Religions > Atheism > Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Adam Warlock" |
| Date: |
26 Jun 2004 03:47:05 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
Did you ever reply to this, Mark? If so, where might I find
it--specifically, if you please.
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message news:...
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3a5ua0lf5jpr1mle6706fj22ptbvu1j3kq@4ax.com...
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:<3bpoa09dc2e0rdr4ke41i357390h2pvouj@4ax.com>...
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
Twisting meanings again, fundie boy?
But remember, Thore - _I'm_ not the evolutionist, here.
I don't teach evolutionism, either. I simply don't believe in the
stuff.
Do you know enough to "believe" or not?
I know enough to see cultists, when I see them. I know enough to see a
rabid distaste for science among such Usenet evolutionists, that's for
sure.
A 'rabid distaste for science?' Interesting. Tell me, Mark, specifically
about the science. What science do they find distasteful? Remember, I
came
into this a bit late, so some Google references will be fine. Show me
that
you ever got into anything specific, that it was scientifically tenable,
and
the 'cultists' in Usenet rejected it for no good reason. I'll be happy to
take a look at it.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
27 Jun 2004 01:57:17 AM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
Did you ever reply to this, Mark?
I'm not the one who disappeared in every threadlet - now am I? There's
a whole lot o message out there, just in the last week or so, to which
you have not replied.
So - get to it.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
27 Jun 2004 03:46:32 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
Did you ever reply to this, Mark?
I'm not the one who disappeared in every threadlet - now am I?
Are you sure this is the tactic you want to use Mark? Unmarked snippages,
evasion and now a claim that it was I that wasn't responding to you?
Yes, I stopped posting for a bit. Real life has a way of intruding in
Usenet discussions, Mark. That's just the way that it is. You'll just have
to get used to that. But as long as you want to take this route, take a
look at these:
http://tinyurl.com/2xwky
http://tinyurl.com/2re75
http://tinyurl.com/369cp
http://tinyurl.com/2sba4
http://tinyurl.com/32lxt
http://tinyurl.com/27r9a
Do you know what these are, Mark? I'll tell you. These are just *some* of
the many messages that I posted to you before my "disappearance" and you did
not reply to them. You still haven't answered the questions that are
contained within them and there were many points made that deserved
response, while I really doubt if you could show a single question that you
put to me, even from an unanswered message, that I did not answer somewhere
within the threads in which we are engaged.
If that's a challenge you wish to take, Mark, post some Google references.
I have answered your questions, Mark. You haven't always liked the answers,
and you often pretend that the answers never happened, but the answers are
there for all to see, just as this tactic of yours now is as transparent as
it gets. If I "disappeared" because sometimes there are highter priorities
in life than chasing you around the newsgroup, well, I guess you'll just
have to live with that. But what's worse, Mark? My "disappearance" for a
time due to pressing matters and higher priorities (unlike you, Usenet is
not that important to me or I would have started posting long ago), or the
fact that you were here all along and there are *still* questions put to you
that you will not answer, and issues that you will *still* try to avoid?
I guess that will have to be up to the readers, eh?
Oh, and Mark? You *specifically* dodged *this* one:
http://tinyurl.com/2naqq
Didn't you?
I'm waiting, Mark.
There's a whole lot o message out there, just in the last week or so, to
which
you have not replied.
Just in the last week? Well, by all means, list them.
You seem to be impressed with bulk and quantity as opposed to quality, Mark.
The fact is that there are, indeed, a lot of messages. At the moment, and
excepting your responses from last night to now, I am unaware of any posts
by you, directed to me, that occurred in the last week that contained
*anything* to which I haven't delivered, or attempted to deliver, an
intelligent and honest response. Google's right there for you, Mark. If
there are, feel free to send me the references, right here in the groups. I
will do what I always do--try to answer honestly.
You, of course, will do what you always do, as well; and we all know that it
isn't "answer honestly," don't we?
So - get to it.
I'm waiting, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
27 Jun 2004 04:31:44 PM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
Did you ever reply to this, Mark?
