your nouns mixed up, Einstein.
In the first place, do you honestly believe that this ruling by this
activist judge with delusions of grandeur will stand?
Your unfair characterization of the judge aside, the ruling will
stand. There is no one with standing (1) to mount an appeal. The
members of the Dover School Board promoting ID were, ah, relieved of
their duties in the last election. The members of the current School
Board, who ran in opposition of the former pro-ID Board, will not
appeal.
(1) You remember "standing", don't you? That was the reason that the
SCOTUS didn't rule on the Pledge Case brought by Michael Newdow.
Also, do you
honestly think that God needs protection or approval from the courts
for His existence? You're just as delusional as the judge.
LOL No, if GodŽ actually existed, I imagine he could protect himself
and his wishes quite well. Why do you think that GodŽ isn't doing
this?
Liz #658 BAAWA
One of the principal differences between science and religion
is that science acknowledges that it is the creation of humankind
and, thus, welcomes correction. Religion does not and cannot. --
George Ricker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
23 Dec 2005 06:33:50 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:02:55 -0800, yankfan wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:03 -0800,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
Sniff. Too bad you can't get any judges to protect creationism by legal
mandate, eh? Oddly enough, if *creationism* were Science, it would not
need help from a judge. I think you have your nouns mixed up, Einstein.
In the first place, do you honestly believe that this ruling by this
activist judge with delusions of grandeur will stand? Also, do you
Yes. Every time the courts have ruled against creationism in public
schools, the ruling has stood. This one will be no different.
honestly think that God needs protection or approval from the courts for
His existence? You're just as delusional as the judge.
You think this ruling has anything to do with determining the existence of
God??? Are YOU delusional, or just a fucking idiot, like many of your
pals??
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 05:11:40 PM |
|
|
yankfan wrote:
In the first place, do you honestly believe that this ruling by this
activist judge with delusions of grandeur will stand? Also, do you
honestly think that God needs protection or approval from the courts
for His existence? You're just as delusional as the judge.
John E. Jones, the ruling judge, is a Republican, a churchgoer, and was
appointed by President Bush. To accuse him of anti-God activism is
just *precious*.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 12:30:13 PM |
|
|
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
It's true, evolution does not describe the origin of life. That's a
different subject.
You've been duped again.
How sad.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 01:20:33 PM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
codebreaker@bigsecret.com(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
It's true, evolution does not describe the origin of life. That's a
different subject.
You've been duped again.
Prove it...
How sad.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 01:33:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
It's true, evolution does not describe the origin of life. That's a
different subject.
You've been duped again.
Prove it...
I can't prove anything to you, because you ignore facts.
sorry.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 06:52:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
It's true, evolution does not describe the origin of life. That's a
different subject.
You've been duped again.
Prove it...
Prove that you've been duped, or that evolution does not describe the
origin of life?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Claims Evolution Does Not Describe Origin Of Life |
22 Dec 2005 04:53:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:20:33 -0800, wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
(Not-Easily-Duped) wrote:
And If he thinks this does not equate to misrepresenting and hiding
one's true intention.
If evolution were Science, it would not need help from a judge.
Evolution is the only SCIENCE
protected, not by reason, but by legal mandate
HOW SAD.
It's true, evolution does not describe the origin of life. That's a
different subject.
You've been duped again.
Prove it...
How do you prove a definition?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
