"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:8dl1m39fe80rpi782j9125bck477of0iav@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:24:08 -0500, in alt.atheism "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
<ue48j.21205$N67.10258@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:

Where is this evidence?

What sort of evidence would you like to be directed to? Genetic is very
good and well-documented over the past decade. Do you need some sources
to begin with? <http://evolution.berkeley.edu> is a good place to
start.

So, with that you extrapolate to every other thing on earth and assume
that everything else evolved?

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:8dl1m39fe80rpi782j9125bck477of0iav@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:24:08 -0500, in alt.atheism
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
<ue48j.21205$N67.10258@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:

Where is this evidence?

What sort of evidence would you like to be directed to? Genetic is very
good and well-documented over the past decade. Do you need some sources
to begin with? <http://evolution.berkeley.edu> is a good place to start.

So, with that you extrapolate to every other thing on earth and assume that
everything else evolved?

3. Should I go on and on?

Please provide a valid objection.

Objection to man's primal ancestor being something other than man?
Why is it you can not provide empirical evidence of the transmutation from
ape to man?

Your question implies a fact that is not so. Please learn before you
make your next comments. You will act less like a fool.

So, where is the proof that man came from lower species?

So, are you telling me that laws are subjective things that can not be
proven?

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:jaidnZaxvZINnf3anZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:25:36 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:QuWdnX-GXO6QzsLanZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@giganews.com...

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:20:28 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:nbqdnXc8fOZmVMPanZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:57:17 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E69F9A.16462110122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <Z5b7j.19401$_m.14518@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "John
D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:PZudnRSOjqy9UcHanZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:57:44 -0500, J Young wrote:

Shouldn't these children at least be exposed to different
'truths'?

Soon as there's an actually truthful alternative to the ToE.

Always been a truthful alternative to evolution. It's called
education, instead of propaganda.

What scientific facts support any alternative to evolution?

The laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.

Why are they laws? Why do you get to pick and choose which parts of
science to believe in?

Laws, as in immutable, theoretical facts.

Wrong.

What's commonly referred to as "laws" are merely observations.

As in Murphy's law, right?

Oh do get a grip.

Had one for a long time.

Or did you mean the law of conservation of matter and energy?

That's an observation.

But it is an accepted statement that was termed a law.

Nothing
more. Further, not ever case can be observed. Hence, you can never
conclude any "law" is without exception.

Mathematics can though quite well in many cases.

Not at all. You should meet Goedel sometime.

So, are you telling me that laws are subjective things that can not be
proven?

Belief is another matter.
You are free to choose what you want to believe.

No you aren't. Try choosing to not believe in gravity.

Why did someone tell me to prove gravity then?

You said you get to choose. So choose. Go ahead. Jump off a 30 story
building and float in mid-air. You can right?

With enough wind power to sustain me I could. Never seen those machines
where people float in them?

If what you choose to
believe isn't supported by immutable truth, then there are those who
can assail your beliefs.

And there are those who will only laugh at you as you make a fool of
yourself.

Meaning they have done something that violates an immutable truth and
live to tell about it?

You wouldn't know truth if your jail cell mate shoved it up your *****.

What jail cell mate?

And if those "laws" lead to the theory of evolution

What "theory" of evolution?
Where is this grandiose theory you are alluding to? Where is it's
proof? Are you asserting that GUT is what proves evolution?

I would point you to universities where there are tons of courses,
libraries of books, and even whole departments dedicated to the
subject.

Entire departments devoted to evolution now? There are actually
evolution departments in universities in the USA now? Say it isn't so.

Of course it's so. All of biology is based on evolutionary theory now.
All of it. You flat cannot get a degree in any biological science
without a firm grounding in evolutionary theory.

*****.
Are you telling the truth there?

Sad to see that, imo.
It makes me think that there is no concern for the weaker members of a
species or between species.
It seems too predatory to teach that evolution is some roevwade killer's
school.

But I doubt you'd know what a university even looks like.

Other than porky's depictions?

That sounds about right for you.

You think I went to that school?

What university was that anyway?
Remember?
Wasn't it harvard?

--as they did--

I see no such proof.
I see no qualfied statement of any 'theory' of evolution that has a
sustainable proof to it yet.

Refusing to become educated is not an argument.

So, why are you arguing?

are you going to denounce them next?

What if you could actually prove evolution beyond a reasonable
doubt?

Evolution has been observed. There are labs now using the theory to
produce products. There are products going to market created by
evolutionary methods.

cite?
example(s)?

Go do your own homework. Look up "directed evolution".

Is it foodstuffs?
Produce and livestock type stuff?

What if you could show, empirically, beyond a reasonable doubt every
statement that evolutionists make?

Every statement? Science doesn't work that way.

Is that how you get crap into textbooks?

I have never been involved in the writing of any textbook.

Accepted as truth.

Why is it that there is no need to use the term evolution when more
descriptive terms are used to describe that which evolution asserts?
Why is there no mention of the term evolution in Darwin's Origin of
Species in the title or in the entire table of contents? See?

What the ***** are you babbling senselessly about this time?

use of the term evolution as a coverall for anything. too general, too
broad, too stupid.
if you can't tell me anything other than it;s evolution i am not
interested. I prefer for you to stop sayhing evolution and to start
telling me something with some real proof to it because your relainace
on ***** is very boring.

Nobody cares what you're interested in.

Ilogical.

