| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Church of The Painful Truth" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2004 01:53:17 PM |
| Object: |
Question For Evolutionists |
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
.
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 10:55:35 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net>...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Cells aren't capable of sexual reproduction.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 11:15:42 PM |
|
|
Billy Goat <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6bd3c70a.0402202055.20a06d71@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net>...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Cells aren't capable of sexual reproduction.
That depends on how you define sex, doesn't it?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 02:02:40 PM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2QBZb.2610$mR.240@news01.roc.ny>...
Billy Goat <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6bd3c70a.0402202055.20a06d71@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net>...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Cells aren't capable of sexual reproduction.
That depends on how you define sex, doesn't it?
And perhaps on how you define reproduction. But I suspect the poster
had no strict scientific definition in mind, and just meant good
old-fashioned giggity-giggity.
(Actually, after I posted, I came up with another, fairly obvious
answer to the question. The first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduced with... the second one. :)
"All riiiiight." --Glen Quagmire
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 02:18:31 PM |
|
|
"Billy Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6bd3c70a.0402211202.45ac36d6@posting.google.com...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2QBZb.2610$mR.240@news01.roc.ny>...
Billy Goat <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6bd3c70a.0402202055.20a06d71@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net>...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduce?
Cells aren't capable of sexual reproduction.
That depends on how you define sex, doesn't it?
And perhaps on how you define reproduction. But I suspect the poster
had no strict scientific definition in mind, and just meant good
old-fashioned giggity-giggity.
(Actually, after I posted, I came up with another, fairly obvious
answer to the question. The first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduced with... the second one. :)
"All riiiiight." --Glen Quagmire
--Billy
+Obviously Obscure is the best your answer does+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
24 Feb 2004 03:36:55 PM |
|
|
It occurs to me that if all the "universal constants" were arranged so
that life was *impossible*, but life existed *anyway*, then *that*
would make a much more convincing case that something supernatural was
going on.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eyelessgame" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 07:40:07 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net>...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
To oversimplify (and with the disclaimer that I'm not a biologist),
normal cell division involves duplicating strands of DNA, then
splitting the nucleus and the rest of the cell.
If a cell splits four ways instead of two -- duplicating its DNA and
then also splitting the existing DNA into two pairs of gametes -- it
can merge any two pairs back together, shuffling its own DNA. (The
benefits of shuffling DNA are easy to explain but are a separate
topic; let me know if you'd like more explanation.)
Once a population of descendants of such an organism inhabit an area,
they are likely able to merge their gametes with each other, since
they're descendents of the organism that first exhibited this
capability.
Now, this doesn't differentiate male from female, but it does
recombine haploid gametes. Differentiation into sexual roles requires
male and female *organs*, thus fairly sophisticated multicellular
organization. as for how sexuality arose, given an existing ability
to split cells into haploid gametes and recombine them:
differentiation of reproductive organs into male and female can arise
very gradually, probably alongside continuing hermaphroditic or
parthenogenic reproduction; the hermaphroditic and parthenogenic
pathways to reproduction eventually being discarded as unnecessary
"scaffolding" once sex becomes useful enough to support the species as
the sole means of reproduction. (Many species never discarded these
alternate methods. It's a fairly interesting topic and a superficial
overview is quite accessible to the layman. The space of how things
reproduce is actually pretty complex; vertebrates are terribly
conventional compared to invertebrates, who in turn look positively
prudish compared to plants.)
Now one for you. Where did Jesus' Y chromosome come from?
eyelessgame
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 09:56:06 PM |
|
|
"eyelessgame" <aamp@oro.net> wrote in message
news:e707421e.0402201740.6595cba9@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net>...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
To oversimplify (and with the disclaimer that I'm not a biologist),
normal cell division involves duplicating strands of DNA, then
splitting the nucleus and the rest of the cell.
If a cell splits four ways instead of two -- duplicating its DNA and
then also splitting the existing DNA into two pairs of gametes -- it
can merge any two pairs back together, shuffling its own DNA. (The
benefits of shuffling DNA are easy to explain but are a separate
topic; let me know if you'd like more explanation.)
Once a population of descendants of such an organism inhabit an area,
they are likely able to merge their gametes with each other, since
they're descendents of the organism that first exhibited this
capability.
Now, this doesn't differentiate male from female, but it does
recombine haploid gametes. Differentiation into sexual roles requires
male and female *organs*, thus fairly sophisticated multicellular
organization. as for how sexuality arose, given an existing ability
to split cells into haploid gametes and recombine them:
differentiation of reproductive organs into male and female can arise
very gradually, probably alongside continuing hermaphroditic or
parthenogenic reproduction; the hermaphroditic and parthenogenic
pathways to reproduction eventually being discarded as unnecessary
"scaffolding" once sex becomes useful enough to support the species as
the sole means of reproduction. (Many species never discarded these
alternate methods. It's a fairly interesting topic and a superficial
overview is quite accessible to the layman. The space of how things
reproduce is actually pretty complex; vertebrates are terribly
conventional compared to invertebrates, who in turn look positively
prudish compared to plants.)