I'm not the one who disappeared in every threadlet - now am I?
Are you sure this is the tactic you want to use Mark? Unmarked snippages
And:
You seem to be impressed with bulk and quantity as opposed to quality
You mean I take the time to follow-up a whole lot of messages?
The fact is that there are, indeed, a lot of messages.
You know - you're right.
excepting your responses from last night to now, I am unaware of any posts
by you, directed to me
Well, take it up with your news server. If they are filitering my
posts, for whatever reason, check out groups.google, and reply from
there.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
27 Jun 2004 04:38:50 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:i2fud09m09ftkmt5i9a1kcbdavdc37f160@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
Did you ever reply to this, Mark?
I'm not the one who disappeared in every threadlet - now am I?
Are you sure this is the tactic you want to use Mark? Unmarked snippages
And:
You seem to be impressed with bulk and quantity as opposed to quality
You mean I take the time to follow-up a whole lot of messages?
You seem to have a strange view of "follow up." If, by follow up, you mean
that you post a lot of useless verbiage and do your level best to avoid
substantive discussion, I guess you are free to view it that way.
The fact is that there are, indeed, a lot of messages.
You know - you're right.
But there aren't a lot of messages *to me*, as you claimed and there are no
questions that I have not answered.
excepting your responses from last night to now, I am unaware of any
posts
by you, directed to me
Well, take it up with your news server.
No, Mark, I'm taking it up with *you*. It's your claim--not the claim of my
newsserver. The fact is that Google doesn't show any more replies to me by
you than my local server.
If they are filitering my
posts, for whatever reason, check out groups.google, and reply from
there.
No need to be paranoid, Mark. Just try being honest instead.
By the way, Mark, you snipped up the post again. What about my point here:
[Begin]
Yes, I stopped posting for a bit. Real life has a way of intruding in
Usenet discussions, Mark. That's just the way that it is. You'll just have
to get used to that. But as long as you want to take this route, take a
look at these:
http://tinyurl.com/2xwky
http://tinyurl.com/2re75
http://tinyurl.com/369cp
http://tinyurl.com/2sba4
http://tinyurl.com/32lxt
http://tinyurl.com/27r9a
Do you know what these are, Mark? I'll tell you. These are just *some* of
the many messages that I posted to you before my "disappearance" and you did
not reply to them. You still haven't answered the questions that are
contained within them and there were many points made that deserved
response, while I really doubt if you could show a single question that you
put to me, even from an unanswered message, that I did not answer somewhere
within the threads in which we are engaged.
If that's a challenge you wish to take, Mark, post some Google references.
I have answered your questions, Mark. You haven't always liked the answers,
and you often pretend that the answers never happened, but the answers are
there for all to see, just as this tactic of yours now is as transparent as
it gets. If I "disappeared" because sometimes there are highter priorities
in life than chasing you around the newsgroup, well, I guess you'll just
have to live with that. But what's worse, Mark? My "disappearance" for a
time due to pressing matters and higher priorities (unlike you, Usenet is
not that important to me or I would have started posting long ago), or the
fact that you were here all along and there are *still* questions put to you
that you will not answer, and issues that you will *still* try to avoid?
I guess that will have to be up to the readers, eh?
[End]
Why did you snip that out, Mark? Could it be because it exposes the
hypocrisy of your position?
I'm waiting, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
27 Jun 2004 06:54:00 PM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:i2fud09m09ftkmt5i9a1kcbdavdc37f160@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
Well, I suggested the very statement of The Theory of, did I not?
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
As you know - I don't believe in the stuff. But this is what another
'true believer' invented. And while not the best I've seen of these -
nor of his own statements, frankly - it's something with which you
clearly could agree, and call your own.
You seem utterly adamant in your refusal to do so.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
28 Jun 2004 09:03:09 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ignud0pq3eq3i8241kkhf5nip0g1jngk0o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:i2fud09m09ftkmt5i9a1kcbdavdc37f160@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
Well, I suggested the very statement of The Theory of, did I not?