It seems that your word game that wants to tell stories without
being able to prove them is a bit off scale for the scientific
community. Are you uncomfortable with law and truth and reason
overriding the attempt of evolutionists to conquer all knowledge and
presentment Are you really of the sect that is attempting to control
the entire world via improvable evolutionary dissent?

Boy, the things that go on in your head.

nah, dude.
you have no idea.

Well, those nice men in the white coats would like to help you with
that.

With you having no idea?

Yeah, I'm going to discard the opinion and work of thousands of the
brightest scientific minds on Earth today

may as well so the people don't suffer at the hands of idiots who
think killing in utero children is a cool thing we may as well discard
with an entire mountian of ***** so we can get to the bottom of the
things that have harmed this nation and do some work to straighten it
up

and believe a drunk

who would that be?

who flashes people

who would that be?

and is going to jail for fighting a cop.

who would that be?

Oh THAT'LL happen. Any day now.

if you were referring to me who is able to see things that you thought
were hidden that are bragged about so often,

Oh, wow. You're having quite the break down this time aren't you?

I broke down after you hurled crap?

maybe that is why you
thought i was a drunk who attacks cops and who exposes himself in
public; but,

Only because you've been convicted or charged with or plead guilty to
such.

What entitles you to all that information within your jurisdiction?

what it really seems like is that you drank and had so many sex
parties in college that you need a chl and evolution to back up your
survival of the fittest plight.
now, if you could prove to me that you didn't need a chl

The sum total of things I have to prove to you is this:

Zero.

How about the sum total of things you try to disprove so much?

(here in
carolina we have CWPs), i would assume that you were ok and/or that
you weren;t wary of something that maybe we actually do need to
monitor and/or that you don't like the military state either. it
doesn't bother me if you need a gun if some assholes are trying to
commit crimes against you.

I want my owning two 45s and being a damn good shot to "bother" crazy
people who commit crimes.

I guess it should.
Some of them are only bothered enough by that routine enough to get an
AK-47.

Like, you know, you.

I don't know that.
You don't either, actually.
Don't attack me then why would I need to defend myself?

the law is easy, imo.
someone hates you with a vengeance, then i do not know why. maybe they
are supposed to hate you.

Just keep in mind that hating me from a distance is perfectly legal.

Sure, but you shouldn't go crazy and think it is me that is hating you
from a distance.
That could cloud your mind into losing sight of anyone who possibly
hates you who is much closer to you.

Try hating me on my property and the law says I can use deadly force.

Which law?
You have the right to oust persons from your own property. Killing them
is another matter which is regulated not by location by but reason.

I know, I have the handbook of Texas Concealed Handgun Laws right here.

Is that online?
I would be interested to learn of the regulations.

Maybe you really meant, yes, we should believe mr wentzky because we
are all sick of the crap

Oh tell it to the judge jail bird...

I am sure you should be pleased if it satisfied the constitutional
requirements.

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:23:58 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:PZudnRSOjqy9UcHanZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:57:44 -0500, J Young wrote:

Shouldn't these children at least be exposed to different 'truths'?

Soon as there's an actually truthful alternative to the ToE.

Always been a truthful alternative to evolution. It's called
education, instead of propaganda.

Wrong. But how would you know?

He wouldn't, but that's not a possibility in his miniature universe.

But not until then.

Evolution is still barking mad after more than 200 years, huh? LOL!
Can't you illiterate non-scientifiic fantasy land idiots grow up yet?
Where is Pangea?
Still haven't found it or seen it yet? LOL!

You stocked up on K-Y for jail?

Apparently not, since Johnson & Johnson opened at $67.73 this morning
and is now hovering around $67.75...

On Dec 10, 4:59 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:57:44 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Shouldn't these children at least be exposed to different 'truths'?

Like?

The Aztec creation myths?, The Norse Ones?, The Chuthonic Ones? After
all they are equal different "truths" to the Judeo Christian
ones...equal ounce for ounce in lack of tangible evidence

or we can leave religious instruction to religious institutions and
scientific instruction to educational ones.

"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:uobql35lb4p4elg7rqr9h4vbr12lld4bv3@4ax.com...

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:57:44 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <1ff6on.1g1.17.1@news.alt.net> wrote:

Shouldn't these children at least be exposed to different 'truths'?
Afterall, everyone thinks their way is right.

Evolution produces predictable results, and those results can be used
to extrapolate future discoveries.

You sired a child with a jellyfish?
What can you extraploate from that?

"Attila" <<procho...@here.now> wrote in message

news:uobql35lb4p4elg7rqr9h4vbr12lld4bv3@4ax.com...

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:57:44 -0500, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <1ff6on.1g1.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:

Shouldn't these children at least be exposed to different 'truths'?
Afterall, everyone thinks their way is right.

Evolution produces predictable results, and those results can be used
to extrapolate future discoveries.

You sired a child with a jellyfish?
What can you extraploate from that?
Got a fetish for doing a lobster?

No alternatives can do this.

Can't forecast the weather yet?

The very idea that something must be magical because it is 'too
complicated to understand' is an insult to education on every level.

So, you seem against eliminating religion.

It assumes everything is now known,

Except that HIPPA dopesn't want the people to know about those abortions,
remember?

and nothing new exists to be learned.

Except that HIPPA shows us there is MUCH to be learned.

I am reminded of the man who wanted to close the US patent office in
the late 1800's because everything had been invented and the office
was no longer needed.

You mean the abortion vacuum pump was patented then?