Now one for you. Where did Jesus' Y chromosome come from?
eyelessgame
+That was THE most pathetic and unoriginal answer that I've ever read in my
entire life. Hell, why didn't you just play cut-and-paste with it, instead
of wasting all those minutes rewording it a little bit? You are truly the
personification of LAME. Not only have you brought a whole crapload of
embarrassment upon yourself, but this ugly scrawling has also inspired me to
write more intelligent than ever before posts.Let's just say it's my way of
lashing out at nasty little atheist trolls all over the net. +
.
|
|
|
| User: "dummie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 01:11:30 AM |
|
|
+That was THE most pathetic and unoriginal answer that I've ever read in my
entire life. Hell, why didn't you just play cut-and-paste with it, instead
of wasting all those minutes rewording it a little bit? You are truly the
personification of LAME. Not only have you brought a whole crapload of
embarrassment upon yourself, but this ugly scrawling has also inspired me to
write more intelligent than ever before posts.Let's just say it's my way of
lashing out at nasty little atheist trolls all over the net. +
Kadiatcha man. Yep, this time his tongue is so far up his ***** that
double speak ain't the word.
-------------
-mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott brn2dipATyahooDOTcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 08:29:03 AM |
|
|
When are you all going to wake up and LOOK at where things are being posted
to????
These things are DESIGNED to stir up trouble. And that is ALL they are to
do.
"dummie" <das_dummie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37164aa9.0402202311.6a37a86b@posting.google.com...
+That was THE most pathetic and unoriginal answer that I've ever read in
my
entire life. Hell, why didn't you just play cut-and-paste with it,
instead
of wasting all those minutes rewording it a little bit? You are truly
the
personification of LAME. Not only have you brought a whole crapload of
embarrassment upon yourself, but this ugly scrawling has also inspired
me to
write more intelligent than ever before posts.Let's just say it's my way
of
lashing out at nasty little atheist trolls all over the net. +
Kadiatcha man. Yep, this time his tongue is so far up his ***** that
double speak ain't the word.
-------------
-mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 10:00:58 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
news:O9adnfb6XPI19qrdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
When are you all going to wake up and LOOK at where things are being
posted
to????
These things are DESIGNED to stir up trouble. And that is ALL they are to
do.
"dummie" <das_dummie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37164aa9.0402202311.6a37a86b@posting.google.com...
+That was THE most pathetic and unoriginal answer that I've ever read
in
my
entire life. Hell, why didn't you just play cut-and-paste with it,
instead
of wasting all those minutes rewording it a little bit? You are truly
the
personification of LAME. Not only have you brought a whole crapload of
embarrassment upon yourself, but this ugly scrawling has also inspired
me to
write more intelligent than ever before posts.Let's just say it's my
way
of
lashing out at nasty little atheist trolls all over the net. +
Kadiatcha man. Yep, this time his tongue is so far up his ***** that
double speak ain't the word.
-------------
-mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------
Kerplonk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 02:05:53 PM |
|
|
"Scott" <brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
news:O9adnfb6XPI19qrdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
When are you all going to wake up and LOOK at where things are being
posted
to????
These things are DESIGNED to stir up trouble. And that is ALL they are to
do.
Yep...call it rollin' for attention
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dummie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 02:21:12 PM |
|
|
"Scott" <brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message news:<O9adnfb6XPI19qrdRVn-uA@comcast.com>...
When are you all going to wake up and LOOK at where things are being posted
to????
These things are DESIGNED to stir up trouble. And that is ALL they are to
do.
Why? I flame him for fun. Close the thread if its bothersome.
"dummie" <das_dummie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37164aa9.0402202311.6a37a86b@posting.google.com...
+That was THE most pathetic and unoriginal answer that I've ever read in
my
entire life. Hell, why didn't you just play cut-and-paste with it,
instead
of wasting all those minutes rewording it a little bit? You are truly
the
personification of LAME. Not only have you brought a whole crapload of
embarrassment upon yourself, but this ugly scrawling has also inspired
me to
write more intelligent than ever before posts.Let's just say it's my way
of
lashing out at nasty little atheist trolls all over the net. +
Kadiatcha man. Yep, this time his tongue is so far up his ***** that
double speak ain't the word.
-------------
-mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 03:02:45 PM |
|
|
"dummie" <das_dummie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37164aa9.0402211221.3132b0de@posting.google.com...
"Scott" <brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
news:<O9adnfb6XPI19qrdRVn-uA@comcast.com>...
When are you all going to wake up and LOOK at where things are being
posted
to????
These things are DESIGNED to stir up trouble. And that is ALL they are
to
do.
Why? I flame him for fun. Close the thread if its bothersome.