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
As you know - I don't believe in the stuff. But this is what another
'true believer' invented. And while not the best I've seen of these -
nor of his own statements, frankly - it's something with which you
clearly could agree, and call your own.
You seem utterly adamant in your refusal to do so.
Yes "Honest" Mark, he has told you that in many words mainly because you
don't understand the meaning of the word 'no'.
Markie, by using the terms "evolutionism" and "true believer" you make an
attempt to equate evolution with religion. Since there are vast amounts of
scientific evidence for evolution and none for the supernatural you are on a
dead end course. Does this ever bother you?
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 01:01:27 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Markie
Tommy.
Let's see how far you take that.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 08:06:18 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1d12e01k9vivqmhumc2pmfcdfd3aegdif3@4ax.com...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Markie
Tommy.
Let's see how far you take that.
Great clip there Markie. I'm sure that Jesus looks down everyday and says,
there goes little Markie Johnson, my lying, cheating, thieving
representative on earth.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
27 Jun 2004 07:02:40 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ignud0pq3eq3i8241kkhf5nip0g1jngk0o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:i2fud09m09ftkmt5i9a1kcbdavdc37f160@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
Well, I suggested the very statement of The Theory of, did I not?
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
You did more than that. First, you adamantly demanded that I provide an
encompassing theory--identify "The Theory of"--and I told you that there was
no single, all-encompassing theory. Then you told us that you had written
for another the "theory" we see very briefly summarized above. Then you
insisted that I had to declare that as *my* answer to "The Theory of." You
didn't really suggest anything, Mark.
As you know - I don't believe in the stuff. But this is what another
'true believer' invented.
No, that's not what you said. You said alternatively that you had written
that for another.
And while not the best I've seen of these -
nor of his own statements, frankly - it's something with which you
clearly could agree, and call your own.
I could agree that there's a Santa Claus, too, but I don't. You are
continuing to divert attention from the fact that you don't seem to
understand any of this very well, and that renders your criticisms moot.
I'll also suggest that you have decided on a new tactic. So that you can
avoid my replacing snipped commentary that you are avoiding, you snip *all*
of my commentary. I have been told that I can follow up with something
called a "message ID" and identify things that way, but that seems to be
more effort than it's worth. It is enough to respond and show that you are
criticizing a concept about which you have no understanding, you refuse to
answer anything with respect to it, and you will even misrepresent yourself
and those with whom you communicate. So where does that leave us?
You seem utterly adamant in your refusal to do so.
Rightly so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
28 Jun 2004 01:39:37 AM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ignud0pq3eq3i8241kkhf5nip0g1jngk0o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:i2fud09m09ftkmt5i9a1kcbdavdc37f160@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
You did more than that.
Just that.
no single, all-encompassing theory. Then you told us that you had written
for another the "theory"
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
You seem utterly adamant in your refusal to do so.
Rightly so.
Well, I can't understand why. Seems like a good The Theory of.
But here we are, over a year and half into this, and STILL no two
'true believers' will agree with each other on this.
I don't know why you guys insist that you believe in evolutionism.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
02 Jul 2004 08:19:31 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:v8fvd09di3mn01edtnnkrduke47aju9kja@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ignud0pq3eq3i8241kkhf5nip0g1jngk0o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:i2fud09m09ftkmt5i9a1kcbdavdc37f160@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
You did more than that.
Just that.
I see you are still resorting to dishonest representation, Mark. Why do you
snip the context of those to whom you reply, respond inappropriately to the
point and then avoid the actual question that is on the table? This is
tantamount to flagrant dishonesty.
The context here was that you claimed that you were repeating what you were
told. I pointed out that, in fact, you were not doing that. What you
claimed was that this was something you defined on behalf of another. It is
*your* claim with respect to "The Theory of" and that of no other. What
part of your Scriptures and your religion permit you to behave so
dishonestly?
no single, all-encompassing theory. Then you told us that you had
written
for another the "theory"
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of.