"dummie" <das_dummie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37164aa9.0402202311.6a37a86b@posting.google.com...
+That was THE most pathetic and unoriginal answer that I've ever
read in
my
entire life. Hell, why didn't you just play cut-and-paste with it,
instead
of wasting all those minutes rewording it a little bit? You are
truly
the
personification of LAME. Not only have you brought a whole crapload
of
embarrassment upon yourself, but this ugly scrawling has also
inspired
me to
write more intelligent than ever before posts.Let's just say it's my
way
of
lashing out at nasty little atheist trolls all over the net. +
Kadiatcha man. Yep, this time his tongue is so far up his ***** that
double speak ain't the word.
-------------
-mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------
+Dummie+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 07:20:35 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
1. Presumably, itself. Nothing in "capable of sexual reproduction"
precludes simple cell division (asexual reproduction).
2. What does this question have to do with any of the newsgroups
posted to?
Hrm... nevermind. Just noticed alt.binaries.dominion.troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:03:52 PM |
|
|
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first person to speak
French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of sexual reproduction";
there was a first *population* of organisms that gradually developed the
ability from simpler precursors (asexual bacteria even today can swap
segments of DNA called plasmids).
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 04:35:43 PM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvvZb.2458$RI2.2171@news02.roc.ny...
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first person to speak
French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of sexual reproduction";
there was a first *population* of organisms that gradually developed the
ability from simpler precursors (asexual bacteria even today can swap
segments of DNA called plasmids).
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+So with that being your response to "A scientific question being asked",a
man of science would find your answer remarkably absurd.
What you simply gave is a "hypothesis", of what you believe to be an answer
to a simple question and were most bemused off the mark.
There are two ways in which living things reproduce. In the first, asexual
reproduction, a single organism divides into two, each with a COPY of the
original's Instruction Book.
Now,with that being said,"With what did the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction reproduce"? +
~Patiently listen to crickets chirping~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 07:28:43 PM |
|
|
alt.atheism,alt.bigfoot.research,alt.binaries.dominion.troll,alt.journalism
..gay-press,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion
..christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian
..calvary-chapel
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:1ZvZb.148$uJ.46216@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvvZb.2458$RI2.2171@news02.roc.ny...
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first person to
speak French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of sexual
reproduction"; there was a first *population* of organisms that
gradually developed the ability from simpler precursors (asexual
bacteria even today can swap segments of DNA called plasmids).
+So with that being your response to "A scientific question being
asked",a man of science would find your answer remarkably absurd.
Indeed? Which ones did you consult?
What you simply gave is a "hypothesis",
The specific details of how sexual reproduction emerged are a hypothesis
and likely to remain so, since that process almost certainly came into
being before the advent of hard parts that readily fossilize (and in any
case the parts having to do with sexual reproduction typically don't
fossilize even in organisms that do have hard parts). However, the basic
principles on which my answer is based are not hypotheses, but facts -
chief among them, the fact that evolution happens to populations, not
individuals, and therefore there was no "first organism capable of sexual
reproduction" any more than there was a first person who spoke French.
Anyone who thinks there should have been such a thing simply does not
understand evolution. It seems fairly obvious that you fall into that
category.
of what you believe to be an
answer to a simple question and were most bemused off the mark.
There are two ways in which living things reproduce. In the first,
asexual reproduction, a single organism divides into two, each with a
COPY of the original's Instruction Book.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, much less how it addresses
the point I made. In fact it seems to me that you simply ignored my answer,
provided some garbled verbiage and then repeated your question, though I
gave you a perfectly good answer the first time.
Now,with that being said,"With what did the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction reproduce"? +
I answered your question already. I suggest you go back and read my reply,
making an effort to comprehend it this time rather than simply seeking a
reason to dismiss it.
~Patiently listen to crickets chirping~
Please don't delude yourself into thinking I am the slightest bit concerned
by what you think of my response. It's obvious that you're not asking these
questions because you want honest answers, and equally obvious that your
irrational beliefs prevent you from accepting anything I might say
regardless of what facts or evidence support it. However, I answered your
question in the hope that someone else who might be legitimately curious
about the issue will want to know. As for you, until you show yourself
capable of rational debate, there is no point in my responding to you any
further. As the answers you have received in other threads doubtless make
abundantly clear to you, your chance of making any converts on alt.atheism
is zero until and unless you do otherwise. Have a nice day.
--
"Knowledge forbidd'n? | a.a. #2001
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord | ICQ: 8777843
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know, | www.ebonmusings.org
can it be death?" | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
--John Milton, Paradise Lost | PGP: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
20 Feb 2004 09:53:47 PM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvyZb.2474$Bf4.1618@news02.roc.ny...
alt.atheism,alt.bigfoot.research,alt.binaries.dominion.troll,alt.journalism
..gay-press,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion
..christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian
.calvary-chapel
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:1ZvZb.148$uJ.46216@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvvZb.2458$RI2.2171@news02.roc.ny...
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first person to
speak French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of sexual
reproduction"; there was a first *population* of organisms that
gradually developed the ability from simpler precursors (asexual
bacteria even today can swap segments of DNA called plasmids).
+So with that being your response to "A scientific question being
asked",a man of science would find your answer remarkably absurd.
Indeed? Which ones did you consult?
What you simply gave is a "hypothesis",
The specific details of how sexual reproduction emerged are a hypothesis
and likely to remain so, since that process almost certainly came into
being before the advent of hard parts that readily fossilize (and in any
case the parts having to do with sexual reproduction typically don't
fossilize even in organisms that do have hard parts). However, the basic
principles on which my answer is based are not hypotheses, but facts -
chief among them, the fact that evolution happens to populations, not
individuals, and therefore there was no "first organism capable of sexual
reproduction" any more than there was a first person who spoke French.
Anyone who thinks there should have been such a thing simply does not
understand evolution. It seems fairly obvious that you fall into that
category.
of what you believe to be an
answer to a simple question and were most bemused off the mark.
There are two ways in which living things reproduce. In the first,
asexual reproduction, a single organism divides into two, each with a
COPY of the original's Instruction Book.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, much less how it
addresses
the point I made. In fact it seems to me that you simply ignored my
answer,
provided some garbled verbiage and then repeated your question, though I
gave you a perfectly good answer the first time.
Now,with that being said,"With what did the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction reproduce"? +
I answered your question already. I suggest you go back and read my reply,
making an effort to comprehend it this time rather than simply seeking a
reason to dismiss it.
~Patiently listen to crickets chirping~
Please don't delude yourself into thinking I am the slightest bit
concerned
by what you think of my response. It's obvious that you're not asking
these
questions because you want honest answers, and equally obvious that your
irrational beliefs prevent you from accepting anything I might say
regardless of what facts or evidence support it. However, I answered your
question in the hope that someone else who might be legitimately curious
about the issue will want to know. As for you, until you show yourself
capable of rational debate, there is no point in my responding to you any
further. As the answers you have received in other threads doubtless make
abundantly clear to you, your chance of making any converts on alt.atheism
is zero until and unless you do otherwise. Have a nice day.
--
"Knowledge forbidd'n? | a.a. #2001
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord | ICQ: 8777843
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know, | www.ebonmusings.org
can it be death?" | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
--John Milton, Paradise Lost | PGP: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable stupidity of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of it. Any quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done to yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is rare that I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves then I can
make an idiot of them.+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 08:33:27 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:fDAZb.1411$767.133604@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvyZb.2474$Bf4.1618@news02.roc.ny...
alt.atheism,alt.bigfoot.research,alt.binaries.dominion.troll,alt.journalism
..gay-press,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion
..christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian
.calvary-chapel
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:1ZvZb.148$uJ.46216@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvvZb.2458$RI2.2171@news02.roc.ny...
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first person to
speak French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of sexual
reproduction"; there was a first *population* of organisms that
gradually developed the ability from simpler precursors (asexual
bacteria even today can swap segments of DNA called plasmids).
+So with that being your response to "A scientific question being
asked",a man of science would find your answer remarkably absurd.
Indeed? Which ones did you consult?
What you simply gave is a "hypothesis",
The specific details of how sexual reproduction emerged are a hypothesis
and likely to remain so, since that process almost certainly came into
being before the advent of hard parts that readily fossilize (and in any
case the parts having to do with sexual reproduction typically don't
fossilize even in organisms that do have hard parts). However, the basic
principles on which my answer is based are not hypotheses, but facts -
chief among them, the fact that evolution happens to populations, not
individuals, and therefore there was no "first organism capable of
sexual
reproduction" any more than there was a first person who spoke French.
Anyone who thinks there should have been such a thing simply does not
understand evolution. It seems fairly obvious that you fall into that
category.
of what you believe to be an
answer to a simple question and were most bemused off the mark.
There are two ways in which living things reproduce. In the first,
asexual reproduction, a single organism divides into two, each with a
COPY of the original's Instruction Book.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, much less how it
addresses
the point I made. In fact it seems to me that you simply ignored my
answer,
provided some garbled verbiage and then repeated your question, though I
gave you a perfectly good answer the first time.
Now,with that being said,"With what did the first cell capable of
sexual
reproduction reproduce"? +
I answered your question already. I suggest you go back and read my
reply,
making an effort to comprehend it this time rather than simply seeking a
reason to dismiss it.