I'm curious about this, Mark. In what way did I weasel? I answered your
question with my professional opinion on the matter. There *is* no single
"THE Theory of." Evolution is a complex concept encompassed by many
theories. Some are more valid than others. Some apply more fully in
certain respects and in certain situations than others.
And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that.
No you didn't, Mark; and if anyone has been weaseling, it's you.
You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
Your statement as posted above is not a theory, but a title, at best. A
theory is a comprehensive explanation of the observed nature of the
phenomenon. A single statement is not a theory; and it's not "someone's"
theory. It's presumably yours. It is your claim, so it falls to you to
support it. That's how it works.
You seem utterly adamant in your refusal to do so.
Rightly so.
Well, I can't understand why. Seems like a good The Theory of.
It's a statement--not a theory. That *you* might think it's a good "Theory
of" and *you* can't understand why it doesn't adequately serve that purpose,
you are arguing from incredulity, not knowledge.
But here we are, over a year and half into this, and STILL no two
'true believers' will agree with each other on this.
I suspect that was is really happening is that no two 'true believers' will
dance to your tune; and the responses to you bear that out.
I don't know why you guys insist that you believe in evolutionism.
I don't know what 'evolutionism' is supposed to be, Mark. Why don't you
tell me?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
05 Jul 2004 05:44:21 AM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
The context here was that you claimed that you were repeating what you were
told. I pointed out that, in fact, you were not doing that.
That's why I present his statement of The Theory of. He was
comfortable with it.
And the point is - you're not.
"THE Theory of." Evolution is a complex concept encompassed by many
theories.
I'm guessing someone told you, and you didn't understand what they
meant.
Seemingly 100 times, now, I've asked you for your assorted 'theories
of'. Never once have you answered that.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
05 Jul 2004 08:29:56 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:77cie0lrs749o4g4oj01b55bv5kp3l1vs1@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
The context here was that you claimed that you were repeating what you
were
told. I pointed out that, in fact, you were not doing that.
That's why I present his statement of The Theory of. He was
comfortable with it.
But that's not the point, of course.
And the point is - you're not.
Well, I think you misunderstand or, in fact, it's more likely that you'd
rather misrepresent. It's not a matter of "comfort," after all, Mark, as it
is being amused by just how far you will go to avoid honest discussion.
Obviously, you know nothing about the subject, so you avoid it with your
games.
"THE Theory of." Evolution is a complex concept encompassed by many
theories.
I'm guessing someone told you, and you didn't understand what they
meant.
Ah, so we're going to try a bit of _ad hominem_ are we, Mark?
What did you say your understanding of mutation was? Oh, that's right...you
didn't say.
Why is that, Mark? What are you afraid of?
Snip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
05 Jul 2004 11:09:26 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:77cie0lrs749o4g4oj01b55bv5kp3l1vs1@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
The context here was that you claimed that you were repeating what you
were
told. I pointed out that, in fact, you were not doing that.
That's why I present his statement of The Theory of. He was
comfortable with it.
And the point is - you're not.
No Markie, the point is that folks are tired of playing your dishonest
games.
"THE Theory of." Evolution is a complex concept encompassed by many
theories.
I'm guessing someone told you, and you didn't understand what they
meant.
How would you ever know? I'm guessing that you're too stupid to know if they
are correct or not. How about it, little Markie?
Seemingly 100 times, now, I've asked you for your assorted 'theories
of'. Never once have you answered that.
Answered long ago and ignored by you. End of story.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
28 Jun 2004 09:09:57 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:v8fvd09di3mn01edtnnkrduke47aju9kja@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ignud0pq3eq3i8241kkhf5nip0g1jngk0o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:i2fud09m09ftkmt5i9a1kcbdavdc37f160@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:rsrsd0h6hb94llbssv0g7ff1vrcq63181o@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic drift.
You did more than that.
Just that.
If you hadn't clipped his post we all could see if you did more than that
but we can always go back to the original post. Why do that, however, when
we all know that you can't type without lying so we can just assume that you
are a liar and go from there.
no single, all-encompassing theory. Then you told us that you had
written
for another the "theory"
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out of anything you damn fool, there isn't any
one narrow "The Theory of" and I told you that a year ago. What a lying
cheat you really are, Mark Johnson.