~Patiently listen to crickets chirping~
Please don't delude yourself into thinking I am the slightest bit
concerned
by what you think of my response. It's obvious that you're not asking
these
questions because you want honest answers, and equally obvious that your
irrational beliefs prevent you from accepting anything I might say
regardless of what facts or evidence support it. However, I answered
your
question in the hope that someone else who might be legitimately curious
about the issue will want to know. As for you, until you show yourself
capable of rational debate, there is no point in my responding to you
any
further. As the answers you have received in other threads doubtless
make
abundantly clear to you, your chance of making any converts on
alt.atheism
is zero until and unless you do otherwise. Have a nice day.
--
"Knowledge forbidd'n? | a.a. #2001
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord | ICQ: 8777843
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know, | www.ebonmusings.org
can it be death?" | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
--John Milton, Paradise Lost | PGP: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable stupidity of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of it. Any quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done to yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is rare that I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves then I can
make an idiot of them.+
Like most religious troll's, you haven't learned anything.
-Stranger
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 08:26:57 PM |
|
|
"Stranger" <atheism@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:40381183$0$560$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:fDAZb.1411$767.133604@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvyZb.2474$Bf4.1618@news02.roc.ny...
alt.atheism,alt.bigfoot.research,alt.binaries.dominion.troll,alt.journalism
..gay-press,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion
..christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian
.calvary-chapel
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:1ZvZb.148$uJ.46216@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvvZb.2458$RI2.2171@news02.roc.ny...
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of
sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first person
to
speak French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of sexual
reproduction"; there was a first *population* of organisms that
gradually developed the ability from simpler precursors (asexual
bacteria even today can swap segments of DNA called plasmids).
+So with that being your response to "A scientific question being
asked",a man of science would find your answer remarkably absurd.
Indeed? Which ones did you consult?
What you simply gave is a "hypothesis",
The specific details of how sexual reproduction emerged are a
hypothesis
and likely to remain so, since that process almost certainly came into
being before the advent of hard parts that readily fossilize (and in
any
case the parts having to do with sexual reproduction typically don't
fossilize even in organisms that do have hard parts). However, the
basic
principles on which my answer is based are not hypotheses, but facts -
chief among them, the fact that evolution happens to populations, not
individuals, and therefore there was no "first organism capable of
sexual
reproduction" any more than there was a first person who spoke French.
Anyone who thinks there should have been such a thing simply does not
understand evolution. It seems fairly obvious that you fall into that
category.
of what you believe to be an
answer to a simple question and were most bemused off the mark.
There are two ways in which living things reproduce. In the first,
asexual reproduction, a single organism divides into two, each with
a
COPY of the original's Instruction Book.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, much less how it
addresses
the point I made. In fact it seems to me that you simply ignored my
answer,
provided some garbled verbiage and then repeated your question, though
I
gave you a perfectly good answer the first time.
Now,with that being said,"With what did the first cell capable of
sexual
reproduction reproduce"? +
I answered your question already. I suggest you go back and read my
reply,
making an effort to comprehend it this time rather than simply seeking
a
reason to dismiss it.
~Patiently listen to crickets chirping~
Please don't delude yourself into thinking I am the slightest bit
concerned
by what you think of my response. It's obvious that you're not asking
these
questions because you want honest answers, and equally obvious that
your
irrational beliefs prevent you from accepting anything I might say
regardless of what facts or evidence support it. However, I answered
your
question in the hope that someone else who might be legitimately
curious
about the issue will want to know. As for you, until you show yourself
capable of rational debate, there is no point in my responding to you
any
further. As the answers you have received in other threads doubtless
make
abundantly clear to you, your chance of making any converts on
alt.atheism
is zero until and unless you do otherwise. Have a nice day.
--
"Knowledge forbidd'n? | a.a. #2001
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord | ICQ: 8777843
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know, | www.ebonmusings.org
can it be death?" | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
--John Milton, Paradise Lost | PGP: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable stupidity
of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of it. Any
quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done to yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is rare that
I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves then I can
make an idiot of them.+
Like most religious troll's, you haven't learned anything.
-Stranger
First off as an atheist fundie you have nothing to teach me.You do not
exist,you deny your own existence.
Second , I don't care if you like my posts or not. I put them up there for
*my* enjoyment, not anyone else's. So if you were hoping to hurt my
feelings, looks like you bombed again.
But you know what, strange? Unlike you, I do have a life and quite frankly
don't have time to deal with any other moron flamers other than you right
now. So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends for a
good laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 09:06:51 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:PrUZb.38$_i1.69687@news.uswest.net...
"Stranger" <atheism@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:40381183$0$560$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:fDAZb.1411$767.133604@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvyZb.2474$Bf4.1618@news02.roc.ny...
alt.atheism,alt.bigfoot.research,alt.binaries.dominion.troll,alt.journalism
..gay-press,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion
..christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian
.calvary-chapel
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:1ZvZb.148$uJ.46216@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvvZb.2458$RI2.2171@news02.roc.ny...
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of
sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first person
to
speak French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of sexual
reproduction"; there was a first *population* of organisms that
gradually developed the ability from simpler precursors (asexual
bacteria even today can swap segments of DNA called plasmids).
+So with that being your response to "A scientific question being
asked",a man of science would find your answer remarkably absurd.
Indeed? Which ones did you consult?
What you simply gave is a "hypothesis",
The specific details of how sexual reproduction emerged are a
hypothesis
and likely to remain so, since that process almost certainly came
into
being before the advent of hard parts that readily fossilize (and in
any
case the parts having to do with sexual reproduction typically don't
fossilize even in organisms that do have hard parts). However, the
basic
principles on which my answer is based are not hypotheses, but
facts -
chief among them, the fact that evolution happens to populations,
not
individuals, and therefore there was no "first organism capable of
sexual
reproduction" any more than there was a first person who spoke
French.
Anyone who thinks there should have been such a thing simply does
not
understand evolution. It seems fairly obvious that you fall into
that
category.
of what you believe to be an
answer to a simple question and were most bemused off the mark.
There are two ways in which living things reproduce. In the first,
asexual reproduction, a single organism divides into two, each
with
a
COPY of the original's Instruction Book.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, much less how it
addresses
the point I made. In fact it seems to me that you simply ignored my
answer,
provided some garbled verbiage and then repeated your question,
though
I
gave you a perfectly good answer the first time.
Now,with that being said,"With what did the first cell capable of
sexual
reproduction reproduce"? +
I answered your question already. I suggest you go back and read my
reply,
making an effort to comprehend it this time rather than simply
seeking
a
reason to dismiss it.
~Patiently listen to crickets chirping~
Please don't delude yourself into thinking I am the slightest bit
concerned
by what you think of my response. It's obvious that you're not
asking
these
questions because you want honest answers, and equally obvious that
your
irrational beliefs prevent you from accepting anything I might say
regardless of what facts or evidence support it. However, I answered
your
question in the hope that someone else who might be legitimately
curious
about the issue will want to know. As for you, until you show
yourself
capable of rational debate, there is no point in my responding to
you
any
further. As the answers you have received in other threads doubtless
make
abundantly clear to you, your chance of making any converts on
alt.atheism
is zero until and unless you do otherwise. Have a nice day.
--
"Knowledge forbidd'n? | a.a. #2001
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord | ICQ: 8777843
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know, | www.ebonmusings.org
can it be death?" |
ebonmuse!hotmail.com
--John Milton, Paradise Lost | PGP: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable stupidity
of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of it. Any
quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done to
yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is rare
that
I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves then I
can
make an idiot of them.+
Like most religious troll's, you haven't learned anything.
-Stranger
First off as an atheist fundie you have nothing to teach me.You do not
exist,you deny your own existence.
Second , I don't care if you like my posts or not. I put them up there for
*my* enjoyment, not anyone else's. So if you were hoping to hurt my
feelings, looks like you bombed again.
But you know what, strange? Unlike you, I do have a life and quite frankly
don't have time to deal with any other moron flamers other than you right
now. So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends for a
good laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
hehehehe, thats funny because i also browse around here for a laugh.
Religious idiot's are always good entertainment.
From seeing the amount of posts you make it doesnt really look you have a
life at all though.
Go ahead, tell yourselfs i dont excist, i couldnt care less its not that i
look forward to your god(tm) fearing *****.
And pls go ahead and spam your friends with my message, i bet they will
really apreciate you. like your mother always told you.
Ill stop wasting your time on this post, you can shub your thumb back in
your mouth now and pray to your daddy.
-Stranger
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 08:56:59 PM |
|
|
"Stranger" <atheism@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4038194a$0$565$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:PrUZb.38$_i1.69687@news.uswest.net...
"Stranger" <atheism@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:40381183$0$560$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:fDAZb.1411$767.133604@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvyZb.2474$Bf4.1618@news02.roc.ny...
alt.atheism,alt.bigfoot.research,alt.binaries.dominion.troll,alt.journalism
..gay-press,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion
..christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian
.calvary-chapel
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:1ZvZb.148$uJ.46216@news.uswest.net...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:cvvZb.2458$RI2.2171@news02.roc.ny...
The Church of The Painful Truth <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote
in
message news:MAtZb.130$uJ.33891@news.uswest.net...
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
reproduce?
Your question is absurd. Asking how "the first cell capable of
sexual
reproduction" reproduced is like saying "Who did the first
person
to
speak French talk to?" There was no "first cell capable of
sexual
reproduction"; there was a first *population* of organisms that
gradually developed the ability from simpler precursors
(asexual
bacteria even today can swap segments of DNA called plasmids).
+So with that being your response to "A scientific question
being
asked",a man of science would find your answer remarkably
absurd.
Indeed? Which ones did you consult?