You seem utterly adamant in your refusal to do so.
Rightly so.
Well, I can't understand why. Seems like a good The Theory of.
No you can't!
But here we are, over a year and half into this, and STILL no two
'true believers' will agree with each other on this.
This is a lie!
I don't know why you guys insist that you believe in evolutionism.
I guess mainly because we see you on the opposite side and instinctively
know that we have to be on the other side of a cheating, lying SOB like you.
Surely you can understand that, can't you Markie?
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 12:52:58 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
And he never followed-up.
But here we are, over a year and half into this, and STILL no two
'true believers' will agree with each other on this.
This is a lie!
If you count yourself as example - then you never have. He himself
refused. Others went to the brink, and then broke off all
correspondence before committing.
It remains true that no two 'true believers' in evolutionism, posting
to Usenet, have EVER agreed on a single statment of The Theory of,
which fairly otherwise reflects what they've posted, and at least that
I've seen.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 08:03:55 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:kt02e0ljkbcvnbgb1dc41sr49vjr4vt8pg@4ax.com...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
And he never followed-up.
Oh, so your credibility is so great that we would believe anything you said
:-)))?
But here we are, over a year and half into this, and STILL no two
'true believers' will agree with each other on this.
This is a lie!
If you count yourself as example - then you never have. He himself
refused. Others went to the brink, and then broke off all
correspondence before committing.
You lie again. Good boy Markie, you are a fine representative of your Lord
and Savior, Satan.
It remains true that no two 'true believers' in evolutionism, posting
to Usenet, have EVER agreed on a single statement of The Theory of,
which fairly otherwise reflects what they've posted, and at least that
I've seen.
Even if that were so you would never know because you deleted or clipped
very post that was sent to you. Tell me Markie, old buddy, how's that
'study' coming along? You must finish it quickly so that we can see your
'report'. Your 'report'..ROTFLMAO!! His 'report' :-)))).
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
02 Jul 2004 08:27:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:kt02e0ljkbcvnbgb1dc41sr49vjr4vt8pg@4ax.com...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
And he never followed-up.
Unlike you, Mark, I have a life outside of Usenet and your parlor games. I
generally only have time for Usenet on weekends. You'll just have to live
with that, as I must apparently live with your dishonesty. I think that's
fair, don't you?
But here we are, over a year and half into this, and STILL no two
'true believers' will agree with each other on this.
This is a lie!
If you count yourself as example - then you never have. He himself
refused. Others went to the brink, and then broke off all
correspondence before committing.
I suspect, Mark, that the breaking off of "correspondence" has more to do
with what I believe is your successful campaign to annoy people. You seem
to be of the notion that the winner of a debate is the one who gets the last
word. I may be wrong on that, since you don't really debate anything, but
that is what I am seeing thus far.
It remains true that no two 'true believers' in evolutionism,
What is "evolutionism," Mark?
posting
to Usenet,
*All* of Usenet, Mark? That's quite a claim. You should try this parlor
trick in talk.origins.
have EVER agreed on a single statment of The Theory of,
Perhaps that's because there isn't a "single statement of "The Theory of,"
which is what I have said.
which fairly otherwise reflects what they've posted, and at least that
I've seen.
So the issue is demarcated by your very limited participation on Usenet
newsgroups?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
05 Jul 2004 05:43:51 AM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:kt02e0ljkbcvnbgb1dc41sr49vjr4vt8pg@4ax.com...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unlike you, Mark, I have a life outside of Usenet
This has to do with your baseless opinions AS POSTED to Usenet. So
while you're here . . .
to be of the notion that the winner of a debate is the one who gets the last
word.
It wasn't a debate. It was a question. And if someone can't answer the
question . . . it suggests that they have no answer:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and face it - - you do not know.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
05 Jul 2004 11:23:06 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:f6cie0p7jiopk6dgegbnef30viml65pmr0@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:kt02e0ljkbcvnbgb1dc41sr49vjr4vt8pg@4ax.com...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unlike you, Mark, I have a life outside of Usenet
This has to do with your baseless opinions AS POSTED to Usenet. So
while you're here . . .
Good clip Markie, I'm sure that you didn't change the meaning of his post as
you would never do that but just in case you should 'accidentally' change
the meaning why don't you just leave the posts of others in their entirety
and we can judge for ourselves.
to be of the notion that the winner of a debate is the one who gets the
last
word.
It wasn't a debate. It was a question. And if someone can't answer the
question . . . it suggests that they have no answer:
If you were involved it is for certain there wasn't a debate. I haven't seen
you debate the first person here, not the first. That is why you are so
universally hated. Does your mother hate you?
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and face it - - you do not know.
Sorry little Markie, no Charlie Brown football today.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
05 Jul 2004 08:27:13 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:f6cie0p7jiopk6dgegbnef30viml65pmr0@4ax.com...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:kt02e0ljkbcvnbgb1dc41sr49vjr4vt8pg@4ax.com...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unlike you, Mark, I have a life outside of Usenet
This has to do with your baseless opinions AS POSTED to Usenet. So
while you're here . . .
I'm a professional, Mark. Any "opinions" I might render are not baseless.
What is it *you* do for a living, Mark?
to be of the notion that the winner of a debate is the one who gets the
last
word.
It wasn't a debate. It was a question. And if someone can't answer the
question . . . it suggests that they have no answer:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and face it - - you do not know.
Of course I do, and I've answered the question.
What is your understanding of mutation, Mark? Let's see if you can keep up.
So far, I can't say I'm impressed by anything other than your flagrant
dishonesty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of geneticimprobability) |
29 Jun 2004 07:02:32 AM |
|
|
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel somewhere in this thread, and that's a fact. Check a
mirror Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 10:08:55 AM |
|
|
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 12:45:18 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ve13e0lq2aqarnpk5s39868g60og3ljrcr@4ax.com...
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
He thinks so and so do the rest of us.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 01:27:07 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jun 2004 Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:45:18 GMT, Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com>,
posted thusly:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ve13e0lq2aqarnpk5s39868g60og3ljrcr@4ax.com...
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory
of. And I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't
know where to begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The
Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
He thinks so and so do the rest of us.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
I have a theory and a scientific method:
Theory: Everything the Bible says is literally true.
Scientific Method:
Take as a given fact all those parts of the Bible we tell you to.
Use not the null hypothesis; make no attempt to disprove any creationist
hypothesis; report not any negative findings.
Quote as authoritative anything a fellow creationist writes, regardless
of his qualifications or subsequent discrediting of his methods or
results.
Misquote or quote out of context famous "evolutionists" so that they
appear to admit evolution isn't real
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of geneticimprobability) |
29 Jun 2004 06:16:45 PM |
|
|
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
You tried to weasel out by suggesting there was no THE Theory of. And
I pointed out that you couldn't do that. You wouldn't know where to
begin. So I posted The Theory of, someone's The Theory of - above.
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
No I didn't say that. The weasel here is you yourself Mark. Sorry that I
didn't make that clearer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 08:07:50 PM |
|
|
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
No I didn't say that.
Good.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
29 Jun 2004 08:40:24 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:di44e0h0v49ocpk3aaa5spkh8j5fdqk5rh@4ax.com...
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
No I didn't say that.
Good.
He might have thought it.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of genetic improbability) |
02 Jul 2004 08:35:45 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:di44e0h0v49ocpk3aaa5spkh8j5fdqk5rh@4ax.com...
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
No I didn't say that.
Good.
He said the weasel is you, Mark. Do you have a response?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Rejection of evolution (wasRe: The problem of geneticimprobability) |
29 Jun 2004 11:06:31 PM |
|
|
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
He wasn't trying to "weasel" out
I said he was.
Well, there is a weasel
If you think so. I didn't say he WAS a weasel. That's just you.
No I didn't say that.
Good.
Peace.
Mark, the Weasel is you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