What you simply gave is a "hypothesis",
The specific details of how sexual reproduction emerged are a
hypothesis
and likely to remain so, since that process almost certainly came
into
being before the advent of hard parts that readily fossilize (and
in
any
case the parts having to do with sexual reproduction typically
don't
fossilize even in organisms that do have hard parts). However, the
basic
principles on which my answer is based are not hypotheses, but
facts -
chief among them, the fact that evolution happens to populations,
not
individuals, and therefore there was no "first organism capable of
sexual
reproduction" any more than there was a first person who spoke
French.
Anyone who thinks there should have been such a thing simply does
not
understand evolution. It seems fairly obvious that you fall into
that
category.
of what you believe to be an
answer to a simple question and were most bemused off the mark.
There are two ways in which living things reproduce. In the
first,
asexual reproduction, a single organism divides into two, each
with
a
COPY of the original's Instruction Book.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, much less how it
addresses
the point I made. In fact it seems to me that you simply ignored
my
answer,
provided some garbled verbiage and then repeated your question,
though
I
gave you a perfectly good answer the first time.
Now,with that being said,"With what did the first cell capable o
f
sexual
reproduction reproduce"? +
I answered your question already. I suggest you go back and read
my
reply,
making an effort to comprehend it this time rather than simply
seeking
a
reason to dismiss it.
~Patiently listen to crickets chirping~
Please don't delude yourself into thinking I am the slightest bit
concerned
by what you think of my response. It's obvious that you're not
asking
these
questions because you want honest answers, and equally obvious
that
your
irrational beliefs prevent you from accepting anything I might say
regardless of what facts or evidence support it. However, I
answered
your
question in the hope that someone else who might be legitimately
curious
about the issue will want to know. As for you, until you show
yourself
capable of rational debate, there is no point in my responding to
you
any
further. As the answers you have received in other threads
doubtless
make
abundantly clear to you, your chance of making any converts on
alt.atheism
is zero until and unless you do otherwise. Have a nice day.
--
"Knowledge forbidd'n? | a.a. #2001
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord | ICQ: 8777843
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know, |
www.ebonmusings.org
can it be death?" |
ebonmuse!hotmail.com
--John Milton, Paradise Lost | PGP: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable
stupidity
of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of it. Any
quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done to
yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is rare
that
I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves then I
can
make an idiot of them.+
Like most religious troll's, you haven't learned anything.
-Stranger
First off as an atheist fundie you have nothing to teach me.You do not
exist,you deny your own existence.
Second , I don't care if you like my posts or not. I put them up there
for
*my* enjoyment, not anyone else's. So if you were hoping to hurt my
feelings, looks like you bombed again.
But you know what, strange? Unlike you, I do have a life and quite
frankly
don't have time to deal with any other moron flamers other than you
right
now. So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends for a
good laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
hehehehe, thats funny because i also browse around here for a laugh.
Religious idiot's are always good entertainment.
From seeing the amount of posts you make it doesnt really look you have a
life at all though.
Go ahead, tell yourselfs i dont excist, i couldnt care less its not that i
look forward to your god(tm) fearing *****.
And pls go ahead and spam your friends with my message, i bet they will
really apreciate you. like your mother always told you.
Ill stop wasting your time on this post, you can shub your thumb back in
your mouth now and pray to your daddy.
-Stranger
+Where did you learn how to spell?......GAWD are you dumb---Tell you what,
open your favorite word processing app of choice and type your name over and
over and over...
soothing, isn't it! No, be a good little puppy and go play in traffic. +
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
21 Feb 2004 11:01:37 PM |
|
|
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable
stupidity
of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of it.
Any
quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done to
yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is rare
that
I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves then
I
can
make an idiot of them.+
Like most religious troll's, you haven't learned anything.
-Stranger
First off as an atheist fundie you have nothing to teach me.You do not
exist,you deny your own existence.
Second , I don't care if you like my posts or not. I put them up there
for
*my* enjoyment, not anyone else's. So if you were hoping to hurt my
feelings, looks like you bombed again.
But you know what, strange? Unlike you, I do have a life and quite
frankly
don't have time to deal with any other moron flamers other than you
right
now. So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends for
a
good laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
hehehehe, thats funny because i also browse around here for a laugh.
Religious idiot's are always good entertainment.
From seeing the amount of posts you make it doesnt really look you have
a
life at all though.
Go ahead, tell yourselfs i dont excist, i couldnt care less its not that
i
look forward to your god(tm) fearing *****.
And pls go ahead and spam your friends with my message, i bet they will
really apreciate you. like your mother always told you.
Ill stop wasting your time on this post, you can shub your thumb back in
your mouth now and pray to your daddy.
-Stranger
+Where did you learn how to spell?......GAWD are you dumb---Tell you what,
open your favorite word processing app of choice and type your name over
and
over and over...
soothing, isn't it! No, be a good little puppy and go play in traffic. +
[snip]
So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends for a good
laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
[/snip]
lol you really are as dumb as a troll, or dont have any friends. Anyhow
elaborate on my alias? I dont feel the need to type it over and over.
-Stranger
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
22 Feb 2004 12:13:01 PM |
|
|
"Stranger" <atheism@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:40383405$0$560$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable
stupidity
of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of it.
Any
quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done to
yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is
rare
that
I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves
then
I
can
make an idiot of them.+
Like most religious troll's, you haven't learned anything.
-Stranger
First off as an atheist fundie you have nothing to teach me.You do
not
exist,you deny your own existence.
Second , I don't care if you like my posts or not. I put them up
there
for
*my* enjoyment, not anyone else's. So if you were hoping to hurt my
feelings, looks like you bombed again.
But you know what, strange? Unlike you, I do have a life and quite
frankly
don't have time to deal with any other moron flamers other than you
right
now. So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends
for
a
good laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
hehehehe, thats funny because i also browse around here for a laugh.
Religious idiot's are always good entertainment.
From seeing the amount of posts you make it doesnt really look you
have
a
life at all though.
Go ahead, tell yourselfs i dont excist, i couldnt care less its not
that
i
look forward to your god(tm) fearing *****.
And pls go ahead and spam your friends with my message, i bet they
will
really apreciate you. like your mother always told you.
Ill stop wasting your time on this post, you can shub your thumb back
in
your mouth now and pray to your daddy.
-Stranger
+Where did you learn how to spell?......GAWD are you dumb---Tell you
what,
open your favorite word processing app of choice and type your name over
and
over and over...
soothing, isn't it! No, be a good little puppy and go play in traffic. +
[snip]
So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends for a
good
laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
[/snip]
lol you really are as dumb as a troll, or dont have any friends. Anyhow
elaborate on my alias? I dont feel the need to type it over and over.
-Stranger
+Wow. If your mind were on my supernatural level of thought, instead of only
being mentally capable of instigating actions like: "eat something, get
sleep, lick fur of parasites, bark, fight dominant male of pack. Repeat ad
infinitum", I might actually be impressed by the obsession you have with me.
Apparently you just keep coming back to stare in envy at those sour grapes,
huh?+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Evolutionists |
22 Feb 2004 01:50:35 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:Ni6_b.68$191.53251@news.uswest.net...
"Stranger" <atheism@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:40383405$0$560$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
+ I have been stunned into silence by the sheer unimaginable
stupidity
of
that response. I mean, there's no room for me to make fun of
it.
Any
quip,
any insult, would fall far short of the damage you have done
to
yourself
just by opening your mouth. My hat is off to you, adam, it is
rare
that
I
find someone who can make a more complete idiot of themselves
then
I
can
make an idiot of them.+
Like most religious troll's, you haven't learned anything.
-Stranger
First off as an atheist fundie you have nothing to teach me.You do
not
exist,you deny your own existence.
Second , I don't care if you like my posts or not. I put them up
there
for
*my* enjoyment, not anyone else's. So if you were hoping to hurt
my
feelings, looks like you bombed again.
But you know what, strange? Unlike you, I do have a life and quite
frankly
don't have time to deal with any other moron flamers other than
you
right
now. So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends
for
a
good laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
hehehehe, thats funny because i also browse around here for a laugh.
Religious idiot's are always good entertainment.
From seeing the amount of posts you make it doesnt really look you
have
a
life at all though.
Go ahead, tell yourselfs i dont excist, i couldnt care less its not
that
i
look forward to your god(tm) fearing *****.
And pls go ahead and spam your friends with my message, i bet they
will
really apreciate you. like your mother always told you.
Ill stop wasting your time on this post, you can shub your thumb
back
in
your mouth now and pray to your daddy.
-Stranger
+Where did you learn how to spell?......GAWD are you dumb---Tell you
what,
open your favorite word processing app of choice and type your name
over
and
over and over...
soothing, isn't it! No, be a good little puppy and go play in traffic.
+
[snip]
So rest assured, after forwarding this to a few of my friends for a
good
laugh, I'm going to ignore any further messages you send me.
[/snip]
lol you really are as dumb as a troll, or dont have any friends. Anyhow
elaborate on my alias? I dont feel the need to type it over and over.
-Stranger
+Wow. If your mind were on my supernatural level of thought, instead of
only
being mentally capable of instigating actions like: "eat something, get
sleep, lick fur of parasites, bark, fight dominant male of pack. Repeat ad
infinitum", I might actually be impressed by the obsession you have with
me.
Apparently you just keep coming back to stare in envy at those sour
grapes,
huh?+
"If your mind were on my supernatural level of thought"
LMAO, im impressed, you have actually evolved over all the natural human
beeings..... Atleast in your own imagination anyway.
I think its time for your medication boy, dont let the voices get to you,
they seem to enjoy playing with your pride and turned you delusional.
-Stranger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
